by STEPHEN GREEN
“Violent extremists” would be “very willing to take action” on Jan 6, the FBI correctly predicted two months before the riots the Bureau helped organize and instigate.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
It’s a predictably breathless report from NBC News examining an internal FBI analysis that determined the Stop the Steal protests would require “law enforcement preemption” but that the “disorganization” of extremist groups would “hinder widespread violence.”
Unless, you know, the FBI stepped in to help organize things a bit.
Trump’s infamous “will be wild” tweet on Dec. 19, 2020, inviting his supporters to Washington, both the committee and federal prosecutors say, was the call to action that caused disorganized extremists to zero in on a date and time: Jan. 6, in the nation’s capital. The day Trump sent that tweet, as NBC News reported, a confidential human source told the FBI that the far right saw the tweet as a “call to arms” and that there was a “big” threat of violence on Jan. 6.
Emphasis added, but I’ll get to that in just a sec.
Trump’s “infamous” tweet was about as innocuous as could be. The whole thing reads, “Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud ‘more than sufficient’ to swing victory to Trump. A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
When a party invite says, “Be there, will be wild!” guests know to expect loud music and strong drinks — not a riot.
But just to be clear, there were two events on Jan 6, one outside and one inside the Capitol. The outside event was the actual Stop the Steal protest, and it was entirely peaceful. The indoor event was a confused riot. And by “confused,” I mean it had everything from peaceful weirdos like the Viking helmet guy (QAnon ‘Shaman’ Jacob Chansley) to the police killing of an unarmed protestor (Ashli Babbitt) in cold blood. Even more confusing, while some rioters — the violent ones — could be seen breaking Capitol Building windows, others were let in by police and allowed a lovely, off-hours tour.
Back to that emphasized line from the NBC News report. It said that “a confidential human source told the FBI that the far right saw the tweet as a ‘call to arms’ and that there was a ‘big’ threat of violence on Jan. 6.”
The FBI mole told the FBI exactly what the FBI wanted to hear, “justifying” the FBI’s involvement on Jan 6.
PJ Media’s own Matt Margolis reported last week that there are “lingering questions about the riot are how many FBI agents and informants were embedded amongst the demonstrators and what role they played in instigating the violence.”
“How many informants were involved?” Matt asked. “We still don’t know exactly.”
As I quipped on Instapundit about Matt’s story last week, the Capitol Building riots look “increasingly like an FBI sausage party.” For those lucky enough to be uninitiated, a sausage party is a party/social event/dating app/etc. where the women fail to show up.
Then there’s riot organizer Ray Epps, who many on the Right believe to be an FBI informant. The Left dismisses that notion as a conspiracy theory, yet Epps was somehow given a slap on the wrist — he pled guilty last week to a single misdemeanor charge — while others received harsh treatment while awaiting trial and record-setting punishments after being found guilty.
Remember when we learned how the FBI fabricated out of whole cloth an extremist “plot” to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer?
As CJ Ciaramella put it for Reason last year, “The Whitmer case is more than just a high-profile embarrassment. It’s a window into the FBI’s decadeslong strategy, born of powers granted to fight the war on terror, of pursuing criminal investigations against hypothetical criminal acts that may never be committed based on evidence that amounts to little more than fringe political or ideological speech.”