Read on Twitter
Deputy DIRFBI David Bowdich has a lot to explain since he told Sen. Warner there was nothing to worry about for January 6. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-fbi-intelligence/2021/01/12/30d12748-546b-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-fbi-intelligence/2021/01/12/30d12748-546b-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html
For reference, this is the "before."
The after should mean people lose their jobs and are at the very least dragged in front of Congress. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/biden-trump-electoral-college-certification-congress/card/ej7FufAEjlRRAhgqfRli
The after should mean people lose their jobs and are at the very least dragged in front of Congress. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/biden-trump-electoral-college-certification-congress/card/ej7FufAEjlRRAhgqfRli
Jan 5, FBI apparently had detailed intelligence that this was not a protest - it was domestic terrorism.
Somebody apparently lied directly to Congress.
Somebody apparently lied directly to Congress.
In the words of the conspirators themselves, it was domestic terrorism.
"Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in...Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war"
"Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in...Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war"
Point of order: This is NOT an intelligence failure. The intel was accurate and actionable and communicated.
This looks like an inside job, help with the coup by deliberately blinding and stopping professionals from defending Congress.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHO WAS INVOLVED.
This looks like an inside job, help with the coup by deliberately blinding and stopping professionals from defending Congress.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHO WAS INVOLVED.
This starts to get nitpicky in terms of intelligence: sure, it was raw intel, but tactical intel with hours to respond isn't verified the way strategic intel is.
Besides, THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION WAS TELLING PEOPLE TO GO "FIGHT."
Besides, THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION WAS TELLING PEOPLE TO GO "FIGHT."
POINT: Yes, the FBI has a duty to protect free speech, even of assholes.
COUNTERPOINT: Free speech doesn't require medics or use the term "noncombatants." That's war, not protest.
And again, this violent rhetoric was all over social media - it was no classified secret.
COUNTERPOINT: Free speech doesn't require medics or use the term "noncombatants." That's war, not protest.
And again, this violent rhetoric was all over social media - it was no classified secret.
On the plus side, FBI is taking it more seriously - but I do not understand why there isn't considerably tougher language. WE NOW KNOW THESE PEOPLE WERE ATTEMPTING A COUP. So dithering on "unverified intelligence" AFTER people set up a gallows for Mike Pence is...weak.
I have a major question for the FBI on this.
We have a paid foreign agent in the White House who's said he never intended to leave office. His supporters said they intended a violent war to keep him.
This isn't weak signals intelligence analysis. This is common sense.
</>
We have a paid foreign agent in the White House who's said he never intended to leave office. His supporters said they intended a violent war to keep him.
This isn't weak signals intelligence analysis. This is common sense.
</>
