Source: Patty McMurray

Yesterday, founder of Revolver News and former Trump White House speechwriter Darren J. Beattie, tweeted about the conundrum the New York Times and federal agents are facing as it relates to the January 6th “insurrection” fabrication.

Darren J. Beattie of Revolver News reports – 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?

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]

One way for “insurrection” proponents to salvage their claim that there was no federal foreknowledge of 1/6 is to now assert there was no pre-planning on the part of the insurrectionists themselves. A trend towards this new narrative was suggested by several anonymous FBI sources, as recently reported by Reuters:

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations. [Reuters]

The main purpose of the narrative shift reflected in the Reuters report above is to manage expectations regarding indictments and prosecutions of both Trump’s inner circle and key militia groups allegedly involved in 1/6. The Feds need to manage public opinion about the culpability of Trump’s inner circle (as well as figures such as Alex Jones, Roger Stone, and others) because there simply isn’t enough evidence for a serious case. The Feds need to manage public opinion regarding the prosecution of key militia leaders because, as Revolver has reported extensively, it is very likely that many of them are actually federal agents or informants themselves.

The new notion that there was suddenly no coordination or organized plot behind 1/6 serves a convenient purpose, however, in preserving the official narrative that there was no federal foreknowledge of 1/6. If there was no foreplanning on the part of the “insurrectionists,” there could be no foreknowledge on the part of the federal government. This means that the government is absolved from the most sinister charge: knowing something was going to happen, and letting it happen on purpose.

Interestingly, the Proud Boys informant featured in the New York Times piece himself affirms the “no foreplanning” version of events:

In lengthy interviews, the records say, he also denied that the extremist organization planned in advance to storm the Capitol. The informant’s identity was not disclosed in the records.

The records describing the informant’s account of Jan. 6 — excerpts from his interviews and communications with the F.B.I. before, during and after the riot — dovetail with assertions made by defense lawyers who have argued that even though several Proud Boys broke into the Capitol, the group did not arrive in Washington with a preset plot to storm the building. [NYT]

While the version of events that there was no foreplanning on the part of so-called “insurrectionists” conveniently absolves the federal government of 1/6 foreknowledge, it is absolutely devastating to other fundamental aspects of the official narrative.

Funnily enough, New York Times reporter Alan Feuer himself, who published the recent revelation of multiple Proud Boy informants on the ground on 1/6, explained how important the concept of a “pre-planned attack” was to the Regime’s official narrative all the way back in May.

We are now in a better position to understand a crucial strategic dilemma facing the guardians of the official 1/6 narrative. If the guardians of the narrative want to preserve the official story that the federal government had no foreknowledge of 1/6—and thus they are not guilty of letting 1/6 happen for political purposes—the guardians must maintain that there was no foreplanning on the part of the insurrectionists.

On the other hand, if there’s no pre-planned plot, there’s no agreement to a conspiracy. If there’s no conspiracy, there’s no conspiracy case against the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys or Three Percenters. And if there’s no case, there’s no narrative. This is precisely why Alan Feuer, the NYT beat reporter for the 1/6 court cases, desperately needs there to have been a pre-planned plot. Otherwise, the flagship 1/6 cases, the premise of the 1/6 Commission, and the entire narrative against Donald Trump and his supporters, sinks like the Titanic.

No matter what, a major pillar of the official Jan 6 narrative is teetering on the brink of collapse.

Alan Feuer’s new Times piece acknowledging the existence of informants is without question an exercise in damage control, aiming to get out ahead of the revelation of more informants as the discovery process develops and the prosecution in 1/6 cases reluctantly hands over exculpatory evidence to the defense as is legally required. As still more informants are likely to be confirmed in the near future, the chances that the Feds would not have known about a pre-planned attack on the Capitol, if there actually was one, drops from negligible to impossible.

