Featured Image
An eight-foot tall steel fence topped with concertina razor wire circles the U.S. Capitol January 29, 2021 in Washington, D.C. The fence was built after the events of January 6, 2021.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images


WASHINGTON, D.C., July 2, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Two weeks ago the Biden administration released a new dossier for confronting “domestic terrorism” which Tucker Carlson referred to as “a fascist document” that “reads like a manual for targeting the administration’s political opponents.”

This “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” designates “domestic violent extremism as a national priority” and warns against “anti-government sentiment,” and what it may perceive to be “incitement” toward such violence.

It suggests, for example, that those who believe and discuss the case for “fraud in the recent general election,” or object to government mandates “related to the COVID-19 pandemic,” may be considered guilty of “incitement” and punished for such views. It also encourages Americans to report to the government family members and friends who may be “radicalizing,” announces an alliance between global governments and Big Tech to identify and censor online content they consider dangerous, and pledges to confront “the proliferation of guns” in the United States.

During the administration’s press conference on the topic last week, a spokesman proposed how the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol provided proof of the “urgent” domestic terror threat the nation is facing. He noted that “manifestations” of such immediate dangers have already been seen in “the pretty extraordinary pace and scope of work done by investigators and prosecutors in the wake of the January 6 events.”

Given the Biden administration’s ongoing movement toward an exceeding expansion of government surveillance power, at the expense of American citizens’ civil liberties, it’s important to investigate the Democrat and media narrative of what exactly happened on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol and analyze whether these events provide any justification for the “fascist” legal structures being attempted or put in place to combat the supposed threat of “domestic terrorism.”


With a closer look we discover a tale that pits a political, financial, and media establishment against common citizens of the United States, where up to 47% of likely voters in America, including up to 30% of Democrats, believed last year’s presidential election results were “very likely” fraudulent, despite unprecedented media and Big Tech suppression of the topic.

In exercising their First Amendment rights on January 6, hundreds of thousands of racially diverse Americans may have been subjected to a highly financed “deep state” operation which involved the implementation of institutional techniques utilized for revolutions abroad, including the fostering of division and violence among a minority in their presence and the illegitimate shedding of blood at the hands of the Capitol’s police force, which is not accountable to the public.

In addition, given a long track record of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) being involved in entrapment, and even being involved with at least one terrorist attack against citizens in Garland, Texas in 2015 (see details below), this minority of violent protestors may have been led by FBI operatives who also may have acted as “agents-provocateurs” orchestrating a scenario where massive numbers of marchers at the Capitol became an “unwitting follow-on force” corralled to enter the building.

Such entrance was also facilitated by Capitol Police who, at least in some instances, freely allowed and even encouraged hundreds of marchers to enter the building, while also, with the FBI, declining to sufficiently prepare for the obvious necessity of enhanced security for that particular day, despite even known warnings of a possible attempt to breach the building.

In stark contrast to left-wing rioters who caused enormous damage in cities across the nation last year, with little or no lasting legal ramifications, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented the harshest of consequences for those they can identify who had anything to do with the Capitol “breach,” including early morning SWAT team arrests, ransacked homes, confiscation of property, indefinite pre-trial solitary confinement without bail in a dedicated D.C. prison, significant physical abuse, and the violation of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Despite the discredited January 6 narrative, the Democrats are still using it as a pretext to build invasive legal structures for the punishing of dissent and for the destruction of their political opponents.

The backstory: A ‘failed and corrupt political establishment’ vs. ‘We the People’

This story begins with the historic presidential campaign of 2016, where the brash New York billionaire Donald Trump branded himself as a champion for “We the People” and, on their behalf, overcame what he referred to as a “a failed and corrupt political establishment,” consisting of the Washington “swamp” and the “financial and media corporations” who support them.

Almost immediately, the “establishment” on the left took council and began to prepare their response. Billionaire George Soros joined other wealthy leftist donors, NGO heads, and politicians, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), to plan their “full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One” with a purpose to “take back power.”

While the “swamp” was executing its role implementing the Russia hoax with its Mueller Investigation, and the Ukraine impeachment hoax against Trump, Soros was helping elect radically leftist prosecutors in major U.S. cities who, as former Attorney General William Barr explained, “are not very supportive of law enforcement and don’t view the office as bringing to trial and prosecuting criminals but pursuing other social agendas.” The results, Barr said, would lead to more violent crime and less police in those particular districts.

