The shadow of the January 6th Capitol riots continues to darken the American political landscape. On that day, thousands of Trump-supporting Americans poured into Washington D.C. for the convening of the Electoral College, which followed a contentious 2020 election that was fraught with suspicion and malfeasance.
Despite the unarmed “insurrectionists” having provably killed no one, and hundreds being simply let into the Capitol building by the Capitol Police, the event is held up as a potential “coup” that could have changed the course of American history. It very well may have regardless, but not for the reasons many Americans think.
Also in attendance at the Electoral College protest outside the Capitol building were far-right and anarchist groups painted by the media as being among the Trump-supporting throng, but were actually attracted to the brewing chaos. These extremist groups had disparate agendas, and as a new report is laying out, were seemingly penetrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with undercover agents and informants.
Revolver News asks a series of questions leading to the discovery that in the charging documents there is a pattern of legal action suggesting FBI undercover agents and informants were potentially among the extremists in attendance at the Capitol building on January 6th.
In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI, DOJ, Pentagon and network news have labeled most responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the federal government, or informants of said agencies?
Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous “siege” and what roles did they play (merely passive informants or active instigators)?
Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?
After ruling out the MAGA “tourists” that were let into the Capitol building as not fitting the profile of the “domestic extremist,” the report turns its attention to the extremist groups that intel agencies had advanced warning would show up that day. The absence of adequate security measures in place for these extremists is another matter that will be addressed further on below.
“We are especially interested in the unindicted co-conspirators who belonged to any of the big three ‘militia groups’ — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters,” Revolver says. “Indeed, it is these militia groups whose behavior, statements and planning leading up to and during 1/6 most closely align with the ‘violent insurrectionist’ caricature we hear about in the media, and which the government claims to be going after in its aggressive prosecutions.”
The Revolver piece then notes the parallels between the Michigan plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer and the January 6th “insurrection.” It notes that there were five undercover agents and federal informants among the fourteen involved in the “plot.” It also notes, remarkably, that the lead FBI agent who oversaw what appears to be an “entrapment” plot went on to oversee the January 6th operation.
“And, as the cherry on top, what if we told you that the director of the Detroit FBI Field Office, who oversaw the infiltration operation of the Michigan Plot, was subsequently granted a highly coincidental promotion to the D.C. office, where he is now the lead FBI agent for all 1/6 cases?” the report notes.
In summary, the Michigan plot appeared to be a ‘dry run’ for the January 6th operation, if the pattern continues to hold true for the Capitol riots. We will see that this “dry run” approach was also evident with a pro-Antifa demonstrator who was conveniently a documentary witness to one of the most controversial events that day: The shooting of Ashli Babbitt.
“In the above excerpt, the FBI acknowledges the use of both confidential informants and undercover employees over the course of several months leading up to the so-called ‘thwarted plot’,” the report says. “Specifically, the complaint acknowledges two confidential informants and two undercover employees. Subsequent to the DOJ’s filing charges, however, another deep undercover informant unexpectedly outed himself (more on that later), bringing the tally of known government operatives up to five.”
The Revolver story then clarifies that it does not yet have evidence that FBI informants or undercover agents had penetrated the “big three” militia groups. But it does press for answers.
“The above parallels between the Michigan Plot and 1/6 do not necessarily mean that the the FBI had undercover informants and operatives who were involved in 1/6,” Revolver says. “But it sure as heck reinforces our intuition that it’s a distinct possibility. And it forces us to ask the question once again — if the government foiled the Michigan Plot, why didn’t they step in to stop the so-called siege on 1/6?”
This is indeed one of the key questions about January 6th. On Tuesday, a top Army leader actually testified on this matter at the second hearing held by the House Oversight & Reform Committee on the Capitol riots. The general actually reinforces what has been apparent to many: Someone issued a “stand down” order ahead of the Capitol riots. Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt underscored at the hearing, effectively, that it wasn’t him.
