I think it is fairly obvious he was a plant. How many people were escorted all through the Capital by the CP? You can see they had orders to get him on the Senate floor as they had to check multiple doors for one that was unlocked.
He was already known to many after showing up to other events and the visibility provided by his costume was a perfect focal point for Nancy. Im sure he was offered a very nice deal and then Nancy screwed him.
Being a victim of this and being a Nancy funded op arent mutually exclusive here. The pedo death cult has no problem serving up their sheep for slaughter if it benefits them.
The problem I have with that theory is that if Nancy or whoever screwed him, there's no reason for him to now squeal.
Imagine how that would blow up? If he spilled the beans on a real FF operation because he was on the inside. No, I don't think they would screw him, and I think there are other more plausible explanations for his actions.
I admit this guy and his motivations are clouded in the fog of war. There are facts that could lead one to believe he is a plant or perhaps some level of misguided Patriot.
Tucker though made him a symbol for the unjust treatment of the J6 prisoners. The jury, imo, is still out on Tucker as well, but you have to ask yourself why he focused on this shady character that Nancy and her minions also placed such emphasis towards. Jacob Chansley was the focus of Mondays videos and he was the only part of Mondays show that Tucker continued to talk about on Tuesday and Wednesday. Was it just low hanging fruit? Or is there a psyop being run to discredit MAGA that includes this guy?
Also why the alias? Angeli or Chansley?
Why didnt Tucker spend any more time on Ray Epps? That is where you blow this entire J6 fake insurrection and Nancys role in it up. I watched all three days with my Dad and when discussing it with him over dinner yesterday, he still doesnt know who Ray Epps is even though I asked him to pay special attention when that segment ran live.
Realizing past psyops I will remain wary when it comes to Chansley.
Taking the stance of remaining wary seems completely appropriate to me.
As you point out, there is plenty of fog here, as there is in a LOT of areas that we naturally have an interest in.
Regarding Chansley, a cautious level of observation is warranted, imo. I haven't reached any solid conclusions, but my suspicion is that this guy is not DS at the least. Whether he is 'a misguided patriot' or had some positive or planned role in the events, I don't know.
It seems that sometimes, our pedes want to rush to conclusions because they offer some level of comfort, as in "This guy is obviously a fed" or "This guy is clearly a good guy" etc. Such a sense of discomfort with not knowing is, I would say, one of any anons greatest vulnerability.
We should be fine with being able to look at what we know, what we don't know, and having suspicions or ideas but withholding evaluations and resisting the urge to jump or move to conclusions before things are clear.
In that sense, I see nothing wrong and a lot right with remaining wary. You or I may come down on different sides of the fence regarding our thoughts on whether he's a plus or a minus, or who is likely behind him, but that's immaterial if we maintain an appropriate level of awareness (which personally, I think far too often many pedes fail to do when engaging with such unknowns).
I think it is fairly obvious he was a plant. How many people were escorted all through the Capital by the CP? You can see they had orders to get him on the Senate floor as they had to check multiple doors for one that was unlocked.
He was already known to many after showing up to other events and the visibility provided by his costume was a perfect focal point for Nancy. Im sure he was offered a very nice deal and then Nancy screwed him.
Being a victim of this and being a Nancy funded op arent mutually exclusive here. The pedo death cult has no problem serving up their sheep for slaughter if it benefits them.
The problem I have with that theory is that if Nancy or whoever screwed him, there's no reason for him to now squeal.
Imagine how that would blow up? If he spilled the beans on a real FF operation because he was on the inside. No, I don't think they would screw him, and I think there are other more plausible explanations for his actions.
Who would he squeal to?
I admit this guy and his motivations are clouded in the fog of war. There are facts that could lead one to believe he is a plant or perhaps some level of misguided Patriot.
Tucker though made him a symbol for the unjust treatment of the J6 prisoners. The jury, imo, is still out on Tucker as well, but you have to ask yourself why he focused on this shady character that Nancy and her minions also placed such emphasis towards. Jacob Chansley was the focus of Mondays videos and he was the only part of Mondays show that Tucker continued to talk about on Tuesday and Wednesday. Was it just low hanging fruit? Or is there a psyop being run to discredit MAGA that includes this guy?
Also why the alias? Angeli or Chansley?
Why didnt Tucker spend any more time on Ray Epps? That is where you blow this entire J6 fake insurrection and Nancys role in it up. I watched all three days with my Dad and when discussing it with him over dinner yesterday, he still doesnt know who Ray Epps is even though I asked him to pay special attention when that segment ran live.
Realizing past psyops I will remain wary when it comes to Chansley.
Taking the stance of remaining wary seems completely appropriate to me.
As you point out, there is plenty of fog here, as there is in a LOT of areas that we naturally have an interest in.
Regarding Chansley, a cautious level of observation is warranted, imo. I haven't reached any solid conclusions, but my suspicion is that this guy is not DS at the least. Whether he is 'a misguided patriot' or had some positive or planned role in the events, I don't know.
It seems that sometimes, our pedes want to rush to conclusions because they offer some level of comfort, as in "This guy is obviously a fed" or "This guy is clearly a good guy" etc. Such a sense of discomfort with not knowing is, I would say, one of any anons greatest vulnerability.
We should be fine with being able to look at what we know, what we don't know, and having suspicions or ideas but withholding evaluations and resisting the urge to jump or move to conclusions before things are clear.
In that sense, I see nothing wrong and a lot right with remaining wary. You or I may come down on different sides of the fence regarding our thoughts on whether he's a plus or a minus, or who is likely behind him, but that's immaterial if we maintain an appropriate level of awareness (which personally, I think far too often many pedes fail to do when engaging with such unknowns).