With the FBI you have a politicized entrapment machine. The FBI has been manufacturing plots that they then “uncover” for a very long time. The people they entrap are usually losers who receive short shrift from their overworked Federal public defenders. In the Whitmer kidnapping plot, however, there are some very sharp private criminal defense attorneys at work who are revealing the manufactured by the FBI stamp on this alleged plot, and the efforts by the FBI to hide this fact.
Entrapment
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Luv to see them required to wear armbands in keeping with their mode of operation.
Is it the same claims by the lawyers of those whose records of left-wing activism are what got the story deep sixed the first time?
My confidence in the outrage of folks took a sharp nose-dive when one actually linked the document- source for their claims– and what they called an “agent” was actually an informant. That is, a criminal that flipped. Which is how we stopped MOST of the AntiFa plots recently.
The informant has been receiving instructions throughout as to how to entrap other the other individuals in the FBI manufactured plot. Entrapment is a completely legitimate defense to a criminal charge. Law enforcement is to stop crime not to inspire it. Even the wife beating FBI agent in charge of this mess should have understood that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9905221/Man-accused-plot-kidnap-Gov-Whitmer-claims-FBI-agent-told-informant-lie.html
https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2021/07/fbi-agent-linked-to-whitmer-kidnapping-case-beat-choked-wife-after-swingers-party-court-records-say.html
Wasn’t it the FBI and CIA who control the drug trade and created its base in South America? And then pretend to police it…I think this has been common knowledge for a while now and common knowledge to a few past US presidents too…
points at first sentence of link
As I said, according to the lawyer for the accused; with many many ‘suspects’ and ‘alleges,’ even.
Huh? I don’t get what you said. I made a general statement about the crookedness of the FBI and CIA. Scratches her head
In retrospect, the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover probably represented a low point of corruption in the history of the FBI.
Ezabelle–
I was responding to Donald.
I don’t especially trust the lawyers of AntiFa or BLM activists, especially when they’re talking to the media.
We have text messages between the informant and his FBI handler Foxfier, evidence which the FBI long refused to turn over to the Defense, although they were required to.
Which does absolutely nothing to support the claim that the informant instigated the plot, no matter how much they try to spin up using a tactic from an 80’s country song as “planned the whole thing.”
Similarly, “don’t be a total moron and walk around with text messages saying hi, I’m working with the FBI” is not hugely suspicious. It’s more a “don’t die for stupid stuff” thing.
Given that Daniel Harris was going to BLM protests, “don’t be a moron” level advice is what he’d need.
There is extremely good evidence that this entire plot was cooked up by the 12 FBI informants who were working on this case.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-informants-bigger-role-whitmer-kidnap-plot
I have proven entrapment with much less evidence. This was not the uncovering of a crime but the creation of a crime.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant
Problem being if the accusations are true.
As I said, I don’t trust defense lawyers of known left-wing activists, even if a case did come up for a second gasp of public attention after the first time it sank under “Oh, wait, these guys were actually publicly recorded being left-wing activists before the plot.”
Oh never mind. Misread- apologies. Please delete this and above. Oh dear.
Ezabelle-
Fixed.
In retrospect, the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover probably represented a low point of corruption in the history of the FBI.
Don’t think so. Still, it was clear by 1992 there was something dreadfully wrong in the post-Hoover agency. See the Ruby Ridge catastrophe.
Wasn’t it the FBI and CIA who control the drug trade and created its base in South America?
This is absolutely lunatic
Although the FBI has had its problems for decades, they could usually be identified (unfortunately after the fact) until the Obama administration. At that point they felt secure enough to come out in the open with political investigations, illegal wire taps, persecution of political opponents and a generalized failure to do their real job of crime fighting. The organization is a shadow of its former self with the reputation to match.
“This is absolutely lunatic” You’re naive.
“This is absolutely lunatic” You’re naive.
No, I’m a non-idiot. People don’t buy and consume street drugs because the CIA and the FBI jedi mindtricked them into doing so. People produce, transport, and distribute street drugs because there’s a market for them, because they aren’t scrupulous about trafficking in vice, because law enforcement at the point of production is weak and corruptible, and because the climate is right for those crops.
Although the FBI has had its problems for decades, they could usually be identified (unfortunately after the fact) until the Obama administration. At that point they felt secure enough to come out in the open with political investigations, illegal wire taps, persecution of political opponents and a generalized failure to do their real job of crime fighting.