The general described an “urgent” call to provide immediate support to the Capitol security team. Lt. Gen. Piatt then relates how he was directed to have the staff “prepare a response.”
“I communicated this on the conference call,” Piatt said. “But those on the line were convinced that I was denying the request, which I did not have the authority to do. Despite clearly saying three times that we were not denying the request, we need to prepare a plan for when the Secretary of the Army gains approval.”
Once again, a general testified as if orders were coming in from above the military’s head about maintaining a light presence at the Capitol, despite intelligence that there would likely be a volatile situation.
Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt said “the Pentagon wanted to be careful about their response in part because of concerns about military helicopters that had flown low over Washington streets during protests over the killing of George Floyd by police in the summer of 2020,” the AP reported. This echoes the testimony of D.C. National Guard Commanding General William J. Walker in March that there were restrictions on the National Guard due to concern over “optics.”
General Piatt also notes the response to the bomb threats at the RNC and DNC offices, which are incidents that the American people still don’t have answers for. There are no known, named suspects charged for those bomb threats.
This brings us to the issue of unindicted co-conspirators addressed in the Revolver story. The investigators provide a straightforward legal analysis about why plea deals and immunity do not easily explain how 20 unindicted co-conspirators have thus far escaped charges. The aggressive charging pattern of the Department of Justice makes it unlikely that the Acting U.S. Attorney for D.C. Michael Sherwin would inexplicably spare these co-conspirators under his “Shock and Awe” prosecutorial campaign.
As Tucker Carlson noted in his interview with Revolver editor Darren Beattie, there is the matter of certain unindicted co-conspirators from the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. For the sake of compressing this report, the interview will be provided below. Suffice to say, the FBI’s treatment of Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio, a known FBI informant, and “Person Two” and “Person Three” referenced in the indictment of Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell.
Part 2 of the interview below.🔻 pic.twitter.com/BZO9KmoGAO
— Becker News (@NewsBecker) June 16, 2021
The Revolver report raises several disturbing issues, in part because it fits with a newly declassified report that the FBI knowingly violated the Constitution to track down potential ‘racially motivated violent extremists’ in the midst of a contested election. It shows that the FBI pursued extremists in November that would fit the profile of future Capitol rioters by tapping into a National Security Agency database that trawls and records Americans’ communications.
It fits with the documented evidence that the Democrats were hatching an “incitement” narrative against Donald Trump as early as March 2020, as was revealed in a bombshell “Time” article that exposed the organized left’s efforts to “fortify” the 2020 election.
“An order to hold back heavy riot-control weapons left Capitol Police at a grave disadvantage as front-line officers, vastly outnumbered, fought to protect Congress from a violent mob Jan. 6,” the Washington Post reported.
“Inspector General Michael Bolton told the House Administration Committee that a deputy assistant chief of police instructed officers not to use the weapons — including stingballs and 40mm launchers — out of concern that ‘they could potentially cause life-altering injury and/or death, if they were misused in any way’,” the Post said.
It fits with expert eyewitness reports of “agents provocateurs” in the January 6th crowd. It fits with the issues of lax security raised by former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, the “unusual” directive given to the Commanding General of the National Guard in D.C. demonstrating concerns about “optics.”
It also fits with the bizarre circumstances surrounding the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. It all appears to have been scripted and played out with each actor playing their roles.
John Sullivan, the documentarian who was subsequently charged by the FBI, conveniently appeared at the storming of a state house in Oregon prior to showing up at the Capitol on January 6th, just to capture what appears to have been an orchestrated shooting. If you haven’t had a chance to watch it, there is a video that sets out to demonstrate odd incidents in Sullivan’s footage. It is not a conclusive version of events, but it raises even more questions about potential federal involvement in the events on that day.
The American people can no longer trust the government to tell them what is real and what is fake — which may precisely be the entire point. If the federal government was involved in orchestrating the Capitol riots, it sadly would not even be surprising at this point.