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?