PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Leftists attacked a Ft Worth ICE facility

A trans radical murdered Catholic children

A leftist murdered Charlie Kirk

A leftist shot up an ABC station

Now there is a sniper attack on ICE in Dallas

All in the last few weeks

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) September 24, 2025

---

The Democrat Party needs to get smart and control all these left-wing loose cannon nut cases, before they ignite WWIII, which they will lose. The Right Wing in America has much more arms and ammunition. The NRA alone has 4-5 million members, (most of whom are law abiding, is my educated guess). I can remember a time when the Democrat party was the strongest anti-Communist party in America. Now they are no longer anti-communist, but appear to have kicked out the remaining liberals, and welcomed the Left and its ideas into the Party. Can you imagine Harry Truman putting up with all this wrong-headed thinking? When has communism benefited anyone except its leaders?

Carl Oglesby, one of the founders of the leftist SDS, the Students for a Democratic Society, wrote in "Containment and Change", that "The real enemy is not the Communists, it is the Liberals". And over the last 50 years the members of the New Left, formed in the 1960s to oppose the Vietnam War, have infiltrated the Democrat Party, and especially our educational system, from kindergarten all the way up through PhD level instruction in our finest Universities. Can anyone name one strong liberal leader in the Democrat Party today? Where is your Daniel Patrick Moynihan? Where is your Hubert Humphrey, your LBJ, your FDR, or your Truman? Where is your JFK? Your RFK, or your Teddy? The last remaining one, RFK Jr, has now joined the Republican side. What exactly is liberal about anything the the Democrat Party says or does nowadays?

movielover said:

---

New video of the San Ramon diamond thieves and getaway cars.

Clip from inside, new video, see door close.

---

From San Francisco to Oakland to Walnut Creek to San Ramon to your neck of the woods....

SFCityBear said:

---

The Democrat Party needs to get smart and control all these left-wing loose cannon nut cases, before they ignite WWIII, which they will lose. The Right Wing in America has much more arms and ammunition.

---

President Trump said something similar earlier today. He didn't mention the arms but he said the right is much tougher.

REPORTER: Who do you hold responsible for the uptick in left-wing violence?@POTUS: "Radical Left rhetoric. The Radical Left is causing the problem. They're out of control." pic.twitter.com/HN8JHSBIcg

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 25, 2025

SFCityBear said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Leftists attacked a Ft Worth ICE facility

A trans radical murdered Catholic children

A leftist murdered Charlie Kirk

A leftist shot up an ABC station

Now there is a sniper attack on ICE in Dallas

All in the last few weeks

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) September 24, 2025

---

The Democrat Party needs to get smart and control all these left-wing loose cannon nut cases, before they ignite WWIII, which they will lose. The Right Wing in America has much more arms and ammunition. The NRA alone has 4-5 million members, (most of whom are law abiding, is my educated guess). I can remember a time when the Democrat party was the strongest anti-Communist party in America. Now they are no longer anti-communist, but appear to have kicked out the remaining liberals, and welcomed the Left and its ideas into the Party. Can you imagine Harry Truman putting up with all this wrong-headed thinking? When has communism benefited anyone except its leaders?

Carl Oglesby, one of the founders of the leftist SDS, the Students for a Democratic Society, wrote in "Containment and Change", that "The real enemy is not the Communists, it is the Liberals". And over the last 50 years the members of the New Left, formed in the 1960s to oppose the Vietnam War, have infiltrated the Democrat Party, and especially our educational system, from kindergarten all the way up through PhD level instruction in our finest Universities. Can anyone name one strong liberal leader in the Democrat Party today? Where is your Daniel Patrick Moynihan? Where is your Hubert Humphrey, your LBJ, your FDR, or your Truman? Where is your JFK? Your RFK, or your Teddy? The last remaining one, RFK Jr, has now joined the Republican side. What exactly is liberal about anything the the Democrat Party says or does nowadays?

---

I agree with the first sentence…otherwise look forward to your basketball analyses and time capsules

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Not interested when it doesn't fit your agenda, DiddyWiggles?

---

Here's my point.

Prolonging a fever is not a good thing.
It's astonishing misinformation.

And you should know by now that President Chump and RFK Jr. "cherry-pick" evidence.

Studies by Mady Hornig, a physician scientist who has studied pregnanxy related risk factors for autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for 25 years has found that there was a 40% increased risk of autism without acetominophen.

Her study of 100,000 families found that moderate or high fevers in pregnancy were linked to autism risk, especially in the second trimester.

Fever itself, not a single drug, is a key factor.



