A Capitol Comedy: The FBI’s J6 Revelations
Newly revealed testimony confirms what skeptics of the January 6 narrative have long suspected: the FBI’s involvement wasn’t just passive oversight but an active participation, complete with paid informants and undercover agents. According to disclosures during congressional hearings, there were so many FBI confidential human sources (CHS) at the Capitol that the agency had to “poll” its offices afterward to figure out how many were on-site. The cherry on top? At least three of these informants were specifically directed to attend by their handlers..
If this sounds like the punchline to a poorly executed spy thriller, that’s because it is.
The Numbers Game: More Agents than We Know About?
The FBI claims only three informants were actively encouraged to attend. But as a former Capitol Police chief has testified, there were at least 18 undercover FBI agents mingling in the crowd, in addition to an estimated 20 undercover operatives from the Department of Homeland Security. Defense attorneys in Proud Boys trials also revealed that eight CHSs had infiltrated their group, and at least one was physically inside the Capitol during the breach.
This raises the question: if we were told it was a spontaneous “insurrection,” why did federal agencies embed dozens of operatives in advance? Was this infiltration an attempt to mitigate violence—or to stoke it?
There were over 200 FBI assets in the crowd on January 6th.
You did not know this because none of them tried to deter people from going into the Capitol.
None of them. pic.twitter.com/nw7iK0SPPn— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) January 8, 2024
FBI operations, including infiltrating groups or rallies, typically require meticulous planning and oversight. The process often involves recruitment and placement of informants or undercover agents, training, logistical coordination, and establishing operational parameters that align with legal guidelines.
Before infiltrating groups, FBI agents conduct thorough background investigations and intelligence gathering to understand the organization’s structure, goals, and key players. They often rely on confidential informants or members willing to cooperate to gain initial insights. Operations targeting public events like rallies or protests involve creating contingency plans for various scenarios, ensuring agents can act safely while gathering actionable intelligence. Informants play a critical role, often participating in group activities while reporting back to the FBI.
The government utilized informants in groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prior to January 6, with embedded agents reporting on planned activities. Defense teams in related trials have argued that such informants may have influenced events rather than merely observing
The Tech Needed
For public events, the FBI often employs surveillance technology, undercover operations, and informants. Reports suggest that informants embedded in groups ahead of January 6 were tasked with monitoring activities, but their precise role remains controversial, especially in light of claims that their presence could have shaped the event.
The level of detail and resources dedicated to such operations underscores their complexity and the significant investment required to balance public safety with civil liberties. But the last thing the FBI cared about on J6 were the civil liberties of mostly law-abiding citizens who only wanted to showcase their displeasure over an obvious coup.
Priorities, Priorities
The FBI’s focus on January 6 highlights a troubling pattern. While the bureau assigns agents to monitor political rallies, it seems conspicuously less effective at preventing other, more tangible threats. We’ve seen this pattern before—mass shooters who were already on FBI watchlists, an open southern border exploited by known terrorists, and even whistleblowers within the agency alleging systemic dysfunction.
Over a thousand Americans have faced arrest or imprisonment for participating in January 6, mostly for non-violent offenses like trespassing. Further, whistleblower accounts suggest the FBI retaliates against its own employees who question these heavy-handed tactics.
Ironically, the one constant in the Left’s narrative about January 6—the chaos—is now being redefined by their own leaks. The presence of FBI agents changes the script. Were these agents bystanders, provocateurs, or merely ineffectual? The answers matter because they point to whether January 6 was an organic event or a manufactured one.
Trump v2.0: Empowered by Exposure
In their zeal to destroy Trump and his supporters, the Left inadvertently turbocharged his resurgence. Trump 2.0 isn’t the same leader who served from 2016-2020. His base is more galvanized, his message more refined, and the list of his enemies—the media, the FBI, and the political elite—is now being confirmed, one revelation at a time.
As the FBI’s role in January 6 comes under scrutiny, the broader narrative of Trump’s persecution becomes harder to dismiss. This isn’t about protecting democracy—it’s about controlling it. And the Left’s biggest fear isn’t Trump’s policies; it’s his ability to expose their lies.
The real tragedy of January 6 isn’t just the supposed violence or the subsequent political weaponization; it’s the slow drip of truth that reveals how institutions we’re supposed to trust have manipulated public perception. The FBI didn’t just lose count of their CHSs; they lost the faith of millions of Americans.
But perhaps, just perhaps, the truth coming to light will spark the reform these agencies desperately need. Until then, we’ll continue to pull the thread—and watch the narrative unravel.
.
