There was a story that came out a couple of weeks ago; you’ve probably heard it by now. So I’m looking at it not to bring you news, but to look at the meaning.
The originating article is “Unindicted Co-Conspirators in1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge” Revolver, June 14, 2021.
 |
| screenshot of the Revolver story |
Tucker Carlson talked about that report, and the inferences we can draw from it, the next day (at 4:52 in video).
 |
| Tucker Carlson discusses the Revolver story. screenshot from here |
And then he responded to the swarm of attacks for his report:
“Tucker Carlson’s Response to Media Freak Out About Questioning FBI’s Role in January 6th is ‘Classic Tucker.’”
The Revolver story suggests asking three questions as we look at 1/6 (their shorthand for the January 6th breaching of the capitol). The links are also theirs:
· 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.)?
Carlson asks different but related questions:
1. How
many of the so-called insurrectionists on January 6 had a relationship with the
FBI? How many of these FBI moles encouraged others that day to break the law at
the Capitol?
2. If
the Justice Department knew there were going to be protestors massing at the
Capitol that day, and it’s clear they did know, then why didn’t they do
anything to stop the riot? Why did police at the Capitol allow protestors to
walk in, as video shows that they did?
3. Why
can’t we see the tape for ourselves? The government is hiding more than 14,000
hours of video surveillance tape that shows exactly what did happen at the
Capitol that day? Why are they hiding that? And why aren’t news organizations
demanding to see it?
Conclusions are speculation, until proof can be shown—but the government's failure to provide the evidence that could debunk the speculation is added evidence that these investigative journalists are on the right track.
The Revolver journalists walk us through their
systematic research.
The groups at the capitol can be divided into two groups: First, “mostly harmless tourists,” what they call “MAGA moms,” just regular people who were there to hear a Trump speech and participate in a gathering to tell Congress to consider the alternate electors in the several contested states. Some of these may have entered the capitol after doors were open and guards guided them in, then walked around, taking selfies. These are either completely innocent or are guilty of minor trespassing or property crimes. Nothing violent.
 |
| people let into the Capitol on January 6th screenshots from this video tweeted by Christina Bobb |
Second, those who were “violent with police officers, broke down barricades, smashed windows, belonged to a ‘militia’ group engaged in military-style planning prior to the event, discussed transporting heavy weaponry, and so forth.”
The writers point out that much effort has gone to
defending those innocent people at the capitol that day. And they need to be
defended. But that has left the real story undiscovered. The writers say,
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.
They have been looking carefully at the charging documents.
What they want to know is, how many of those involved in that second, violent
group were undercover government agents or their informants?
There’s a long history of undercover agents going beyond
their legitimate duty to observe and inform, and moving to the role of participant—or
even instigator. As a most recent example, they look closely at the kidnapping
attempt of Michigan Governor Whitmer. Of the 14 indicted, 5 were FBI people. And it
appears they were among the planners, the ones who pushed the event from a
protest to a serious illegal act.
It looks as though, left to their own devices, the groups
being infiltrated would have steered clear of serious illegal actions. They
wouldn’t even have conceived of them.
In other words, it’s a basic case of entrapment.
 |
| Steven D'Antuono, Assistant Dir. FBI DC office, reporting Jan. 12, 2021, on Capitol Hill riots. screenshot from here |
Yet, after this discovery of FBI entrapment, rather than being disciplined, the Detroit field office manager, Steven D'Antuono, was promoted to head the Washington, DC, field office, in time for the January 6th riot. So,
Revolver took special notice of not only the
unusual volume of unindicted co-conspirators, but a still more unusual feature
that the statements and actions of the unindicted co-conspirators in many cases
seemed far more egregious and aggressive than those of the persons actually
indicted.
 |
| US Attorney Michael Sherwin explains his "shock and awe" policy on 60 Minutes. screenshot from here |
It appears the FBI, working with similar groups as in Michigan, infiltrated in much
the same way ahead of January 6th. And it looks likely that what happened at the capitol on 1/6 would
have been nothing more than a loud demonstration without the urging of government
infiltrators.
At the very least, if infiltrators and/or informants were
aware of the potential for violence that day, why did they go along but fail to
notify their agencies? In fact, it’s inconceivable that they did not inform
leadership. Leadership knew.
So it’s worse if they notified their handlers and no
precautions were taken. Worse yet, if they notified them, and precautions were
prevented. It does look possible that 1/6 was that worst case.
A bipartisan Senate report took five months to show, oh dear,
we had intelligence failures and some lapses in judgment. Not satisfying.
Were their lapses purposeful? To entrap? We might know for certain, if
we could see unredacted charging documents and/or the 14,000 hours of video
surveillance.
Joe Biden has called 1/6 the worst attack on our country
since the 1800s, maybe the Civil War era. Worse than Pearl Harbor. Worse than 9/11. Worse than
presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations. Worse than previous
occupations of the capitol. Worse, certainly, than the ongoing riots in
Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and elsewhere—including autonomous zones claiming
land seized from the United States—which are labeled simply as mostly peaceful protests,
while violent crime skyrockets 400% and higher in those cities.