You're reading comprehension continues to be poor.
You might want to read what the word INCONCLUSIVE means.

---

Read this ya knob. Also maybe don't criticize someone when you don't know the correct you're to use

---

First off, define Autism genius.
Then get back to me.

Changes in Father's Sperm Linked to Autistic Traits in Their Children, Small Preliminary Study Suggests | Johns Hopkins Medicine

---

Sure, I'll google for you since you can't seem to look that up yourself.

Autism, also known as autism spectrum disorder, is a condition characterized by differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction, a need or strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, focused interests, and repetitive behaviors.

When did I say it was the only thing that has links to autism? Not sure what "point" the link you posted is supposed to be highlighting

---

What Causes Autism? Study of 100,000 Kids Reveals New Clues | Columbia Magazine

Mady Hornig

https://share.google/HrqjKZdXQLay7yBKs

"We found that there was about a 40% increased risk of autism without acteominophen."

Fever itself, not a single drug, is a key factor.

---

Broooo that's not even in the article. Did you think I wouldn't read it? I'm actually shocked you misquoted the article you posted and then ignored what the rest of the article says. This is the actual quoted text:

" we found that if a pregnant woman experiences a high fever in her second trimester, her child's chances of developing autism increase by 40 percent."

It also goes on to say:
" And if you do get sick and have a high temperature, talk to your doctor about possibly taking an anti-inflammatory medication like ibuprofen. (Acetaminophen does not counter inflammation in the same way). Physicians have traditionally cautioned against taking ibuprofen while you're pregnant because it carries a risk of miscarriage, especially in the first trimester, or possibly deformation of the baby's heart if given close to the time of delivery, but administration of anti-inflammatory medications for fever during the second trimester might be discussed with one's physician."

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Not interested when it doesn't fit your agenda, DiddyWiggles?

---

Here's my point.

Prolonging a fever is not a good thing.
It's astonishing misinformation.

And you should know by now that President Chump and RFK Jr. "cherry-pick" evidence.

Studies by Mady Hornig, a physician scientist who has studied pregnanxy related risk factors for autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for 25 years has found that there was a 40% increased risk of autism without acetominophen.

Her study of 100,000 families found that moderate or high fevers in pregnancy were linked to autism risk, especially in the second trimester.

Fever itself, not a single drug, is a key factor.



You're reading comprehension continues to be poor.
You might want to read what the word INCONCLUSIVE means.

---

Read this ya knob. Also maybe don't criticize someone when you don't know the correct you're to use

---

First off, define Autism genius.
Then get back to me.

Changes in Father's Sperm Linked to Autistic Traits in Their Children, Small Preliminary Study Suggests | Johns Hopkins Medicine

---

Sure, I'll google for you since you can't seem to look that up yourself.

Autism, also known as autism spectrum disorder, is a condition characterized by differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction, a need or strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, focused interests, and repetitive behaviors.

When did I say it was the only thing that has links to autism? Not sure what "point" the link you posted is supposed to be highlighting

---

What Causes Autism? Study of 100,000 Kids Reveals New Clues | Columbia Magazine

Mady Hornig

https://share.google/HrqjKZdXQLay7yBKs

"We found that there was about a 40% increased risk of autism without acteominophen."

Fever itself, not a single drug, is a key factor.

---

Broooo that's not even in the article. Did you think I wouldn't read it? I'm actually shocked you misquoted the article you posted and then ignored what the rest of the article says. This is the actual quoted text:

" we found that if a pregnant woman experiences a high fever in her second trimester, her child's chances of developing autism increase by 40 percent."

It also goes on to say:
" And if you do get sick and have a high temperature, talk to your doctor about possibly taking an anti-inflammatory medication like ibuprofen. (Acetaminophen does not counter inflammation in the same way). Physicians have traditionally cautioned against taking ibuprofen while you're pregnant because it carries a risk of miscarriage, especially in the first trimester, or possibly deformation of the baby's heart if given close to the time of delivery, but administration of anti-inflammatory medications for fever during the second trimester might be discussed with one's physician."

---

Hi! Neither of us are doctors or research scientists, but we both have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

---

Are you just being dense to be dense?

---

No, that's a real question. Who said there were zero FBI agents on site?

---

Oh boy, okay.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117924/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD015-U15.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/no-undercover-fbi-agents-at-jan-6-riot-watchdog-finds-in-rebuke-to-conspiracy-theories

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/politics/justice-inspector-general-january-6-fbi-report

There's just a few…

---

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is about whether or not there were undercover agents in the crowd BEFORE the riot started? Of course law enforcement would have showed up after and thus been "in the crowd." That's not the same as being undercover agents.