One unexplored escape route remains for those who wish to preserve the narrative that the feds had no foreknowledge, as well as the narrative that the big militia groups actually did plan certain aspects of 1/6 in advance. One could try to argue that even though we now know there were multiple informants in the Proud Boys, and we’re likely to learn of more in other militia groups, these informants were too low-level to be privy to the pre-planning that may have occurred at the very highest levels within such militia groups.

Alan Feuer seems to gesture toward this approach in the Times article, where he cites the statements of an alleged Proud Boys leader.

But the records contain no indication that the informant was aware of a possible plot by Proud Boys leaders to purposefully instigate those normal Trump supporters — or what members of the group refer to as “normies” — on Jan. 6.

This quotation closely tracks Alan Feuer’s angry response to the suggestion in the Reuter’s article that there was no pre-planning and collusion regarding 1/6. Feuer further quotes persons alleged to occupy leadership roles within the Proud Boys as evidence of collusion/conspiracy:

According to court papers in one case, a Proud Boys leader from Philadelphia wrote on the group’s Telegram channel on the morning of Jan. 6, “I want to see thousands of normies burn that city to ash today.” [NYT]

This quotation closely tracks Alan Feuer’s angry response to the suggestion in the Reuter’s article that there was no pre-planning and collusion regarding 1/6. Feuer further quotes persons alleged to occupy leadership roles within the Proud Boys as evidence of collusion/conspiracy:

Here’s a blow-up of the image Feuer cites in the tweet above:

Lost on the hapless NYT reporter Feuer is that all of the people in his own yellow highlights—most notably, the mysterious Person-1 and Person-2 doing the much-ballyhooed “coordination” and incitement—are currently being protected by the Justice Department. There are, to date, no charges filed against these Proud Boys, and nothing but total radio silence from the government on whether any charges are pending.

Does Feuer not find it strange that his best examples of conspiracy, collusion, and foreplanning on 1/6 all involve leaders of the Proud Boys who have not yet even been indicted?

There could be a number of explanations for the Feds’ selective non-prosecution in this case. The so-called Michigan Kidnapping plot from October 2020 suggests one possible explanation. Readers will recall that 14 indicted plotters are now juxtaposed against at least 12 federal informants later revealed—a nearly 1:1 ratio of feds to perps. Many of those informants took a very proactive role in setting up the plot, acting on instructions from handlers to “Maximize attendance” of other militia members during conspiratorial acts. Does it not occur to Feuer that some of the senior Proud Boys leaders he cites as the best evidence for conspiracy have not yet been charged because they too might be informants or even undercover?

100 Percent Fed Up reported in January about the Democrat Party media’s narrative of the so-called “riot” in DC is that the Trump supporters “stormed” the Capitol building. The problem is that citizen journalists are releasing videos that show Trump supporters being guided into the building as fast as Twitter can take them down.

The latest video to emerge shows the crowd being shown the door into the building as law enforcement officers stood to the side, allowing them to freely pass by. One of the law enforcement officers can be heard telling the protesters, “I disagree with you, but I respect you!” as the group walked unobstructed through the hallway of the Capitol building.

Watch the incredible scene here:

Is this what Democrats call “storming” a building?

In yet, another incredible and unexplainable clip, massive groups of people who have broken through the fencing appear to be waved into the secure area at the Capitol building’s front steps by a police officer. We cannot confirm or deny that the police officer was directing people to the front steps, but it sure looks like what he’s doing.

Before the mob entered the Capitol building, a large crowd of Trump supporters was captured on camera, as they booed the radical dressed all in black which can be seen breaking the windows. They demanded that he stop. “NO Antifa!” can be heard shouted by a woman in the crowd, as she shouted a warning, “Antifa’s breaking the windows!” Some of the Trump supporters in the video became physical with the radicals who refused to stop breaking the windows.

Who were these people, all dressed in black that were breaking the Capitol windows as Trump supporters demanded they stop? Does the mainstream media have any curiosity at all about what really happened that day, or is it enough that President Trump is blamed for it and that the voter fraud issues in several states have all disappeared?

Gateway Pundit reports- Since January the Deep State and Democrats will not release videotapes to the Republican lawmakers from January 6th inside or outside the US Capitol.

