The New American
by C. Mitchell Shaw
January 6 is constantly held up as the darkest day in American history by the mainstream media. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue publicly called it “the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war.” It has been falsely described by liberal pundits and politicians as an “armed insurrection.” Now, what many have long suspected to be the case appears to be true: January 6 was orchestrated by elements within the government to squash not only Donald Trump, but anyone who supports either him or his “America First” ideas.
On Tuesday, Fox’s Tucker Carlson led off his show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, with news of the largely unreported, racially motivated shooting spree over the weekend in Columbus, Georgia, where 39-year-old Justin Tyran Roberts, a black man, shot five people. Carlson then segued into the federal government’s flagrantly false accusations that white supremacy is the single greatest threat we face as Americans. The Fox host then played a video clip of Attorney General Merrick Garland from Tuesday’s announcement of the formation of a National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, in which Garland says, “In the F.B.I.’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate it for the superiority of the white race.”
As Carlson points out, Garland spent the rest of his announcement doing exactly what the government documents announcing the new domestic terrorism strategy do — he conflates “white supremacy” with the events of January 6, and does so without a shred of evidence connecting anyone at the Capitol that day with “white supremacy.”
Carlson next played a video of Russian President Vladimir Putin asking if the United States “assassinated” Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot during the breach of the Capitol. Carlson explained the video of Putin:
Okay, so yes, we just played tape of Vladimir Putin. Under normal circumstances, we would never play tape of a foreign adversary criticizing our government. But honestly, those are fair questions. Who did shoot Ashli Babbitt? And why don’t we know?
Are anonymous Federal agents now allowed to kill unarmed women who protest the regime? That’s okay now? No, it’s not okay. It’ll never be okay. And why are all those January 6th protesters still in prison on trespassing charges as so many Biden voters who torched Federal buildings walking free?
What’s the answer to that question? If all of that was going on in Russia, we would rightly call it scary. We would call Putin a dictator. In fact, we do call him a dictator.
And speaking of January 6th, why are there still so many things, basic factual matters that we don’t understand about that day. Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol on January 6th? What could possibly be the reason for that? Even as they call for more openness, we need to get to the bottom of it. They could release those tapes today, but they’re not.
We ought to be asking those questions urgently because as the Attorney General reminded us today, a lot depends on the answers.
Carlson is correct. Unaccountable government is untrustworthy government. The refusal to release the video would be enough to call the narrative into question — even if the narrative weren’t already so far-fetched.
Much of the news host’s commentary was based on a report by revolver.com, which says that the “insurrection” was orchestrated by FBI plants who gave misinformation to others and stirred them up to storm the Capitol building.
That report cites government court filings in the indictments against those who trespassed at the Capitol on January 6, and begins thus:
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?
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 instead 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.
It also refers to the at least 20 “unindicted co-conspirators” mentioned in government court filings:
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. Indeed, it is these militia groups whose behavior, statements and planning leading up to and during 1/6 most closely align with the “violent insurrectionist” caricature we hear about in the media, and which the government claims to be going after in its aggressive prosecutions.
As Carlson explained, the significance of multiple people being classified as “unidicted co-conspirators” while the government throws not only the book but the whole library at others:
We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers who were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one who killed Ashli Babbitt.
According to the government’s own court filings, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot, sometimes in violent ways. We know that because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who were present in the Capitol on January 6th. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them, and many of them are still in solitary confinement tonight.
But strangely, some of the key people who participated on January 6th have not been charged. Look at the document. The government calls those people unindicted co-conspirators. What does that mean? Well, it means that in potentially every single case, they were F.B.I. operatives.
As Carlson and revolver point out, it appears obvious that this is the case. For instance, one such “unindicted co-conspirator” is identified in government documents only as “Person 2.” The documents state that “Person 2” stayed in the same hotel room as a man named Thomas Caldwell who has been charged as an insurrectionist. The documents state that “Person 2” stormed the Capitol building on January 6. Caldwell was led to believe (it appears by “Person 2”) that his group storming the Capitol would be supported by a “quick reaction force” led by a man only identified in government documents as “Person 3.”
So, in this instance, three men were involved. Thomas Caldwell (a 65-year-old man), “Person 2,” and “Person 3.” Two out of three of them were never charged. Because it appears that two out of three of them were FBI plants who did the job of stirring up the so-called insurrection.
Lest this sound like a crazy tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, consider that the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was an FBI sting that either went horribly wrong or horribly right, depending on the FBI’s true objective.
There are scores of cases of the federal government using plants to incite illegal activity and then coming down like a tone of Red, White, and Blue bricks on the targets. If this is another of those cases — which government documents appear to indicate — then the objective appears to be the discrediting of President Trump and anyone who supports him or his policies, as well as the affirming of the questionable election that allowed Joe Biden to put in a change of address form listing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as his new address.
In fact, given that FBI agents (and lovers) Lisa Page and Peter Strzok famously texted during the 2016 election cycle that Trump would never be elected and that if her were, they had an “insurance policy” to ensure his removal, perhaps the real question is this: “Is it any harder to believe that the FBI orchestrated trespassing in the Capitol building and then blew it out of proportion than it is to believe that hundreds or even thousands of usually law-abiding citizens spontaneously decided to “seize the seat of power” and stop the “peaceful transfer of power” by storming the Capitol?”
C. Mitchell Shaw is a freelance writer and public speaker who addresses a range of topics related to liberty and the U.S. Constitution. A strong privacy advocate, he was a privacy nerd before it was cool.