Dunno. I do know that among the ample population of odious characters in this business have been Andrew McCabe and Peter Sztrok. Both started with the agency ca. 1995 and were promoted within the ranks under Louis Freeh, Robert Mueller, and James Comey – all rather dubious characters. Freeh, Mueller, and Comey had up until the time they departed office spent the bulk of their careers as employees of one or another subdivision of the Department of Justice. Their time there summed to 77 man-years; the midpoint of their time there was around 1994. Freeh worked for five different presidents, Mueller for seven, and Comey for five. Of these five men, only Freeh seems to have a common-and-garden background. Comey had an affluent upbringing; Sztrok affluent and exotic, including residence in foreign countries; McCabe and Mueller frankly wealthy (including boarding school). All of them had law degrees, and none of them ever worked as ordinary police officers. (Apart from supervising the FBI, Mueller and Comey never worked in policing per se). Christopher Wray’s social background replicates that of Mueller and McCabe; Wray’s spent about 60% of his career in private practice, however.
How do these drugs get into the country Art? Do a simple Google search which demonstrates accounts of how the CIA has been implicit in the drug trade and its production off shore and importation. You are are non-idiot. But you are also naive.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/08/a-mexican-plane-crash-the-cia-and-33-tons-of-cocaine/
Believe what suits you.
The drugs get across the border in a variety of manners, including inside of gas tanks in trucks, inside of those (rude comment) cross-border trucking trucks, in trains, under tunnels, in vehicles driving straight across, in various sorts of aircraft, in boats, and in submarines.
Yes, they have submarines. Yes, it’s as insane as it sounds.
Part of why I didn’t go with the Coast Guard is that they get shot at more than the Navy does, because there are so many mostly-Cartel-backed drug smugglers.
When I was a kid, we even got caught in an operation that was trying to catch the plane full of drugs that landed in high desert Nevada– we were out checking cattle after dinner.
Page 69 of the 2020 NDTA has a nice, short summary:
Mexican TCOs transport the majority of illicit
drugs entering into the United States, moving
product across the SWB using a wide array of
smuggling techniques. Cartels transport bulk
quantity, polydrug loads via commercial and
passenger vehicles as well as via underground
tunnels. These cross-border tunnels originate
in Mexico and lead into safe houses on the U.S.
side of the border. TCOs exploit major highway
routes for transportation and the most common
method employed involves smuggling illicit drugs
through U.S. POEs in passenger vehicles with
concealed compartments or commingled with
legitimate goods on tractor-trailers.
Mexican TCOs also transport illicit drugs into
the United States aboard commercial cargo
trains, passenger buses, and maritime vessels
clandestinely or through official maritime
POEs. Mexican TCOs rely on traditional drug
smuggling methods, such as the use of
backpackers and couriers, when smuggling
drugs across remote areas of the SWB into the
United States. Mexican TCOs also exploit various
aerial methods to transport illicit drugs across
the SWB. These methods include the use of
ultralight aircraft and unmanned aerial systems
(drones) to conduct airdrops
https://www.dea.gov/documents/2021/03/02/2020-national-drug-threat-assessment
There’s a lot of information there, and in prior year reports, if you’re interested.
As for the plane that crashed carrying cartel cocaine:
http://www.banderasnews.com/0711/nr-mexicoraid.htm
It had been sold between the time it was claimed to have been used by the CIA (can’t find information the claimed investigation) and when it crashed. Which explains why there’s so very little mention of it.
1980 Nicaraguan Civil War- Gary Webb (the guy died in 2004 with 2 gunshot wounds to head but ruled a suicide???!!), a plane filled with a tonne (not a bag, a tonne) of Cocaine from Venezuela in the 90’s which was “allegedly” to gain confidence of Colombian cartels found its way on the streets in US (DEA field agents went on the record with the claim), CIA covering and assisting Noriega who was supporting Contra by in turn allowing him to continue his drug trafficking, the covert war in Laos around time of Vietnam War which was a front for the production and trafficking heroine onboard Air America into Golden Triangle…and that’s the tip of it. But I’m sure there is a noble and rational excuse for it all which involves getting the bad guys in the end. All of this has its roots in arms, transport and logistics. And the equation goes if the CIA are involved in providing arms then it goes hand-in-hand with the drug trade because the shady people who traded arms are the same people who trafficked drugs.
Notice you’re not giving links anymore, and didn’t respond to the correction to the claim.
Considering how often planes with a ton of cocaine are reported to crash in the last ~35 years, kind of understandable.
Gary Webb –
Claimed CIA was dealing crack.
Actual story supported by evidence: worked with groups after groups had been accused of dealing drugs. Not so sexy.
Cocaine from Venezuela:
Smuggled by the anti-drug section of the Venezuelan National Guard, who were working with the CIA, and the former head of the DEA said in 1993 that IF the CIA knew VNZ was bringing it in and didn’t inform the DEA. It was allowed so they could catch the drug smugglers– since the guy Venezuela had PUT IN CHARGE OF ANTI-DRUG SMUGGLING was WORKING WITH DRUG SMUGGLERS, it wasn’t stopped there– which is what lead to that guy getting caught, and stopped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/11/20/us-probes-narcotics-unit-funded-by-cia/08e49ab4-b23a-4143-ace9-baebab212284/
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/23/us/venezuelan-general-indicted-in-cia-scheme.html
Noriega-
repeat of #1.