Revolver News published an important piece today on the “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Jan. 6 attack who the DOJ or FBI never charged for their part in the violence on Jan. 6.

Via Revolver News:

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?…

…We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6 — and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those indicted. In many cases, the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted.

The question immediately arises as to why this is the case and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.

Here it is useful to draw a distinction between two discrete categories of participants in the so-called Capitol Siege.

The first category is the group of mostly harmless tourists who walked through already opened doors and already-removed barricades, and at most, were guilty of minor trespassing charges and light property offenses. The second group consists of 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.

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.

However, the possibility that the federal government had undercover operatives or informants involved in the events of 1/6, from its planning to its execution, compels us to turn our attention to the second category of participants.

Revolver News then goes into detail on how the move violent plotters in the Gretchen Whitmer “kidnapping” plot (5 of 13) were government informants.

Then Revolver News shows the parallels between the Whitmer “kidnappers” and the Jan. 6 Oath Keepers who were behind the planning of the operations that day and who, like the plotters in Michigan, paid for the hotel rooms and bus rental to the US Capitol on Jan. 6.

100 Percent Fed Up reported about the curious case of the “Whitmer kidnappers” in October 2020:

On October 8, it was announced that six men were arrested over an alleged plot to kidnap the Democrat governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, and turn her over in Wisconsin for trial on the charge of treason. The complaint that was unsealed in a federal court today charges six men, five of the men are Michigan residents Adam Fox, Ty Garbin, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, Brandon Caserta, the sixth man, Barry Croft is a Delaware resident.

Whitmer has been criticized by Independent voters, Republicans, and Democrats for her draconian lockdown measures over the COVID pandemic, causing businesses to close and over one million residents to file for unemployment.

During an interview with Paul Egan of the Detroit Free Press, Governor Whitmer, with no evidence of her vile accusation, attempted to tie the group of men accused of plotting to kidnap her to President Trump and white supremacy.

The truth is, the more the public discovers about the men involved in the plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer, the more it’s clear the anti-police, anti-government, anti-Trump radicals were more aligned with the Marxist BLM movement and violent domestic terrorist group, Antifa.

Brandon Caserta, one of the anarchists who was arrested for plotting to kidnap Whitmer, actually hates President Trump and is on video calling Trump a “tyrant.”

“Trump is not your friend, dude,” Caserta said.

He says Trump is “a tyrant” and calls President Trump an “enemy.”

The Detroit Free Press reported about the five defendants who appeared in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids where the government disclosed shocking new allegations in the case, including Fox wanted to take Whitmer out on a boat and leave her in Lake Michigan; the group talked about also kidnapping Virginia’s governor; and one suspect — Daniel Harris, a decorated Marine — allegedly asked his cohorts if they were interested in killing a cop in Maine for one of his friends.

23-year-old Daniel Harris attended a Black Lives Matter protest in June, telling the Oakland County Times he was “upset about the killing of George Floyd and police violence.”

Daniel Harris

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the government has only produced snippets of conversations in the case and that there is no evidence that the accused had any real plan to kidnap Whitmer. They said that it remains to be seen what roles the undercover informants and FBI agents played in the case and whether they pushed the others into carrying out the plan, which in the end was foiled when FBI agents arrested five men during a setup on Oct. 7.

Graham was grilling FBI special agent Richard Trask about his testimony that at least 13 self-described militia members plotted to kidnap Whitmer from her vacation home and do one of two things: either take her on a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan and leave her there or, take her to Wisconsin and try her for treason.

Graham asked agent Trask how the suspects planned to get Whitmer to Wisconsin.

The agent had no specific answer beyond saying there were audio recordings of the suspects discussing a plan to take Whitmer to another state, among them Wisconsin.

Graham then asked the agent what the suspects planned to do with Whitmer after they left her in the lake. The agent had no specific answer, beyond testifying that the accused ringleader, Adam Fox, wanted to “take her out on a boat and leave her in the middle of Lake Michigan.”