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

---

Are you just being dense to be dense?

---

No, that's a real question. Who said there were zero FBI agents on site?

---

Oh boy, okay.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117924/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD015-U15.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/no-undercover-fbi-agents-at-jan-6-riot-watchdog-finds-in-rebuke-to-conspiracy-theories

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/politics/justice-inspector-general-january-6-fbi-report

There's just a few…

---

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is about whether or not there were undercover agents in the crowd BEFORE the riot started? Of course law enforcement would have showed up after and thus been "in the crowd." That's not the same as being undercover agents.

---

We've found out there were undercover agents in the crowd the whole time after being told there weren't.

---

Okay, where did we learn that?

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

---

Are you just being dense to be dense?

---

No, that's a real question. Who said there were zero FBI agents on site?

---

Oh boy, okay.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117924/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD015-U15.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/no-undercover-fbi-agents-at-jan-6-riot-watchdog-finds-in-rebuke-to-conspiracy-theories

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/politics/justice-inspector-general-january-6-fbi-report

There's just a few…

---

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is about whether or not there were undercover agents in the crowd BEFORE the riot started? Of course law enforcement would have showed up after and thus been "in the crowd." That's not the same as being undercover agents.

---

We've found out there were undercover agents in the crowd the whole time after being told there weren't.

---

Okay, where did we learn that?

---

Read above…
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/81358/replies/2553391

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

---

Are you just being dense to be dense?

---

No, that's a real question. Who said there were zero FBI agents on site?

---

Oh boy, okay.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117924/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD015-U15.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/no-undercover-fbi-agents-at-jan-6-riot-watchdog-finds-in-rebuke-to-conspiracy-theories

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/politics/justice-inspector-general-january-6-fbi-report

There's just a few…

---

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is about whether or not there were undercover agents in the crowd BEFORE the riot started? Of course law enforcement would have showed up after and thus been "in the crowd." That's not the same as being undercover agents.

---

We've found out there were undercover agents in the crowd the whole time after being told there weren't.

---

Okay, where did we learn that?

---

Read above…
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/81358/replies/2553391

---

This story is being wildly misrepresented — these were not undercover agents embedded in the crowd. They were part of the multi-agency law enforcement response *after* the Capitol was attacked, as the documents themselves make clear. https://t.co/Ezw8VVTZue pic.twitter.com/49WogaUtDH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2025

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

---

Are you just being dense to be dense?

---

No, that's a real question. Who said there were zero FBI agents on site?

---

Oh boy, okay.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117924/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD015-U15.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/no-undercover-fbi-agents-at-jan-6-riot-watchdog-finds-in-rebuke-to-conspiracy-theories

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/politics/justice-inspector-general-january-6-fbi-report

There's just a few…

---

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is about whether or not there were undercover agents in the crowd BEFORE the riot started? Of course law enforcement would have showed up after and thus been "in the crowd." That's not the same as being undercover agents.

---

We've found out there were undercover agents in the crowd the whole time after being told there weren't.

---

Okay, where did we learn that?

---

Read above…
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/81358/replies/2553391

---

This story is being wildly misrepresented — these were not undercover agents embedded in the crowd. They were part of the multi-agency law enforcement response *after* the Capitol was attacked, as the documents themselves make clear. https://t.co/Ezw8VVTZue pic.twitter.com/49WogaUtDH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2025

---

The semantics behind when they showed up isn't really the issue.

---

I think that "when they showed up" actually is pretty important here, since the MAGA conspiracy theory is that the FBI was on site from the start and actively creating the unrest, rather than just responding to it. If they only showed up after the fact, that pours a lot of cold water on that idea.

The Twitter reply you posted doesn't show any evidence of FBI undercover agents being on site before the riot started. It's still about complaints from agents who were deployed there afterward.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fbi-embedded-275-plainclothes-agents-111534839.html

"One thing that we have learned, and this came on the tail end of the Biden administration, when their Department of Justice admitted that they had many, I mean, more than two dozen, paid informants embedded in the crowd,"

To me this reads as in the crowd, not arriving to control the crowd after but maybe I'm misreading or incorrect with that analysis

---

So now the goalpost has moved to paid informants instead of FBI agents.

---

No, you just can't stand to be wrong

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

---

Are you just being dense to be dense?

---

No, that's a real question. Who said there were zero FBI agents on site?

---

Oh boy, okay.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117924/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD015-U15.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/no-undercover-fbi-agents-at-jan-6-riot-watchdog-finds-in-rebuke-to-conspiracy-theories

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/politics/justice-inspector-general-january-6-fbi-report

There's just a few…

---

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is about whether or not there were undercover agents in the crowd BEFORE the riot started? Of course law enforcement would have showed up after and thus been "in the crowd." That's not the same as being undercover agents.

