Hooper’s War<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Important questions<\/a> about what happened on January 6 are left unanswered if they would disturb the Democratic narrative. These potential game-changers are ignored for the most part, or wish-washed away by claiming they are \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d somehow not worth looking into.<\/p>\n This is quite funny, given that the Democrat flailing is built entirely around a narrative of conspiracy, i.e., Trump or one his Dementors working in conjunction with someone else in a criminal act. In a divided America, not answering important questions simply gives them more credibility among their believers. It seems better for a Democracy in Danger [(C) WaPo] to get more information out there to put such conspiracy theories to rest by proving them wrong. Why just assign Seth Meyers to mock troublesome ideas when they could be factually disposed of? Whatcha \u2018fraid of? Can\u2019t handle the truth, bro?<\/p>\n So, to the January 6 Committee, please answer the following for us: how many undercover personnel or informants were in the crowd January 6? What part, if any, did they play in planning the entry into the Capitol before or on January 6, or in encouraging the crowd to do so? Did any stray from being accessories after the fact into Agent Provocateurs? As sure as the Warren Commission before them, the people claiming there is no evidence are the same one blocking any investigation which would reveal that evidence.<\/p>\n The Committee has adopted the stance something caused the crowd to bust into the Capitol. They have not spent much time allowing for anything along the lines of group think on the crowd\u2019s part, like when fans swarm the field and tear down the goalposts. Having eliminated spontaneous causes, the only real cause the Committee is considering is Trump. Trump via preplanning the attack as part of some elaborate coup attempt, Trump via his purposeful incitement of the crowd on hand, or Trump through some third parties, doesn\u2019t matter who, so Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, QAnon, a cabal at the Willard Hotel war<\/a> room, because that\u2019s called a conspiracy. The Committee does not seem to have any Subject B, just Trump.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s propose a Subject B, in this case, the FBI. It is a simply question from the Committee: Mr. Attorney General, how many undercover people did you have on the ground January 6? How many of them traveled to DC with groups they had previously infiltrated elsewhere? What was their purpose on January 6? What were their rules of engagement? In other words, what were they allowed to say or do? Could they scream \u201cYeah, let\u2019s go!\u201d and lead people forward? Could they suggest a peaceful group attack Pelosi\u2019s office? Could they give statements to the media misrepresenting the aims and mood of the crowd without revealing their identity? Were any working as \u201csources\u201d for the media, planting rumors?<\/p>\n You would think at least the number of officers on the ground would be an easy one, yet when Rep. Thomas Massie asked<\/a> AG Merrick Garland if any Federal agents or assets entered the Capitol or incited others to riot, Garland refused to answer. Massie played a video<\/a> of a man January 5 saying \u201cwe\u201d have to go into the Capitol, and asked Garland if that man was a Fed. No comment, said Garland.<\/p>\n The man in the video has been identified as Ray Epps, who is also seen on video organizing<\/a> the first group to breach<\/a> the Capitol, and that just one minute after a pipe bomb had been found, as if the acts were themselves a conspiracy. This all appears to have happened even before<\/a> Trump even finished his \u201cincitement\u201d speech. Epps was also President of Arizona Oath keepers and a former Marine. Epps has refused to answer journalists\u2019 questions about whether or not he is a Federal agent or informant. Epps is still a free man. Why?<\/p>\n After Garland\u2019s non-answer about undercover operatives failed to satisfy even the squishy MSM, the January 6 Committee decided to issue a tweeted statement<\/a> claimed they \u201cspoke\u201d to Epps, who by golly said he was not an agent and the matter was dropped as cleanly as the Umbrella Man<\/a> was in the JFK assassination. The always-helpful NYT said<\/a> \u201cwhile it remains unclear why Mr. Epps was encouraging people to go into the building, a person cannot be charged with incitement unless his statements present an imminent threat of unlawful action.\u201d That too is funny, because a week later Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes<\/a>, who also did not enter the Capitol, was indicted on the legal pastiche of \u201cseditious conspiracy.\u201d Without double standards there would be no standards at all.