Gary Springstead — the Grand Rapids-based attorney representing Ty Garbin, 24, of Hartland Township — told reporters outside the courthouse that he believes there is still more evidence to be presented.

Springstead also said the use of an informant in the investigation to thwart the plot raises questions. Feds said an informant wore wires to meetings to record the men charged and collect information on the kidnapping plan.

“(I)t’s become an issue in certain cases where the informant pushes some of the information, and the court and the government and the defense attorneys have to be leery of that,” Springstead told reporters. “Because their job is not to assess what the government informant wants them to do, it’s to assess the accused’s intent and what they actually planned on doing.”

“One of the most active leaders was your informant.” -Defense Attorney Scott Graham

Defense attorney Michael Darragh Hills, who is representing Caserta, said his client didn’t actually plan on doing anything, even though the government said that Caserta threatened to kill police officers.

Hill argued that the threats were rhetorical and never acted on.

Still, defense lawyers contend that there was no probable cause to arrest and charge the suspects, arguing, among other things, that the suspects had no operational plan to do anything, were engaged in all legal activities — including talking in encrypted group chats and practicing military exercises with lawfully owned guns — and that it was the informants and undercover agents who “pushed” others to do illegal things.

Meanwhile, Michigan’s radical Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer continues to push the vile conspiracy theory that pro-law enforcement President Trump is somehow responsible for the alleged plot to kidnap her.

When President Trump mentioned Michigan’s overreaching Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer at his rally yesterday afternoon in Muskegon, MI, the crowd responded with “Lock her up!” a chant that was commonly directed at “Crooked Hillary” during Trump’s 2016 rallies.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who regularly attacks President Trump to score points with her far-left base, tweeted a clip of the Michigan residents chanting, “Lock her up!”

“This is exactly the rhetoric that has put me, my family, and other government officials’ lives in danger while we try to save the lives of our fellow Americans. It needs to stop,” she tweeted.

Governor Whitmer was referring to a plot by radicals to kidnap the governor and turn her over in WI to be tried for treason. There is no evidence that any of the men involved in the plot are supporters of Trump, but there is evidence that one of the men despised President Trump and another was a BLM supporter. Whitmer ignored that the evidence that none of the members of the alleged plot were aligned with Trump and tried to blame his “rhetoric” for the plot against her during her press conference. She tried her baseless accusation again tonight with this tweet:

The video below Sperry’s tweet, shared by “Sage + Honey,” could be very useful to anyone who truly cares about what happened in the Capitol building that day.

We have broken down the incredible video that looks more like a bad B-movie into 8 segments:

In the video, a VERY GOOD videographer is coming down the stairs of the Capitol building.

#1. The camera zooms in on a police baton lying on the ground in the lobby.

#2. The camera then moves to a single police officer who is standing in a doorway. Standing in front of the police officer is a male dressed in a black t-shirt, black pants, and a black hat. His t-shirt has some sort of message or logo, but it’s unclear what it says. One thing is clear; he is not wearing any Trump gear. The male who appears to be leading a group of protesters attempting to infiltrate the Capitol building is either the most lethargic patriot to ever exist, or he’s simply a very bad actor. He’s not at all aggressive like one would expect from someone who just broke into the Capitol building determined to save America from a group of anti-American lawmakers hell-bent on stealing the election from President Trump. Nope, not this guy; he’s very relaxed, and, at most, he does a lot of shaking his head as the cop tells him to “stand back!”

#3. The police officer is shouting at the group from the doorway, and then suddenly, like in an awful movie, he realizes his baton is on the floor and reaches over to pick it up from the ground. Of course, by this time, it’s too late; the lethargic patriot and his posse have entered the lobby. Instead of calling for backup, the police officer decided to run up the stairs.

#4. The group’s lethargic leader, dressed all in black, follows the police officer up the first flight of stairs. Anyone who’s ever been in the Capitol building knows how confusing it is to navigate, so, fortunately, for the lethargic patriot, he’s got a pretty good tour guide.