---

We've found out there were undercover agents in the crowd the whole time after being told there weren't.

---

Okay, where did we learn that?

---

Read above…
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/81358/replies/2553391

---

This story is being wildly misrepresented — these were not undercover agents embedded in the crowd. They were part of the multi-agency law enforcement response *after* the Capitol was attacked, as the documents themselves make clear. https://t.co/Ezw8VVTZue pic.twitter.com/49WogaUtDH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2025

---

The semantics behind when they showed up isn't really the issue.

---

I think that "when they showed up" actually is pretty important here, since the MAGA conspiracy theory is that the FBI was on site from the start and actively creating the unrest, rather than just responding to it. If they only showed up after the fact, that pours a lot of cold water on that idea.

The Twitter reply you posted doesn't show any evidence of FBI undercover agents being on site before the riot started. It's still about complaints from agents who were deployed there afterward.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fbi-embedded-275-plainclothes-agents-111534839.html

"One thing that we have learned, and this came on the tail end of the Biden administration, when their Department of Justice admitted that they had many, I mean, more than two dozen, paid informants embedded in the crowd,"

To me this reads as in the crowd, not arriving to control the crowd after but maybe I'm misreading or incorrect with that analysis

---

So now the goalpost has moved to paid informants instead of FBI agents.

---

No, you just can't stand to be wrong

---

This story is being wildly misrepresented — these were not undercover agents embedded in the crowd. They were part of the multi-agency law enforcement response *after* the Capitol was attacked, as the documents themselves make clear. https://t.co/Ezw8VVTZue pic.twitter.com/49WogaUtDH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2025

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Breaking: FBI Bombshell: 274 agents sent to Capitol for J6, many later complained they were political ‘pawns’ https://t.co/DJdZr2yjOa

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) September 26, 2025

---

Is this legit? If so holy ***** Let's see what the lefties here have to say about this

---

Look at the size of the crowd. It would be a total failure of law enforcement to not have officers and agents in the politically charged crowd to monitor events and be able to identify the "overly exuberant protesters".

---

Then why have we been hearing over and over that there wasn't any there?

---

Hearing over and over from who?

---

Are you just being dense to be dense?

---

No, that's a real question. Who said there were zero FBI agents on site?

---

Oh boy, okay.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117924/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD015-U15.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/no-undercover-fbi-agents-at-jan-6-riot-watchdog-finds-in-rebuke-to-conspiracy-theories

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/politics/justice-inspector-general-january-6-fbi-report

There's just a few…

---

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this is about whether or not there were undercover agents in the crowd BEFORE the riot started? Of course law enforcement would have showed up after and thus been "in the crowd." That's not the same as being undercover agents.

---

We've found out there were undercover agents in the crowd the whole time after being told there weren't.

---

Okay, where did we learn that?

---

Read above…
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/81358/replies/2553391

---

This story is being wildly misrepresented — these were not undercover agents embedded in the crowd. They were part of the multi-agency law enforcement response *after* the Capitol was attacked, as the documents themselves make clear. https://t.co/Ezw8VVTZue pic.twitter.com/49WogaUtDH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2025

---

The semantics behind when they showed up isn't really the issue.

---

I think that "when they showed up" actually is pretty important here, since the MAGA conspiracy theory is that the FBI was on site from the start and actively creating the unrest, rather than just responding to it. If they only showed up after the fact, that pours a lot of cold water on that idea.

The Twitter reply you posted doesn't show any evidence of FBI undercover agents being on site before the riot started. It's still about complaints from agents who were deployed there afterward.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fbi-embedded-275-plainclothes-agents-111534839.html

"One thing that we have learned, and this came on the tail end of the Biden administration, when their Department of Justice admitted that they had many, I mean, more than two dozen, paid informants embedded in the crowd,"

To me this reads as in the crowd, not arriving to control the crowd after but maybe I'm misreading or incorrect with that analysis

---

So now the goalpost has moved to paid informants instead of FBI agents.

---

No, you just can't stand to be wrong

---

This story is being wildly misrepresented — these were not undercover agents embedded in the crowd. They were part of the multi-agency law enforcement response *after* the Capitol was attacked, as the documents themselves make clear. https://t.co/Ezw8VVTZue pic.twitter.com/49WogaUtDH

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2025

---

We can just keep going back and forth sharing the same links over and over again. We will see what info comes out. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but that hasn't been proven to me yet