Will Trump special prosecutor backfire on Democrats? Some think so, and here’s why


By John Solomon

Many in traditional news media have suggested the Biden Justice Department’s appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate Donald Trump is an ominous sign for the former president. But famed television journalist and best-selling author Bill O’Reilly has a different take, predicting it will boomerang on Democrats.
O’Reilly told the “Just the News, Not Noise” television show that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointee will have to probe what the FBI knew in advance of the Jan. 6 riot, whether law enforcement could have done more to prevent the tragedy, and why a reported eight bureau assets were embedded among the protesters who went to the Capitol that day. Those are all issues the Democrat-led House Committee on Jan. 6 failed to address.
Garland’s appointment of another special counsel to investigate Trump is “a drastic mistake,” warned O’Reilly.
“In order for [Jack Smith] to investigate what Trump did or did not do on Jan. 6, he has to get into the FBI and what the FBI did or did not do,” O’Reilly explained in a wide-ranging interview Tuesday night. “He has to. He can’t bury it.”
Noting that the New York Times reported that “there were at least eight FBI agents embedded in the most virulent protesters that day,” the former longtime anchor of Fox News Channel’s prime-time ratings hit “The O’Reilly Factor” said: “They were there. The FBI was there. Well, what the deuce were they doing?”
That very issue came up at a recent House committee hearing during questioning of FBI Director Christopher Wray, who pointedly refused to answer whether FBI assets were dressed in pro-Trump garb at the Capitol when the riots occurred but adamantly denied any FBI personnel instigated the attacks that day.
“Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6 protests on January 6, 2021?” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) asked Wray.
“As I’m sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when and where we do and do not use confidential human sources,” the director answered before Higgins interjected another question.
“May I finish?” Wray protested. “But to the extent there is the suggestion that the FBI’s confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated Jan 6th, that’s categorically false.”
Higgins persisted. “Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6, prior to the doors being opened?” he asked.
“Again, I have to be very careful,” Wray said.
“It should be a no!” Higgins shot back. “Can you not tell the American people, ‘No, we did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol on January 6.’?”
“You should not read anything into my decision not to share information on confidential human sources,” Wray answered.
O’Reilly said the pursuit of an answer to that question is not a conspiracy theory. He does not believe the FBI instigated the attacks. But the presence of informants would suggest the bureau suspected something bad may happen that day that could have been prevented, he explained.
During the Wray hearing last week, “the question,” O’Reilly said, “was simple: Did any FBI agents dress up like Trump supporters and go into that Capitol? And Ray would not answer the question. Now, that should raise flags everywhere.
“I don’t think Garland even considered that when he was mocking up the special counsel. I don’t think he even considered it, but that — if it’s proven to be true, and I’m not a conspiracy guy, I don’t believe the FBI instigated anything — but if the FBI knew what was gonna happen and didn’t report it to the White House and to the Justice Department, all hell’s gonna break loose in this country.”
The question of what the FBI knew and what it conveyed to Capitol Police and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer’s teams is also an important question for Republicans taking over the House in January.
Capitol Police records obtained by Just the News show the FBI as well as other law enforcement agencies began providing warnings of potential violence as early as Dec. 21, 2020, nearly three weeks before the attack.
An after-action report obtained by Just the News stated that some Capitol Police leaders had received intelligence from outside sources like the FBI warning of the strong potential for violence, including the targeting of lawmakers, on the day Congress certified the 2020 election, but those warnings were not properly distilled into the operational plan given to front-line commanders or highlighted in the summary section known as the “Bottom Line Up Front.”
“The assessment for 1/6 contained a BLUF that did not express the severity of the threat or the fact that USCP actually had knowledge of a plan in place,” according to the report. “The statement that protesters may be armed was included, but it was never expressed with the urgency that they planned to overtake the Capitol and target Members of Congress.”
Other documents show the FBI intelligence warning were sent to a top aide to Schumer the night before the attacks.
Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher emailed top Schumer aide Kelly Fado, now the Senate’s deputy sergeant of arms, at about 9:40 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021 saying he wanted to “provide you visibility” to new intelligence that an FBI threat analysis center had received from a website owner, according to documents obtained by Just the News.
The information explicitly warned that demonstrators had detailed maps of the tunnel systems around the Capitol frequented by lawmakers and their staffs and they were plotting to create a “perimeter” for potential violence and to find “Democratic members early to block them from entering the Capitol.” One point of entry the rioters were targeting was the Library of Congress, he warned.
“The owner of the website submitted an online tip to the FBI NTOC (National Threat Operations Center) stating that he has noticed a significant uptick in new visitors to his website,” Gallagher wrote. “We have identified numerous open-source comments indicating groups intentions of finding the tunnel entrances and confronting/blocking” members of Congress.
File GallagherFado010521EmailWAttachments.pdf
Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), retiring ranking member of the House Administration Committee, told Just the News earlier this year he has interviewed multiple whistleblowers who allege there were significant intelligence failures before Jan. 6 and his investigators have obtained emails and text messages showing what congressional leaders knew in advance of the attacks.