#5. The police officer stops at the top of the first flight of stairs, warns the crowd led by the lethargic leader, and repeats his halfhearted warning to “back it up,” as he lifts his baton twice to let them know he means business.

It should be noted at this point that the cameraperson filming the entire event appears to know exactly where the police officer will lead the “violent mob of Trump supporters” in advance. As I mentioned earlier, the Capitol building is difficult to navigate. The cameraperson, however, seems to know exactly where the cop will go next. Instead of leading them to a dead-end down a hallway where they can be easily captured, he leads them directly to the Senate Chambers rotunda.

#6. The police officer only pauses briefly at the top of the stairs before he begins to run up another set of stairs. As he’s running, he can be seen shouting into his radio, “Second floor!” (which is where the entrance to the Senate Chambers is located). He hasn’t lead the “violent protesters” to the second floor quite yet; he’s just letting them know he’s almost there.

#7. The police officer stops at the top of the stairs once again, where he has a choice to go left or right. The lethargic leader comes closer to the police officer and calmly tells him, “You’re from the corrupt government.” (What???) Although the lethargic patriot is closer to the police officer at this point than he has been throughout the entire scene, the police officer, curiously, lowers his baton, telling him to “back up,” as he uses one arm to slightly push the lethargic leader toward the wall. (My 3-year-old daughter pushed her sister harder over Barbie doll disagreements).  The police officer stands back, blocking the entrance to the hallway (which would’ve lead the group away from the Senate Chambers), as he allowed the lethargic leader to take the lead ahead of him. Like an NBA player looking for a call from the refs, the lethargic leader falls back into the wall, allowing the police officer to get out ahead of him once again.

#8. Like a good tour guide, the police officer leads the group into the Senate Chambers’ rotunda, where 3 more cops are waiting for their arrival. “They here!” the police officer announces, as the 3 police officers slowly approach them, telling them to “Leave now!” Instead of following their orders, the group tells them, “No,” adding, “This is our America.”

Thankfully, the cameraperson knew exactly where the police officer would go and, while running backward, knew exactly where to stop to capture the exchange between the police officer and the “violent mob of Trump supporters.” The cameraman was so good at his or her job, that much like the police officer, he or she was able to help the “violent mob” reach the exact location the media warned about—the Senate Chambers where the evidence of voter fraud was about to be presented and several brave lawmakers were about to stand up to the theft of our elections.

We’re not conspiracy theorists, and we’ve never believed all of the videos about actors involved in 9-11 or mass shootings in schools. Still, this video needs to be seriously looked at by anyone who cares that this event took the world’s eyes off the voter fraud evidence that Trump promised would be revealed in the Joint Session of Congress.

Watch the incredible scene here:

These “radical” protesters who entered the Capitol by force never harmed a single innocent person inside. Every video and every first-hand account of the people who got inside revealed no evidence of violence or even direct threats. So, why are Trump’s cabinet members, like Mitch McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chau, leaving his administration? Why are Democrats trying to impeach Trump or use the 25th Amendment to remove him from office? Could it be that they fear he will run again in 2024?

Here’s more footage of the group of “violent protesters” roaming quietly around inside the Senate Chambers. Students who visit the Senate Chambers on field trips are likely more rambunctious.

And finally, in yet, another incredible and unexplainable clip, massive groups of people who have broken through the fencing appear to be waved into the secure area at the front steps of the Capitol building by a police officer. We cannot confirm or deny that the police officer was directing people to the front steps, but it sure looks like what he’s doing.

You be the judge:

It should also be noted here that the first person to be positively ID’d as being inside the Capitol building is Antifa/BLM activist John Sullivan who called for an armed revolution on Instagram. He is also a leader of a radical group, Insurgence USA.

In a video from Insurgence USA, that has now been removed from their website, Sullivan talks about how “It’s up to us to prevent a second Trump term.”

Imagine how different our world would be if we had media that actually cared about reporting the truth and honest, reliable leaders in our intelligence community.