News - 741 · news

 

The FBIs presence in Kenosha sets off a cascade of questions, all of the answers to which should trigger every alarm in the book.

The Rittenhouse trial has been a marvel to watch, simply because the prosecutions presentation of this case has been a train wreck of dumpster fires. Weve watched as the defense has absolutely fileted almost everything the prosecution has presented, as the Judge continues to make statements that will likely benefit the defenses case. However, a funny thing happened in the courtroom that went by even me for a bit. Here we were talking about the various videos that were taken at the scene and what they show. Heres the one video of one angle, of one part of the street, and then theres another of this other angle, showing these people who were involved in the shoot. Then theres the FBI drone video directly over the shooting, and there theres another video on the ground in front of the gas station. Each of the videos provided its own unique view of wait. go back a minute whats that part about an FBI drone??

Why in the hell was there an FBI drone directly over the shooting? Have we even considered the ramifications of what that actually means?  Our government, for any reason that they perceive to be a threat, can conduct mass surveillance of you without a warrant?   Certainly, this was a public place and the courts have ruled that surveillance can be conducted in public without a warrant, however, there were local police resources. Why would the FBI be conducting this surveillance if they had no way of stopping or preventing what was happening, from occurring?  Regardless of the legality of it, should we as citizens become comfortable with the idea that this is normal?  Out of an abundance of generosity, letâs just say they were somehow justified with having a drone overhead, why this specific area?  Kenosha riots covered several dozen square blocks of town, so if they were conducting surveillance, were they doing so with multiple drones? There are two very simple answers to the question: Yes and no.

Well, I am a negative guy so letâs start with no. Why this one drone?  Why this one area?  And probably most importantly (and in my least Alex Jones-y voice I can muster), how did you end up directly over this shooting that night, despite all the other areas in the city where bad things were happening?  While I have never been a conspiracy theorist and abhor conspiracy theories, it seems wildly coincidental that of the several dozen square block area of Kenosha where there was violence going down that night, that you end up directly over the one shooting that is going to cause a national debate?  I canât be the only one here thinking thatâs awfully convenient.

If the answer is yes, then the next question we should ask ourselves is then, how many?  Why did the FBI decide on that many drones?  If that many drones, how many in each area?  Why those areas? Was there some specific threat posed in those areas?  Was local law enforcement involved?  Were they aware?  Did they have access to the video feed?  Now again, out of an abundance of generosity, letâs assume those questions are answered in a way that justifies the reasons why, but what about the answer to the question: to what end?  Were local authorities notified of crimes in progress?  Were they dispatched to any of the areas where a crime in progress was occurring?  How many crimes were stopped or prevented by the FBI drones?

We should consider that maybe that wasnât the objective of the drones.  Maybe they were just there to observe and then use the video to later arrest perpetrators of all of the riots and looting that occurred in Kenosha.  Then how many arrests have occurred?  How many people have been prosecuted as a result of the video?  How many of the business owners have specific suspects they can pursue civil remedies against?  Can we see the video from all of the drones from that night?  Whatâs thatâ¦.?  The FBI has lost video from that night in this case? We do know that means the FBI has violated federal law, right?

The point is none of the answers to these questions is any good.  We know they had at least one drone, but if there was one, it was over a really specific area, donât you think? If there was more than one, why that many, and if that many, what were you able to accomplish with them, and if the answer to that is nothing, WHY THE HELL WERE THEY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Are you comfortable with random, unnecessary surveillance by an organization that admittedly has broken federal law and has proven to be a cesspool of incompetence?

Good.  Me Neither.