<\/p>\n The Epps case raises two key questions. Since Epps was talking<\/a> about storming the Capitol the night before, that would seem to be exculpatory evidence that Trump\u2019s speech had little to do with it. The plan was already in motion. And of course if Epps was working in any way with law enforcement, that would suggest it was he who played at least a role in getting the crowd to attack. You can\u2019t just call it paranoia and conspiracy theory to simply ask why after some 700 prosecutions of others involved with January 6, Epps has not<\/a> been prosecuted. Or why Epps\u2019 photo was at one point included on the FBI Capitol Violence most wanted website<\/a> and then removed without explanation in July from the website.<\/p>\n It is as simple as this. Under oath and before the Committee, ask FBI Director Wray, AG Garland, and Ray Epps to answer yes or no: did Ray Epps work for or with the Federal government in any way? Yes or no moves the narrative productively forward and could even add to the credibility of the Committee among skeptics. Why won\u2019t they do this?<\/p>\n If Epps was working for the Feds on January 6, we already know he was not alone. A Proud Boys member turned by the FBI was texting<\/a> his handler from the middle of the crowd (the Times also claims the FBI had a second<\/a> informant in the crowd; other sources suggest a group of protestors wearing blaze orange<\/a> caps were purposely exempted from prosecution as they were informants of some sort.) The story has not received much play in the MSM, because the informant was adamant the Capitol attack was not planned in advance. In fact, none of the 737<\/a> people charged so far with January 6 related crimes claimed the attack was preplanned, that Trump incited them, or anything to suggest anything but that what happened happened because of events on the ground in the crowd. Quite the contrary; several have stood up in court and admitted<\/a> they felt betrayed by Trump and were deluded by his efforts to portray the election as rigged.<\/p>\n Undercover officers can legally<\/a> commit crimes, including perjury. Same for paid sources, informants, and snitches. This practice of authorized criminality is secret, unaccountable, and in conflict with some of the basic premises of democratic policing. It exists independently of whether or not the person of concern can be listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. That is relatively meaningless anyway as the easiest thing is simply to not list the undercover on any charging documents at all.<\/p>\n There are other simple questions whose answers could send the investigation down complex paths. While the Justice Department has called<\/a> the inquiry one of the largest in its history, why has no information come to light on the pipe bomber<\/a>, who planted two unsuccessful bombs and set off an aura of panic? Official Washington is one of the most heavily surveilled spots on earth; why hasn\u2019t the Justice Department allowed for the public release of more than a few minutes of the 14,000 hours of security camera footage? The nearly endless social media video online only shows the riot well in process. The surveillance video would show what happened just before the breach.<\/p>\n Knowing the FBI had informants in the crowd and among the organizations behind the initial rally, we need to know what did they know and when did they know it, specicially in answer to the quesion of what role if any Trump played in the unfolding events. Why has the report on the cop who gunned down protestor Ashli Babbit<\/a> not been released? Why and on who\u2019s order did the Capitol Police allow hundreds of people to simply walk<\/a> into the building on the afternoon of January 6? Over 300 protesters entered the building without resistance from Capitol Police. And who was the man in a bicycle helmet whom video shows initiating the window-smashing that ended in the shooting of Ashli Babbitt and why was he welcomed<\/a> behind police lines once things got out of hand?<\/p>\n We would not need to ask all these questions if the FBI and others did not have such a clear and present history of infiltrating protests and provoking violence; here\u2019s a brief history<\/a> going back to the Vietnam War era. Hand-in-hand is the FBI\u2019s history of \u201ccreating\u201d crimes using planted agents. The Terrorism Era was littered with \u201cplots\u201d that once laid bare, were built around an FBI person recruiting fellow \u201cterrorists,\u201d supplying them with money and (fake) weapons, and then busting them for believing him. Read more here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n A more recent example involved a supposed plot, seen by many as a precursor to the January 6 assault, to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. At least 12 FBI confidential informants were involved. However, an investigation<\/a> also reveals some of those informants, acting under the direction of the FBI, played a far larger role than just snitching. They had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them. For all the noise made asking how high the January 6 investigation might eventually go, no one seems to be looking lower, to people who were working that day amongst the protestors just as they had in Michigan.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wemeantwell.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/capitol.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n