Yes. It appears that the FBI very likely did have a role in organizing the January 6th Capitol breach.
Questions About the FBI’s Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media
The FBI has been manufacturing and directing terror plots and criminal rings for decades. But now, reverence for security state agencies reigns.
The axis of liberal media outlets and their allied activist groups — CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, Media Matters — are in an angry uproar over a recent report questioning the foreknowledge and involvement of the FBI in the January 6 Capitol riot. As soon as that new report was published on Monday, a consensus instantly emerged in these liberal media precincts that this is an unhinged, ignorant and insane conspiracy theory that deserves no consideration.
The original report, published by Revolver News and then amplified by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, documented ample evidence of FBI infiltration of the three key groups at the center of the 1/6 investigation — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters — and noted how many alleged riot leaders from these groups have not yet been indicted. While low-level protesters have been aggressively charged with major felonies and held without bail, many of the alleged plot leaders have thus far been shielded from charges.
The implications of these facts are obvious. It seems extremely likely that the FBI had numerous ways to know of any organized plots regarding the January 6 riot (just as the U.S. intelligence community, by its own admission, had ample advanced clues of the 9/11 attack but, according to their excuse, tragically failed to “connect the dots”). There is no doubt that the FBI has infiltrated at least some if not all of these groups — which it has been warning for years pose a grave national security threat — with informants and/or undercover spies. It is known that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio has served as an FBI informant in the past, and the disrupted 2020 plot by Three Percenters members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) was shaped and driven by what The Wall Street Journal reported were the FBI’s “undercover agents and confidential informants.”
What would be shocking and strange is not if the FBI had embedded informants and other infiltrators in the groups planning the January 6 Capitol riot. What would be shocking and strange — bizarre and inexplicable — is if the FBI did not have those groups under tight control. And yet the suggestion that FBI informants may have played some role in the planning of the January 6 riot was instantly depicted as something akin to, say, 9/11 truth theories or questions about the CIA’s role in JFK’s assassination or, until a few weeks ago, the COVID lab-leak theory: as something that, from the perspective of Respectable Serious Circles, only a barely-sane, tin-foil-hat-wearing lunatic would even entertain.
This reaction is particularly confounding given how often the FBI did exactly this during the first War on Terror, and how commonplace discussions of this tactic were in mainstream liberal circles. Over the last decade, I reported on countless cases for The Guardian and The Intercept where the FBI targeted some young American Muslims they viewed as easily manipulated — due to financial distress, emotional problems, or both — and then deployed informants and undercover agents to dupe them into agreeing to join terrorist plots that had been created, designed and funded by the FBI itself, only to then congratulate themselves for breaking up the plot which they themselves initiated. As I asked in one headline about a particularly egregious entrapment case: “Why Does the FBI Have to Manufacture its Own Plots if Terrorism and ISIS Are Such Grave Threats?”
In 2011, Mother Jones published an outstanding, lengthy investigation by reporter Trevor Aaronson, entitled “The Informations,” which asked: “The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?” Aaronson covered numerous similar cases for The Intercept where the FBI designed, directed and even funded the terror plots and other criminal rings they then boasted of disrupting. A widely praised TEDTalk by Aaronson, which, in the words of organizers, “reveals a disturbing FBI practice that breeds terrorist plots by exploiting Muslim-Americans with mental health problems,” featured this central claim: “There’s an organization responsible for more terrorism plots in the United States than al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab and ISIS combined: The FBI.”
The Guardian, Nov. 16, 2011
So far from being some warped conspiracy theory, that the FBI purposely targets vulnerable people and infiltrates groups in order to create attacks and direct targets to engage in them is indisputably true, well established, and a commonly reported fact in mainstream liberal media. Exactly that has been happening for decades.
Read more at:Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open – RevolverIs the FBI protecting “Oath Keeper” kingpin Stewart Rhodes from federal charges because he’s one of theirs? Did Rhodes entrap his people?https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-missing-link-fbi-unindicted-co-conspirator/
The following links have to do with past malfeasance of the FBI and how that modus operandi informs us of what their current state of activities most likely are. This the first link to
Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.