Laos-
I am not even going to START on the leaks, accusations, counter-accusations, etc that makes that an utter charley foxtrot– I’m not much inclined to trust accusations from groups that got CAUGHT crashing counter-drug attempts by leaking the information.
But I’m sure there is a noble and rational excuse for it all which involves getting the bad guys in the end.
Most of the claims are factually inaccurate, so once the obvious inaccuracies are cleaned up, they’re much more understandable.
But yes, those in drug smuggling also do weapon smuggling. People sales, too, both slavery and murder. And they have the money to make sure stories get airtime.
About the only way to get a somewhat rounded variety of input is to go to places like Borderland Beat, if you can handle seeing dismembered victims, and that still has articles from cartel and similar groups’ supporters.
Goblins on a pogo stick, I don’t even like the CIA, but the idea that they and the FBI can even come CLOSE to being a significant contributor to the drug trade in the US shows a severe lack of perspective on the sheer volume that is involved, here!
Each year, the DEA field offices seize over ten tons of crack, seven tons of heroin and 250 tons of pot. Meth is complicated, some of it’s in a crystalized form, some is still in liquid to make it easier to smuggle, but figure about thirty tons.
That’s just the stuff that gets caught.
It’s a walk around the lake, but here is what you asked for:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/general-manuel-noriega-feared-panamanian-dictator-cia-asset
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-york-times-wants-gary-webb-stay-dead/tnamp/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/cia.html
First link:
Goes to an icon. Fiddle around, appears to be a rather drooling obit-timed writeup on Noriega. Is still the feigned shock of South American drug and money laundering. Apparently, anyone connected to any operation must be a centrist Democrat and remain such, or they are mind-controlled by the CIA and the CIA runs every bad thing they’re ever accused of; notable for the implicit conceit that little brown people of the south cannot possibly be, like, human; their actions must be controlled by whatever pasty colored contact they’ve had.
Second link: assumes Webb’s story was completely true, attacks the newspapers that for once didn’t go too very far past what there was evidence for, plays fast and loose with the ‘vindication.’
Third link:
In response to the public outcry following Webb’s allegations–which were ultimately published in book form under the title Dark Alliance–the CIA conducted an internal investigation of its role in Central America related to the drug trade. Frederick Hitz, as the CIA Inspector General– an independent watchdog approved by Congress–conducted the investigation. In October 1998, the CIA released a declassified version of Hitz’s two-volume report.
The IG’s report cleared the CIA of complicity with the inner-city crack cocaine trade. It refuted charges that CIA officials knew that their Nicaraguan allies were dealing drugs. But, the report said that the CIA, in a number of cases, didn’t bother to look into allegations about narcotics.
That would be the flat ‘vindication’ declared in link #2.
Incidentally, I didn’t ask you to provide those links. I noted that you’d gone from giving links for the accusations to just throwing accusations out.
Seeing how badly the claims mutated even when you did provide links, that’s a pretty big deal.
This is painful. Go back and read your comments because I’m not going to copy and paste them for you.
You rubbished what I said by saying I didn’t provide links. I gave you links. Then you said I didn’t ask for links and “btw Ezabelle your links aren’t good enough for me because I already knew what angle I was going to play before you sent them”. True story.
You are expecting me to agree with your unconvincing diatribe that provided no evidence to the contrary.
I don’t get a drooling timed right up from the Noriega piece. At all. I think the piece on Webb is absolutely valid and nobody bothered to check if his allegations were even true- very serious allegations! And I don’t know where you get the idea CIA get to investigate the CIA for corruption- that’s ludicrous! It’s very easy to find the Kerry Committee Report transcript online where Cocaine was coming into the US like it was going out of fashion. There was “substantial evidence of drug smuggling… on the part of individual Contras, Contra suppliers, Contra pilots, mercenaries who worked with the Contras, and Contra supporters”… It “did not find that Contra leaders were personally involved in drug trafficking”. Excuse me whilst I barf. These people still believe in the Easter Bunny. Just like there is no substantial evidence the US election was rigged.
Ps. Btw in future I don’t have a subscription to NYT (nor do I ever desire to), so I couldn’t open it to read what you were trying to pass as “evidence” the CIA is squeaky clean.
Im spending way too much time on this commentary than I should.
Ezabelle, I read my comments, and your comments, and your links.
A bare minimum of one of those, and likely more, you did not do.
I showed your statements were rubbish by responding to them, not by saying you did not support them; that is not changed by you later offering links which did not say what you originally claimed, contradicted each other, and in the case of the one that offered something besides emotional appeal agreed with my correction to your original claim.
