I would not put it past them.
Because of January 6th, says the chief law enforcement officer in the United States of America, and many other members of Joe Biden’s cabinet, we must now use law enforcement and military force to arrest, imprison, and otherwise crush anyone who leads opposition to Joe Biden’s government. That’s their position. They say it out loud.
So what is this, exactly? Well, it’s a big change in the way the U.S. government treats its own citizens. We’re looking at the transformation of a democratic republic into something else. We’re looking at growing authoritarianism. That’s not an overstatement.
,,,,,,why are there still so many things, basic factual matters, we don’t know about that day? Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol? What could possibly be the reason for that? Even as they call for more openness. We need to get to the bottom of it. They could release those tapes today, but they’re not. Why?
We ought to be asking those questions, urgently. Because as the attorney general reminded us, a lot depends on the answers. At least one news organization is. Revolver.news is a new site and turned out to be one of the last honest outlets on the internet. A new piece on the site suggests an answer to some of these questions. We know the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers who were present at the capitol on January 6, not just the one who killed Ashli Babbitt. According to the government’s own court filings, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot. Sometimes in violent ways.
We know that because, without fail, the government has thrown the book at most of the people who were in the Capitol on January 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them. Many of them are still in solitary confinement tonight. But, strangely, some people who participated in the riot haven’t been charged. Look at the documents. The government calls these people “unindicted co-conspirators.” What does that mean? It means that in potentially every case, they’re FBI operatives.
For example, one of those “unindicted co-conspirators” is someone the government identifies only as “Person Two.” According to those documents, “Person Two” stayed in the same hotel room as an “insurrectionist” named Thomas Caldwell, who’s alleged to be a member of the group called the Oath Keepers. “Person Two” also “stormed the barricades” at the Capitol on January 6, alongside Thomas Caldwell.
The government’s indictments further indicate that Caldwell — who by the way is a 65-year-old man — was led to believe there would be a “quick reaction force” also participating in January 6. That quick reaction force, Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called “Person Three” — who had a hotel room and an accomplice.
But wait. Here’s the interesting thing. “Person Two” and “Person Three” were organizers of the riot. The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6, according to government documents. And those two are not alone.
In all, Revolver News reported that there are, quote, “upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities — and in some cases much, much more severe activities — as those named alongside them in indictments.”
Huh? So it turns out this white supremacist insurrection was, again, by the government’s own admission in these documents, organized, at least in part, by government agents.
Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. In March, the FBI director admitted the bureau is infiltrating as many dissident groups as it possibly could.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: There must be moments where you think if we would have known, if we could have infiltrated this group or found out what they were doing, and that — you have those moments?
WRAY: Any time there is an attack, especially one that’s this horrific, that strikes right at the heart of our system the government, right at the time of transfer of power is being discussed, you can be darn tooting that we are focused very, very hard on how could we get better sources, better information, better analysis so that we can make sure that something that what happened on January 6th never happens again.
Wait a second – there’s a huge difference between using an informant to find out what a group you find threatening might do, and paying people to organize a violent action, which is what happened, apparently according to government documents, on January 6.
That’s a line, and the FBI has crossed it. And that’s not the first time.
……Remember that plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer? And Whitmer is able to cover some of her own incompetence, although not all, by pointing to the fact that she’s not a victim. In the FBI’s telling, a whole team of insurrectionists was going to drive a van up to Gretchen Whitmer’s vacation house and throw her in the back and drive away.
The mastermind, the bureau said, was a man called Adam Fox. Who was Adam Fox? He turned out to be a homeless guy who was living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop.
The whole story was a farce. Insulting really. But if you read the government’s charging documents carefully, and you should, you’ll see that it gets even more ridiculous. It turns out that one of the five people in the planned “Gretchen Whitmer kidnap van” was an FBI agent. In the van. Another was an FBI informant. The feds admit that an informant or undercover agent was “usually present” in the group’s meetings. In other words, nearly half the gang of kidnappers were working for the FBI. Remember the guy who suggested using a bomb to blow up a bridge as part of the plot? That got a lot of coverage. That guy was an undercover FBI agent.
If you wondered why they’re always comparing January 6 to 9/11, there’s your answer. They’re using the same tactics. And a lot of us missed this the first time around. We didn’t see the obvious. If you empower the government to violate civil liberties in pursuit of a foreign terror organization, and there are foreign terror organizations, it’s just a matter of time before ambitious politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent. That’s what we’re seeing now. We should have seen it earlier.
Trevor Aaronson’s book “The Terror Factory” analyzed every terrorism prosecution from 2001 to 2013. Aaronson found that at least 50 defendants were on trial because of behavior that the FBI had not only encouraged, but enabled. FBI agents were essentially the plotters in these crimes. They made the crimes, crimes.
In 2012, a writer for The Nation called Petra Bartosiewicz found that FBI informants had quote,
“Crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior, which is allowed and good, to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself.”
And we checked. We looked carefully, and that’s not an exaggeration. One of those plots was an Islamic terrorist attack in 2015 in Garland Texas. It turns out the FBI played an active role in that shooting.
……In a moment of uncharacteristic honesty, a former FBI Assistant Director called Frank Figliuzzi explained on MSNBC. The goal is to round up political dissenters and throw them in solitary — including members of Congress.
FIGLIUZZI: What have we learned from our experience with international terrorism? In order to address that problem, arresting low-level operatives is merely a speed bump, not a roadblock. In order to really tackle terrorism, this time domestically, you’ve got to attack and dismantle the command and control element of a terrorist group…That may mean people sitting in Congress right now.
The report from Revolver:
Of all the questions asked, words spoken, and ink spilled on the so-called “Capitol Siege” of January 6, 2021, none hold the key to the entire event quite like what Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked of Christopher Wray.
