.

NEW YORK TIMES CONFIRMS REVOLVER'S CLAIM OF FBI INVOLVEMENT IN JANUARY 6th... BUT WHAT ARE THEY STILL HIDING?

Quote
.
In mid June, Revolver News published a groundbreaking investigative report arguing that certain elements of the federal government not only had foreknowledge of the events of 1/6, but that some senior members of the major militia groups blamed for the so-called “insurrection” were actually federal informants or undercover operatives themselves.

Scarcely three months after this report, the New York Times took the occasion of a sleepy Saturday morning to quietly confirm that there were indeed FBI informants among those militia members who “stormed the Capitol.”

  • As scores of Proud Boys made their way, chanting and shouting, toward the Capitol on Jan. 6, one member of the far-right group was busy texting a real-time account of the march.

    The recipient was his F.B.I. handler.

    In the middle of an unfolding melee that shook a pillar of American democracy — the peaceful transfer of power — the bureau had an informant in the crowd, providing an inside glimpse of the action, according to confidential records obtained by The New York Times. [NYT]


We learn that this particular informant, affiliated with a Midwest chapter of the Proud Boys militia group, provided the FBI advance warning that he would be traveling to DC along with other Proud Boys. The informant also kept his FBI handler in the loop as the “storming of the Capitol” unfolded throughout the day on the 6th.The piece goes on to reference an “additional informant from another Proud Boys chapter that took part in the sacking of the Capitol.”

The confirmed existence of at least two (and likely many more) FBI informants who went into the Capitol strengthens the case for federal foreknowledge to such an extent that even the New York Times was compelled to acknowledge the following:

  • But the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.


It is impossible to overstate the importance of whether this “far greater visibility” amounts to genuine foreknowledge regarding the events of 1/6, as the Times piece strongly suggests it does. We elaborated on the implications of federal foreknowledge of 1/6 in our initial report:

  • If it turns out that the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, or a similar agency) had undercover agents or confidential informants embedded in any of the groups involved in 1/6, the “federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence” looks less like an innocent mistake and more like something sinister.

    Indeed, if the federal government knew of a potential for violence in or around the Capitol on 1/6 and failed to call for heightened security, the agencies responsible may in fact be legally liable for the damages incurred during that day.

    It is unsettling to entertain the possibility that the federal government knew of a potential for violence on 1/6 and did nothing to stop it. It presents the question: why would agencies, or certain elements within, sit back and let something like this happen on purpose?

    Read More: Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge



The notion that the FBI and possibly other agencies had foreknowledge of what was going to take place on 1/6 and did nothing to stop it, ostensibly for political reasons, is damning indeed. This is why the idea that 1/6 was the product of an “intelligence failure” has been such an important and carefully defended aspect of the Regime’s official narrative. In other words, it wasn’t that the intelligence agencies knew what might take place on 1/6 and did nothing to stop it—rather, the Capitol just happened to have uniquely poor security and mysterious multi-hour delays for back-up, all as a result of “intelligence failure,”—a failure of “visibility,” as it were.

We see a version of this “intelligence failure” narrative, for instance, in the conclusion of a five-month long bipartisan Senate investigation into the causes of 1/6:

  • A bipartisan Senate investigation of the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection found security and intelligence failures at every level of government that led to the breach of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob as lawmakers in a joint session were certifying the 2020 election.

    The 95-page report, a product of a roughly five-month, joint probe by the Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committees, found significant breakdowns ranging “from federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence to a lack of planning and preparation by (U.S. Capitol Police) and law enforcement leadership.” [ABC]


Senator Amy Klobuchar cleverly affirmed the “intelligence failure” thesis even as she obliquely asked FBI Director Christopher Wray about the presence of informants in militia groups imputed to the 1/6 “insurrection.”
[video clip, Klobuchar and Wray ]


Note how 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 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.

Now, as a result of the recent New York Times piece, we definitely know that the premise of Sen. Klobuchar’s non-question was false. We know for a fact that there were at least two FBI informants posturing as militiamen who stormed the Capitol, and probably many more. We know that said informants notified the FBI of the Proud Boys’ plans to go to DC in advance, were part of the Proud Boys’ group chats, were embedded inside Proud Boys crowds beginning at 10 a.m. that morning, and that at least one informant was giving his FBI handler real-time updates as the events of 1/6 developed — including from inside the Capitol this informant stormed.


[ much more at the linked article ]
https://www.revolver.news/2021/09/new-york-times-confirms-fbi-involvement-jan-6/

The bottom line:
The FBI had at least 8 "informants"/agents provacateur embedded just in the Proud Boys, stoking the protesters with violent rhetoric, and smashing windows and attacking police themselves, DISGUISED as Trump protesters, *NOT* actual Trump supporters. In truth FBI/Democrat agents THERE TO FRAME the ACTUAL Trump-supporter protesters.

So again: If the majority of the tiny group of "Trump protesters" who committed violence on Jan 6 2021 were FBI, Antifa and other non-Trump supporters, how the events of that day be fairly portrayed as Trump supporters, or blame Trump himself for violence done TO FRAME them? The evidence keeps piling up that it was not Trump supporters, and was in fact FBI agents, other police, QAntifa, and other groups framing Trump supporters.
The most recent report I saw on Laura Ingraham last night, shows that at least 40 in the crowd were (Democrat-zealot) FBI agents hidden among the January 6th protesters. Not even counting the Antifa and other groups there to frame Trump supporters that day.
(Julie Kelly interview, 32 minutes into clip)
https://rumble.com/v2ekci8-commerci...e-w-laura-ingraham-weeknights-10pm-.html

And even more ( also 32 minutes into this video clip) 13 DC Metro police, undercover disguised as Trump supporters in the crowd on Jan 6th :
https://rumble.com/v2gqqsi-the-ingraham-angle-4623-fox-breaking-news-april-6-2023.html

So... if the overwhelming majority of people stoking the mob and committing violence and vandalism that day were NOT actual Trump supporters, how can it be fairly blamed on Trump supporters?

You know the answer: It can't.

THE REAL STORY SHOULD BE: despite all the attempts by FBI, Antifa, etc. to incite a crowd of over 100,000 Trump supporters, PEACEFULLY showing their support for the Republican Senators and House members LEGALLY challenging the electoral count of an illegitimate 2020 U.S. presidential election, the thousands of Trump-supporter protesters remained overwhelmingly peaceful.
Which begs the question, why are these overwhelmingly peaceful protesters being arrested and detained in federal prison under terrible conditions, without trial and often unable to even communicate with attorneys? And why would attorney general Merrick Garland and his DOJ and FBI round up another 1,200 of them?
To prop up a false Democrat-Bolshevik narrative and pointlessly ruin more lives. That's why. The only reason.