You can reach archived NYTime links by searching for the title, and frequently by simply searching for the address, from a search engine.
Go back and read your comments because I’m not going to copy and paste them for you.
You rubbished what I said by saying I didn’t provide links. I gave you links. Then you said you didn’t ask for links and “btw Ezabelle your links aren’t good enough for me because I already know how I was going to play this before you sent them”.
You are expecting me to agree with your unconvincing diatribe that provided no evidence to refute the CIA is corrupt except that when the CIA investigates the CIA they “found” no evidence of corruption. Right-e-o.
I don’t get a drooling timed right up from the Noriega piece. At all. I think the piece on Webb is absolutely valid and nobody bothered to check if his allegations were true- EVER- very serious allegations about flooding the US streets with drugs like it was going out of fashion! And I don’t know where you get the idea CIA get to investigate the CIA for corruption- that’s ludicrous! It’s very easy to find the Kerry Committee Report transcript online. It asked a lot of questions! A lot. It then concluded: there was “substantial evidence of drug smuggling… on the part of individual Contras, Contra suppliers, Contra pilots, mercenaries who worked with the Contras, and Contra supporters” bit It “did not find that Contra leaders were personally involved in drug trafficking”. Excuse me whilst I barf! That’s like saying we found no evidence that the US election was not rigged. Some little polling booth may have shifted some ballots around but it sure wasn’t us Democrat bigwigs- we knew nothing about it!
Ps. Btw in future I don’t have a subscription to NYT (nor do I ever desire to), so I couldn’t open it to read what you were trying to pass as “evidence” the CIA is squeaky clean.
Ive spent enough time on this comment section.
I think the piece on Webb is absolutely valid and nobody bothered to check if his allegations were even true- very serious allegations!
That is false, but it does show you read neither my post, nor your own links, in the very post where you chose to make that accusation against me.
Quoting, again:
Third link:
In response to the public outcry following Webb’s allegations–which were ultimately published in book form under the title Dark Alliance–the CIA conducted an internal investigation of its role in Central America related to the drug trade. Frederick Hitz, as the CIA Inspector General– an independent watchdog approved by Congress–conducted the investigation. In October 1998, the CIA released a declassified version of Hitz’s two-volume report.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/cia.html
“I showed your statements were rubbish by responding to them, not by saying you did not support them”.
Your responses didn’t convince me. They were valid and balanced links. I thought so anyway.
I didn’t get emotional appeal but the other side of the story – they introduced him by his pock-marked face nickname- hardly a glory piece. You copy and pasted a section of the article which was removed from the context because it suited your argument. That article gave a timeline of events and didn’t conclude to exonerate the CIA activities.
My point is CIA has a history of corruption linked to drug trafficking. It has benefited them in an area of the world where it was key to win a war and where it was of political or financial benefit at the time.
However, you are asking me to do the job that your organisations don’t do very well SOME (because I don’t want to offend by saying MOST) of the time- which is investigate claims thoroughly and independently to come to an absolute conclusion. That’s fine. Then we will leave it there because I can’t provide you with that. Because it’s the CIA who investigates the CIA. But I can provide you with a history of allegations that have tarnished the organisation since its inception. Continually come up throughout its history- PBS article for one- And which were sometimes not investigated. And when they were, were inconclusive because nobody was caught red-handed ie. no evidence found. And when they were caught red-handed then they were the fall-out guy and it had nothing to do with the top dog. There is always something, yet the stories and allegations keep coming…
I read your article except NYT.
They really put sweat blood and tears into investigating Webb’s claims. Not
Foxfier I did make the statement initially you could have ignored my statement. I didn’t pounce on you. I read your articles, but I stand by what I think. I’ll happily take back my words if I think I’m wrong on the matter and I have done so hear on the commentary when I’ve been told Im wrong. And seen where I have been wrong. But I don’t believe on this I am.
Next time I won’t make the statement about CIA. It’s clearly a sensitive topic. Agree to disagree. Just drop it now.
Ezabelle-
Foxfier I did make the statement initially you could have ignored my statement
You made claims.
I responded to them, with evidence to show they were inaccurate.
You responded, including a link that repeated one of the things I had included exactly because it showed your claim was inaccurate.
I pointed this out, quoting your very link.
You accused me of not reading and made a claim that directly contradicted my link, your link, and my comment quoting your link.
Your desire for a thing to be true does not impose some sort of an obligation for me to ignore evidence, including that evidence which you specifically chose to offer.
Nor does you finding out that evidence you chose– which was previously directly quoted to you, which you implied it was your obligation to read and understand– objectively shows your later claim to be absolutely false result in that evidence becoming worthless, even when you then attempt to discredit the evidence you chose to present as support for your beliefs by appeal to cynicism.
Ok