The Democrat from Minnesota asked the Trump-appointed FBI Director: Did the federal government infiltrate any of the so-called “militia” organizations claimed to be responsible for planning and executing the Capitol Siege?
Christopher Wray is able to uncomfortably weasel his way out of answering the question directly, partially because Klobuchar does him the courtesy of not asking him the question directly. Klobuchar instead asks the FBI director if he wishes he had infiltrated the militia organizations allegedly involved in 1/6 — assuming from the outset that there was in fact no infiltration, thereby providing the FBI director an easy way to avoid addressing the question one way or another.
Revolver News is willing to address the matter directly in the following three questions:
- 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.)?
……If it turns out the federal government did in fact have undercover agents or confidential informants embedded within the so-called militia groups indicted for conspiring to obstruct the Senate certification on 1/6, the implications would be nothing short of seismic. Especially if such agents or informants enjoyed extremely senior-level positions within such groups.
One of the key consensus points among the FBI-DOJ and the regime media is the idea that, while 1/6 is primarily the fault of Trump-supporting QAnon-infused “domestic terrorists,” it is secondarily the fault of so-called “intelligence failures.”
……Up until now, the overwhelming (perhaps exclusive) share of counter-establishment reporting on 1/6 has focused on absolving the first group. And this is a valuable thing. The notion that these harmless “MAGA moms” wandering around the Capitol were domestic terrorists engaged in an insurrection is absurd. That many of these people are being held in prison, without bail, under harsh conditions, amounts to an unacceptable and outrageous abuse of basic human rights.
……The DOJ kicked off what has become one the largest and most aggressive prosecutorial dragnets in American history by announcing a campaign of “Shock and Awe.” No one gets off the hook. No one gets leniency. And everyone playing a bit part gets maximum time because this is about sending a message.
Listen to then-Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin describing this remarkably merciless “Shock and Awe” prosecutorial campaign:
“I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure, that there was shock and awe. That we could charge as many people as possible before [January] 20th. And it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C., because they were like, ‘If we go there, we’re going to get charged.’”
Much more at the link.
There are loopholes that allow the FBI to infiltrate political and religious groups. The problem is, they abuse that by using the rules as political persecution.
The once-censored rules explain that for non-sensitive groups, a supervising agent must sign off if the plan is for an FBI agent to infiltrate a group in order to gain information or as part of an investigation. An informant doing the same thing does not require extra approval. If the participation of the FBI agent or informant will influence the group’s activities, then the head counsel for the division needs to review the plan. If the FBI’s presence is specifically likely to influence the group’s First Amendment-protected activity (if, as the guide specifies, the FBI participant plans to steer the group’s agenda on “social, religious, or political” issues), then the FBI’s office of general counsel must get involved, and perhaps senior FBI officials.
The requirements for infiltrating a group considered sensitive are even more stringent: The FBI agent must get approval both from a supervisor and from the head lawyer of his or her division, while also notifying a committee that oversees FBI operations. And if the intention or likelihood is that this infiltration will influence a sensitive group’s exercise of its First Amendment rights, then the FBI director must sign off.
These rules appear to offer layers of oversight. But they only kick in when certain conditions are met. The policy guide gives agents considerable discretion in deciding whether infiltrating an organization constitutes “undisclosed participation” at all — and therefore, whether it requires the extra approvals.
For instance, none of the rules apply if a foreign government operates the organization, or if the FBI “reasonably” believes the organization to be acting on behalf of a foreign power, so long as its U.S.-based members are mostly foreigners. And the rules only apply to groups the FBI deems “legitimate.” The redacted definition of a “legitimate” group is one “formed for lawful purposes” and whose “activities are primarily lawful.” This would exclude obvious criminal networks but could also exclude activist groups if an agent decides that their “primary purpose” is to hold protests involving unlawful acts.
“An organization whose primary purpose is to engage in destruction of property as a means to bring public attention to commercial activities that harm the environment is also not a legitimate organization within the meaning of this definition because its primary purpose is to engage in criminal conduct,” the guide says. “On the other hand, an organization that seeks to bring attention to a social or political cause by engaging primarily in lawful protest or advocacy, but also some acts of civil disobedience, is a legitimate organization.”
Michael German, a former FBI agent who is a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, said that such language gives agents wiggle room to justify themselves if they are found to have been improperly investigating an organization.
The Garland, Texas shooting was a prime example.
It seems like just the other day that CNN’s chief anchor was telling us the shocking story of the 2015 terror attack in Garland, Texas. That’s the one in which an FBI agent texted the shooter words of encouragement. The FBI literally worked to make the shooting happen. It’s not an exaggeration, we know that. An FBI agent was even present at the attack.
ANDERSON COOPER: “But it turns out the undercover agent did more than just communicate online with Elton Simpson. In an affidavit filed in another case the government disclosed that the FBI undercover agent had actually “traveled to Garland, Texas, and was present… at the event.” … the undercover FBI agent was in a car directly behind Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi when they started shooting. This cell-phone photo of school security guard Bruce Joiner and police officer Greg Stevens was taken by the undercover agent seconds before the attack. The idea that he’s taking a photograph of the two people who happen to be attacked moments before they’re attacked. ”
……So tell us again how the FBI would never have anything to do with the attack on the capitol on January 6? These were some of the “counter-terrorism tactics” the FBI adopted after 9-11. Now the bureau has changed its focus. It’s no longer going after Islamic extremism. It’s now going after Joe Biden’s political opponents – those are the domestic terrorists they’ve been telling you about. This is a nightmare, it’s a nightmare for civil liberties, for democracy itself. We should have seen it coming. We didn’t.