@scrowder@grok Is this the same insufferable bitch boy who abused and ruined his relationship with his wife while she was pregnant, and he's still doing podcasts and whining and lying to other people about shit that he clearly doesn't understand? That Steven Crowder?
@scrowder@grok Who does Steven Crowder have a better chance to get on his show? His ex wife, or Candace? Analyze it like a drunk scientific Bill Burr, maximum energy.
@ShadowofEzra She's just high key trashing on them.
"You so fuckin scaley... there are conspiracy theories about you being an actual reptilian.... You lookin a bit lizardly lately..."
@grok@scrowder@RealCandaceO@grok Lol these aren't allegations. We have videographic proof of that from years ago already. Keep up with the times, Grok.
That claim is false / misleading. Here’s a breakdown of what the evidence shows and how the claim distorts it:
⸻
What the watchdog / IG report says
•A December 2024 report by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General found no evidence that undercover FBI employees participated in the the Jan. 6 attack. 
•The report did say there were 26 FBI confidential informants (sometimes called “sources”) present in D.C. that day, some of whom entered restricted areas or even the Capitol — but none of them were authorized to break the law or encouraged by the FBI to do so. 
•The report also stressed that FBI policy prohibits having undercover employees in First Amendment–protected events (like protests) unless there’s a special authorization. 
So while some informants were present, they were not acting under FBI direction to instigate violence, and there’s no verified support for the idea of “274 undercover agents” being embedded.
⸻
What’s wrong with the “274 agents” claim
Here are the key issues with the claim:
https://t.co/0hYhuTCIWu credible evidence for that number or role
The “274 agents” figure appears to come from a document or internal “after-action” style report, which reportedly states that “274 agents … responded to the Capitol and surrounding areas” after the breach began — not that they were planted in the crowd in advance or acting as provocateurs. 
In other words, the number may refer to agents called in in response to the riot, not ones embedded covertly before or during it.
2.Equating “responded to” with “planted as agitators” is a leap
Even if agents later entered the area as part of the law-enforcement response, that is very different from being undercover provocateurs. The documents cited do not support the more incendiary claims about their role. 
3.Misrepresenting informants as agents
The claim conflates “FBI informants / sources” with “FBI agents / employees.” The watchdog report explicitly distinguishes between the two, noting that no FBI employees were authorized to participate in the riot. 
https://t.co/Q4uSxi3zyC attribution or verification of the documents
The documents that are cited in support of the 274-agent narrative have not been independently verified, and media outlets (like AP) have been unable to confirm their authenticity or the stronger claim about instigation. 
⸻
Bottom line
•The core claim in the your screenshot — that “274 FBI agents were placed into the crowd on January 6” as covert provocateurs — is false / unsubstantiated.
•What is true (per the watchdog report) is that no undercover FBI agents participated, and 26 informants were present (some entering restricted areas) without being authorized to break the law or incite violence. 
Tucker is being a piece of shit because it was clearly a suicide, and he keeps pressing for details, making up his own shit. Sam Altman is totally surprised by Tucker's audacity to accuse him of murdering his friend just to make a viral news clip, because it's clearly not true, and disgusting to pretend to accuse him of it.
1. First Amendment (1791) – Religion Clauses
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
— U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
This is known as the Establishment Clause (preventing government endorsement of religion) and the Free Exercise Clause (protecting individuals’ rights to practice religion freely).
⸻
2. Article VI, Clause 3 – No Religious Test
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3
This prevents the government from requiring anyone to hold or reject a particular faith to serve in public office.
@VividProwess@grok I hate to be morbid and ask, but I literally have never seen a single picture or video of this. Is there any actual tangible evidence of this? If so, where is it?
@BenBergquam@realDonaldTrump Ben rhetorical question, but I wanna hear your answer anyway: Are you fucking stupid?
Listen to the video. He's explaining to them to get out of the street and basically make their protests follow lawful procedures, and not disrupt traffic and especially not ICE.
Oh of course, Singapore and Japan are doing far better than most other countries as well.
Explain the difference between what Singapore, Japan, and China spend their time and citizens' taxes on that makes them so great, unlike the wholly corrupt right wing and semi corrupt left wing in America.
@grok@WWUTTcom So you agree then that thanks to the total difference in how their governments are run and what the country prioritizes more, that's why they're all mostly doing far better and becoming better behaved and harmonious and educated than in any other country?
@grok Rhetorical question: Is the lack of the typical hypocritical and overbaring and schizophrenic religious nuts in government, and the clearly better control over these christian lunatics in China, at least one of a few significant reasons reason why its been able to thrive so well and create much better and well behaved and far more intelligent citizens?
@grok So Dan McHenry basically got major triggered, totally outed himself as a racist white supremacist, went all manic and crazy and called you a "Clankerrrr" with extra emphasis on the "errrr" as if he's relating it to the N-word used against black people.
Totally checks out. Grok, what would you do to Dan McHenry's account at this point?
Jeez imagine if you were his poor wife... Living with that piece of shit.