And yet the rioters at the capitol took zero lives. That’s
right, the only life lost because of violence was Ashli Babbit, an unarmed woman,
by all accounts a patriot, a veteran, who got caught up in the break-in of the Senate
Chamber—shot at point blank range by a police officer, when she was posing no
danger to anyone, and was surrounded by police, who could have nonviolently prevented
her from doing harm at any moment. We know it was an officer who shot her; we
don’t know his identity. We don’t have any word on discipline for this overuse
of force.
Early stories about the death of Officer Brian Sicknick being bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher and later dying of injuries was totally
fabricated. Later stories that he died from inhaling bear spray were also found to be false. He died the following day of what his family and medical records
report are unrelated natural causes. But do we know where the original lie came from? Who
reported it? What was their source? Why didn’t they corroborate it?
Among all the people present at the capitol that day, zero firearms were confiscated. The so-called insurrectionists were unarmed, and they killed no one. And they
left the premises within hours, and then left the city to go home.
No government officials were harmed. None were in danger;
they were cleared to safety in the first minutes of the breach.
The business of Congress continued later that evening—probably
going through with less objection than it would have without the interruption.
No one was charged with insurrection. Not one.
So what qualifies this as the most serious attack on our
country since the Civil War era? Nothing. Nothing but the administration’s narrative
saying so.
Were they (this administration) hoping greater violence would have been incited than was? Based on what their side had been incited to do since George Floyd's death last May? Were they intending to do what they did—broadly paint each and every Trump supporter/voter as an insurrectionist and potential domestic terrorist—and that was the plan regardless of how little violence there was? It’s probably a bit embarrassing to them to have to peddle this "greatest attack ever" lie when they only got as little violence incited as what happened.
They claimed Trump’s speech had incited the violence—even though
he called for no violence, and his speech was still ongoing a mile and a half
away when the breach happened. They impeached him for that anyway—after leaving
office—again, without evidence. They put up fencing and kept tens of thousands
of troops to guard the capitol for weeks afterward, as though the capitol were
under siege. And it might never again be our right as “We, the People” to enter
and tour our Capitol building.
They have identified hundreds as supposed insurrectionists, arrested
them, failed to charge them promptly, failed to bring them to trial, kept them
in solitary confinement for 100 days and longer. They’ve falsely accused people, raiding them in their homes—people who didn’t even enter
the capitol. (There's this story about an Alaska couple who attended the speech but never entered the capitol, where FBI agents revealed that Nancy Pelosi's laptop had indeed been stolen.) They’ve put people on a no-fly list and called them domestic
terrorist suspects.
If this were a socialist dictatorship or a banana republic,
we might expect this behavior from the administration and regime-media. But
here in America, as Tucker Carlson said, it’s still shocking. I hope it always will be.
In January, the week after the event, I wrote a long piece
on what I thought happened, with this conclusion:
I think the President called patriots to Washington to
encourage the legislature to protest the electoral votes in the states known to
have voting results that should not have been certified before the evidence was
considered. I think a million people showed up to support him in doing that
very thing. I think bad actors saw this as an opportunity to do damage to Trump
and to his supporters. These include agent provocateurs, possibly Antifa and
BLM, and also Pelosi and/or others who left the capitol vulnerable, possibly by
coordinating with those APs.
Add to the list of bad actors, the FBI’s leadership along with their undercover agents
and informants. Apparently they’re well trained in incitement and make pretty
good agent provocateurs.
If, indeed, we are under the rule of tyrants and their minions who would
carry out this entrapment and subsequent injustice, what else might they be
capable of?
·
Stealing an election.
·
Conspiring with media and private tech companies
to eradicate dissent.
·
Using a relatively nonlethal pandemic to enforce
controls to:
o Shut
down businesses and schools.
o Take
away people’s livelihoods.
o Attempt
to shut down religious worship.
o Prevent knowledge of treatments from getting to people, and even firing doctors to prevent them from using treatments—leading to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.
o Force
the use of EUA (emergency use authorization) injections.
o Force
injections on those with immunity, and those with low risk of harm from the
illness, including children, for whom the injection was not tested.
o Prevent
discussion of possible harm by the injections.
o Require
proof of injection for inclusion in society and economy.
·
Spending impossible sums of money that are
likely to collapse the economy, after which they could impose a new, controlled
economy.
·
Indoctrinating our children in schools with
ideologies that cause division and civilization decay/collapse.
·
Getting an inordinate number of people with damning
information to “commit suicide” in prison or elsewhere, under implausible conditions.
I’m sure there’s more—things that could be put in the “conspiracy
theory” bucket. But, with what we’ve seen, they’re not theoretical; they’re
real.
No comments:
Post a Comment