COINTELPRO The FBI began COINTELPRO—short for Counterintelligence Program—in 1956 to disrupt the activities of the Communist Party of the United States. In the 1960s, it was expanded to include a number of other domestic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Black Panther Party. All COINTELPRO operations were ended in 1971. Although limited in scope (about two-tenths of one percent of the FBI’s workload over a 15-year period), COINTELPRO was later rightfully criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons.
MORE EVIDENCE JAN. 6 ‘INSURRECTION’ MAY HAVE BEEN AN INTELLIGENCE OPERATION
Investigative journalist, Darren Beattie joins the War Room to discuss the details of his latest bombshell article about what he calls “The highest-stakes, most dangerous and most important story in the country.”
He says his previous article, reported on by Tucker Carlson is the reason why the NSA began spying on the latter.
Beattie says, “It all boils down to one question. Was 1/6 an ‘intelligence failure’, as FBI Director Christopher Wray says – or was it an intelligence set-up?”
He says one clue that it was a set-up lies in the upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the 1/6 indictments made against members of the key militia groups implicated, who played various roles in the Capitol Riot and who have not been charged for the same activities — in some cases, more severe activities — as those named alongside them in the indictments. Beattie believes these individuals remain unindicted as a result of grants of immunity, because they are either federal agents or assets.
“And yet, a sandwich shop owner faces 60 years for saying, ‘No, no, not yet.’ That discrepancy was tremendously suspicious to us.
In this second piece, we were able to refine this question still further by asking…about one of those unindicted persons referenced in the charging documents…the head of the Oath Keepers Militia, the biggest militia in the United States…and we basically open up the story with the following: ‘Hey Republicans, you can crack open the entire story of January 6, 2021 (“1/6”) with one simple, relentless question: what is the FBI and Army Counterintelligence’s relationship with Stewart Rhodes?’
“I would not have published this if I didn’t have an extreme confidence level in this piece. If this is right, that means that the head of the major militia imputed to 1/6 would have had a relationship with the Federal Government, either as an informant or an undercover agent.
“If that’s the case, it’s not a stretch whatsoever to say that 1/6 was actually orchestrated by the government, that it was actually a set-up…This false 1/6 narrative, that I believe was engineered as an infiltration operation; this false narrative is now the key pretext that our National Security state is using to ram through Patriot Act 2.0, the Domestic War on Terror.”
Beattie believes that the Intelligence Community has gone rogue and that. “If we don’t bring them to heel, we don’t have a country.”
Running Time: 6 mins
Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open
SETUP: On Jan 6 Secret Service Offered to Escort Roger Stone Into the Capitol
Roger Stone: You’ve just hit a very good point, and that is when the latest narrative on January 6th, which is the great recycle. One outlet said that the Feds are now focused on the fact that I was the mastermind – categorically false. Wasn’t there, didn’t know anything about it in advance, didn’t have any involvement whatsoever.
“I’m honored…” Liz Cheney defends joining Pelosi’s select committee
Liz Cheney is ignoring threats by McCarthy over losing her committee assignments and is defending her joining Pelosi’s partisan select committee on the Capitol riot
Former President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington D.C. on Jan. 6 to protect protesters who were coming to object to the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump asked if D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had requested National Guard troops. It is not known if she did, but Reuters reports that Trump told then Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller to “fill” the request.
In a Fox News Article, Greg Jarrett questions why the committee has not asked why, again knowing the advance intelligence from the FBI, Homeland Security, and Capitol Police, that there was the chance of violence erupting.
As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi oversees the Capitol Police, and as Jarrett says, “is partially responsible for maintaining adequate security.”
Trump wanted troops to protect his supporters at Jan. 6 rally
May 12 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump’s former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.
Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president’s fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.
According to Miller’s testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia’s mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to “fill” the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: “Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.”
Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.
Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Democrat who chairs the committee, demanded answers from Miller on why National Guard troops did not arrive until hours after the building was overrun.
Miller testified that the U.S. military was deliberately restrained that day when Trump’s rally turned into an assault by hundreds of his followers that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer.
Miller testified that he was concerned in the days before Jan. 6 that sending National Guard troops to Washington would fan fears of a military coup or that Trump advisers were advocating martial law.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.”― H.L. Mencken