Read more

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“He can’t bury it.”

I bet he can

I hope it blows up in the faces of the Democrats and causes them to lose bi time no matter what we See, Read or Hear from the M.S. Media bottom feeders

He is a total dirtbag.

The Republicans can investigate and expose till the cows come home, but unless the corrupt liberal ministry of propaganda media will honestly report it, nothing will change. We, here and elsewhere, won’t learn anything more than we already know. The duped, naive, stupid, willfully ignorant left will remain in the dark, thinking what the left has cherry-picked, altered, sanitized and de-contextualized is the truth.

In the end, unless this someone gets widespread coverage, it will be like the phony Mueller “investigation” where dedicated nodding donkeys STILL swear Trump was found guilty of numerous heinous crimes but some strange, undisclosed technicality keeps him out of jail.

Democrats are spoiled, fly-covered vomit.


I just called 911 for you. They’ll send someone to help you with that “pants on fire” problem you’re having.

Obviously, either you are wrong or you can’t. I think it’s the first option, as usual.

“Can’t” what?

You can’t backup your indoctrination with anything legal or tangible. They just tell you Trump is a “criminal” and you eat it up because you want to.

That’s not how our country works, son.

Can’t correct me. Because, as you well know, I am already correct.

The reason that Mueller felt he could not charge Trump was not only disclosed, it was discussed and argued over at length. You know that; I don’t know why you’re pretending you don’t.

“Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system. But he adds that doesn’t mean that a special counsel couldn’t investigate a presidential actions, since charges could be brought after they’ve left office.”


Trump is no longer President, in case you haven’t heard. So, what is protecting him from prosecution now for all those crimes you and every other whining liberal claimed Trump was “proven” guilty of. You all declare Trump is guilty, guilty, guilty yet the Democrats continue to try and find SOMETHING to charge him with. Where is, for instance, all of Schiff’s “evidence” he proclaimed repeatedly he had right at his fingertips?

In short, all your accusations are nothing but pure bullshit.

I can’t hear you over the sound of you moving the goalposts. You said that the reason he wasn’t charged during the Era of Multiple Impeachments was “undisclosed.” I demonstrated that you were incorrect. Maybe you could deal with that before moving on to some other unhinged rant.

No I didn’t. I mentioned no time frame, which would indicate it was all inclusive, right up to the present time. In fact, at the time of the Mueller Report, you leftists declared Trump was guilty of crimes and would be arrested as soon as the Office of the Presidency no longer protected him, yet he still walks a free man.

What is protecting Trump now from all the crimes you whiny, crybaby, spoiled brat leftists all told us he was guilty of? UNDISCLOSED, scooter.

I moved no goalposts. That noise you hear is the sound of your own gaslighting and building your own straw men.

“Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system.”

If anything, this should have shown you exactly how weak Mueller’s case was. He referred to a memo written 20 years before his investigation filled the headlines of all left wing publications, i.e. NYSlimes, Washington Compost, et al.

Too bad Mueller didn’t also tell the American public that a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel holds no legal weight. Only law, passed by Congress, does. And to be quite honest, had Mueller presented his findings in a Court of Law, he would have been held in contempt by an honest judge for insulting the Court’s intelligence.

“Too bad Mueller didn’t also tell the American public that a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel holds no legal weight.”

He didn’t need to; everyone knew it, and that’s why the Left was losing its shit. You were there. You know all this.

You hit a nerve on michael, because instead of offering intelligent dialogue, he’s back to toddler-level sputtering because he knows damn well the Democrats have nothing…NOTHING to charge or arrest Trump with.

This DOJ has NO authority to investigate, charge, or arrest Trump.


It does if it has probable cause to believe that Federal statutes have been violated. Nobody gives a rat’s ass about your pearl-clutching to the contrary. That’s not how our country works, son.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael

You can’t have “probably cause” when you’ve been caught, repeatedly, fabricating it.

A government doesn’t get to break it’s oath to the American People and then retain authority.

Not a Constitutional Republic with fair and free democratic elections, at least.

The only government who would do such is a tyranny.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

“A government doesn’t get to break it’s oath to the American People and then retain authority.”

So you’re saying that everyone should be able break Federal law with impunity now. Interesting.

Relative of yours?

First Openly Trans New Hampshire Lawmaker Who Made Earlier Bomb Threats Is Arrested for Stalking Woman

An observation: you obviously have trans people on your mind a nearly-infinite amount of time more than I do.

Thanks for sharing.

A pride flag has become something akin to another nation’s flag.

Flying is to signal a new nation is in charge.

Just teach the science without the phony social commentary, dumbass.

I’ve never hosted a Drag Queen Story Hour, nor have I argued in favor of having Drag Queen Story Hour in schools.

