It may be worth noting that the FBI has corroborated Mott’s story that he was working as an informant against the KKK:
16 Likes
Well, if he was an informant, working to dig up dirt on the KKK, and therefore was undercover by orders of someone higher up, why was he fired? Shouldn’t he sue for that?
Am I missing something here?
5 Likes
That he may have been already engaged with them.
1 Like
At least according to the vice story posted by @daemon23, he went in order to infiltrate the KKK, as an informant - not because he liked them. His superiors had that picture for months, and only whipped it out when he continued to do his job, including going after corrupt cops they wanted to protect. It sounds like he was trying to clamp down on both local corruption and Klan activity in Louisiana. It might be a he said/he said situation, but if he was working for the FBI (and putting his life at risk) by posing as a klansman and arresting corrupt cops at home, how is he the bad guy in this?
14 Likes
There was a similar but much less egregious case here in Melbourne recently. A cop was photographed fist-bumping one of the racist protesters at an anti-immigration rally. Victoria Police, who he works for, basically shrugged its shoulders and said it was a momentary action in a dynamic situation. And that was the end of it, as far as I know.
2 Likes
Whoa. I’m reading comments here, which I can only assume were written before the original post was updated. Turns out context actually does make a pretty huge difference when your justification is that you were working undercover
5 Likes
Huh. Really. Well if he was indeed an informant, then screw his superiors.
I am a bit inclined to believe this because Louisiana is notorious for corruption.
3 Likes
That’s what I’m getting from the Vice article (Vice, so… grain of salt, I guess? I don’t know). But if what that says is true, he’s done nothing but good police work. he’s not a nasty racist, he’s attempting to drive nasty racists out!
FTFY! 
Seriously… we all got corruption issues of one kind or another…
3 Likes
I don’t know, he definitely fucked up when asked for a quote- "Mott said his termination is illegal and that he has an explanation for the photo that cost him his job.
The former officer said the picture is being taken out of context.
“The picture speaks for itself,” said Mott. “I’m standing at a rally against illegal immigration. There’s not much to be said about the picture. I’ve never denied it was me.”
His “explanation” is that the picture speaks for itself? He needs his lawyer to coach him on media contacts, that’s for sure.
2 Likes
If he was sent there to infiltrate, why would he deny it, either.
From the article:
In fact, he says, he was trying to stop the KKK from spreading in his home state and has been secretly providing information to the FBI for the last year.
1 Like
Reading the story. It doesn’t sound like he was asked to do it.
“Mott filled out an application for membership with the Loyal White Knights and paid his dues the day of the rally, “but not to join them but to destroy them,” he said. “I don’t fit in with that crowd.””
There’s something really fishy here. Maybe he contacted the FBI at some point, but the story is strongly tinged with a strange narrative more in line with rogue action movie hero than anything he would be tasked to do.
If the FBI speaks up directly for him, that would clear up a lot.
That’s true… it could be a cover story, but the FBI apparently did acknowledge he was working with them. So there might be something fishy. But then again, he got the job in LA, with that being full knowledge on his force… He also volunteered the information to the FBI, so it’s not like he got caught and then gave others up. He went to the FBI with what he had. Maybe he was trying to get a job out of them?
So, I don’t know. It’s fucked up, whatever is going on.
3 Likes
Yep, whatever happens, he needs to stop making statements that come off as conflictory and that do not “stand for themselves” along with the photograph.
So there are two conflicting stories, it would seem; talking about being undercover infiltrating the KKK sounds very different from someone excusing it as an out of context picture of an anti-illegal rally. To reconcile them I think one would at least need to know their order, but the reports are all very close together in time.
Several new stories note he had originally claimed to be undercover but admitted it was a lie, including the NY Daily article linked from Vice. Vice treats him being undercover as his corroborated claim with no mention of any such admission. Why the difference? It’s hard to say when the sources aren’t explained.
1 Like
Very interesting story - I look forward to reading more details and hopefully some verification from the FBI. If it’s true he is one of the “good cops” who don’t support police corruption and misconduct, and he wasn’t actually a member of the klan (except as an undercover informant) that he comes out on top of this as the respected cop he should be.
2 Likes
Yes, that is a problem isn’t it? If he wasn’t a klansman, but was proactively undercover, the department was wrong, but if he was a klansman, he was wrong. But even if he was a klansman, and they department sat on it, releasing it only when he kept digging into corruption within the department… But he was still a klansman. Well, what then?
2 Likes
I once heard somewhere that some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses. I guess this is proof.
4 Likes
He may have leaked the info to the FBI after his picture was given to local law enforcement, possibly even by the FBI. It does not at all sound as if he was given the go-ahead to do this operation by his local contacts or the FBI, only that they were aware of him being in the Klan.
There’s always the corrupt town AND racist working for them angle 
Maybe it wasn’t his preferred sort of corruption.
It wouldn’t be so plausible if he hadn’t gone on record claiming that the photograph of him in full garb at an anti-immigration rally “speaks for itself”.
The difference is that Vice tends to tart up their stories and would probably be more malleable to a broke-down True Detective narrative (from an unreliable narrator) than other sources.
1 Like
We’ve known that for decades, since, like the first klan in the 1870s. It’s always been true.
Sorry, I’d like, but I’m out of daily likes! Have a fist bump instead…
I think they’re referencing 1992
1 Like