What point do you think you’re making?

It appears todays schools are hostile environments for the youths of today.

The point, I think, is to see if you defend this abuse of children or condemn it. All you do is feign bewilderment that anyone finds it repugnant.

“All you do is feign bewilderment that anyone finds it repugnant.”

Incorrect. I’ve said more than once on this site that I don’t do these things myself, and that I don’t think that other teachers should do them. I stick to the curriculum, and those things aren’t in the curriculum.

We part ways in our assessments of the severity of the problem with a lot of the things that you people freak out over. If a math word problem says that Susie and her dads went to the store to buy pies that they’ll divide among seven kids at a sleepover, I’m not bothered by the fact that the problem mentions two dads.

Some kids have two dads, Mentioning that in passing so that those kids feel included is not a problem for me, and it’s not going to turn anyone gay. In fact, you can’t turn someone gay. If that kind of thing turns some kid gay, you can be certain that the kid was already gay to begin with.

I wouldn’t host a drag queen story hour at school, and I would advise other teachers against doing so, but it’s not going to do permanent damage to anyone’s psyche.

They why do you wonder why this vile practice is discussed here? It is Republicans in general and Trump specifically that stands in the way of Democrats normalizing such abuse of children.

I’m not surprised that you discuss it here; I just don’t get why it makes commenters here make the jump to “all teachers are pedophiles.”

For what it’s worth, I certainly don’t think that. My kids have awesome teachers, who are part of our public school system here. Not private, not charter.

We support them heartily, and make sure we communicate regularly.

I’m a football coach at the high school, too, so I see what teachers are up against.

It’s a difficult job, and one we all value. I do, at least.

And also for the record, I don’t think you are a pedophile…or a bad guy at all.

Where is Nathan, and what have done to him?

Maybe you can point to the posts that have declared “all teachers are pedophiles”. I seem to have totally missed them all.

Leftists have LGBT on the brain…and they are pushing it.

Love that “It’s not hurting you, so why do you care?”

It is hurting us…and destroying our country.


So you’re saying that everyone should be able break Federal law with impunity now.

I’m afraid not, Cathy Newman. I’m saying what I said. A government doesn’t get to break it’s oath to the American people and then retain authority…unless it’s now a tyrannical, non-democratic state.

Which is what America now is.

I’m afraid it was a bad precedent to set, Comey literally telling the American People Clinton broke the law, but won’t be charged.

So you’re saying that everyone should be able break Federal law with impunity now.

It’s not that they “should,” it’s that they are…if they are Democrats or abet Deep State/Globalist goals.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

So you’re saying that everyone should be able break Federal law with impunity now. Interesting.

Why not? That’s what happens when the rule of law breaks down and that is what is happening when the Democrats have weaponized law enforcement. They only apply the laws and rules to their political opponents while Democrats commit perjury, steal, associate with spies, break any number of laws, violate the Constitution and put our national security at dire risk without penalty. Yeah, everyone should be able to ignore the law if SOME are allowed to ignore the law, and how do you think that would turn out?

Well, we don’t really have to wonder; just observe any Democrat-run big city.

I find it difficult to believe that you actually feel that the Department of Justice should no longer enforce Federal law, since that would be of surpassing stupidity, but I’ll take you at your word.

I find it difficult to believe you don’t understand what happens to a nation when the Law is bypassed, and unequally applied to its citizens based on their speech and expressed or implied political affiliations…all by installed bureaucrats and politicians who line pockets and funnel taxpayer money through a war-torn nation and back into the campaigns of it’s own people.

It’s a tale as old as Time itself.


Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

I guess you should, since I never indicated that’s how I feel. I said that is the result of the Democrats selectively choosing when and where to enforce law based on their politics. Do you, for instance, support Hillary getting a complete pass on improperly and illegally handing classified information and then committing perjury while at the same time supporting a raid on Trump’s home based on nothing but an assumption of what he might have there? If you support that, why would you expect people to follow the law?

BLM/ANTIFA political terrorists assaulted cops, looted businesses and laid siege to a federal courthouse. Almost everyone involved that were actually arrested had their charges dropped. Why should the January 6th rioters be treated differently, but for politics?

People who protest abortion have their homes raided and are hauled away in cuffs. People who bomb pregnancy crisis centers don’t even get arrested. Does this emphasize law and order to you?

There are no federal statutes with respect to the presidential records act. Stick to kindergarten teaching.

“There are no federal statutes with respect to the presidential records act.”

First, the Presidential Records Act is itself a Federal statute, Professor.

Second, Nathan didn’t specify this particular issue. He said that the DOJ now has no authority, period.

“Stick to kindergarten teaching.”

I can, but you’re clearly working below grade level, so a lot of it will be out of your reach.

The Corrupt Obama/Biden DOJ’s Newest Attempt in Creating a Corrupt Special Counsel Is Even More Criminal Than the Mueller Exam