In addition, as Soros crippled these normative structures for preventing crime in these large cities, he was simultaneously infusing millions of dollars into the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement which would take advantage of these corrupt prosecutors when it instigated widespread and devastatingly destructive riots in 2020.

In the meantime, despite the persistent “witch hunt” investigations against Donald Trump, the resilient president was not deterred in accomplishing much of his agenda, which resulted in an impressive list of pro-life accomplishments and a strong economy to accompany him as he rounded the corner into his 2020 reelection year with a head of steam appearing virtually invincible for reelection.

In the midst of such momentum, Soros was harshly critical of the president in Davos that same January, and yet reportedly indicated some level of confidence that Trump could be defeated in the fall by uttering that the coming high-stakes U.S. presidential election would determine the “fate of the world.” And despite great enthusiasm with a burgeoning economy, Soros’s investments also indicated he was actually expecting a significant downturn in the stock market.

Then – bringing the “Trump train” to a screeching halt – came government shutdowns for the stated purpose of mitigating the novel coronavirus, which evidence indicates was originally emitted from a lab in Wuhan, China. This lab had also been the beneficiary of American taxpayer funding approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (a division of the National Institutes for Health) in recent years.

Serving on Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force, the leftleaning Fauci addressed a question in April and stated he couldn’t guarantee that voting in person for the high-stakes presidential election in November would be “safe.” As has been well-established, this provided a pretense for Democrats to advance the use of mail-in ballots all over the country, despite their being vulnerable to significant fraud and coercion.

Under such circumstances, even Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that “serious post-election problems” were predictable, and such problems came in apparent orchestrated force, particularly in swing states around the nation.

In guidance issued on November 1 via its official website, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control stated that “Voters have the right to vote, regardless of whether they are sick or in quarantine.” The guidance told coronavirus-positive voters to wear a mask and wash their hands – which the general public was and still is being encouraged to do as well – and merely alert poll workers to their condition.

Interestingly, though visual facts on the ground indicated an easy Trump victory, the mainstream media, along with the major pollsters, attempted to project quite a different picture, some claiming an expectation of a Biden “landslide.”

With these two very different pictures, it would seem the least likely scenario would be a highly controversial election which would be contested in the courts. Yet this is also what the Biden campaign, along with certain media outlets, and Big Tech corporations signaled to expect, and prepare for, as election day approached. Such preparations suggested a foreknowledge of high degrees of election fraud that with even a full media commitment to suppress its evidence would still be widely recognized by the public.

Indeed, soon after the election, a full 20 to 30% of even Democrats judged it was “very likely” members of their own party “stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win.” Of Republicans, 61 to 75% agreed equating to 36 to 47% of all likely voters having a high degree of certainty the election was stolen.

‘Stop the steal’

When up to 47% of “likely voters” in the United States – equating to at least tens of millions of engaged adults – have a solid degree of certainty that the very high-stakes presidential election of 2020 was stolen, there is potential for a wide variety of responses.

While the mainstream media and big tech corporations suppressed the massive “Stop the Steal” rallies held in Washington D.C., LifeSite’s video producer Jim Hale covered all three (November 12, December 12, and January 6) and described how inspired he was by the enormous crowds, the vast majority of whom represented “the most beautiful tapestry of freedom-loving Americans” one could hope for. His brief and highly recommended videos tell the story of “these God-fearing, good people who flocked to DC by the millions in three rallies within two months.”

At a time when formidable influences such as BLM are attempting to divide Americans along racial lines, Hale also emphasized how inspired he was by “Trump’s amazing, multi-racial support” as represented at these rallies, and he produced two special videos to tell that story as well.

LifeSiteNews Vice President Gualberto Garcia Jones, an attorney, also covered the January 6 March to Save America Rally, and described the crowd as “a portrait of middle America: overwhelmingly Christian, but racially diverse, with people of every age group and from every corner of the country” who were “overwhelmingly peaceful.

However, Hale went on to explain that present at each of the rallies were relatively small numbers of “Proud Boys and Three Percenters, along with random ‘militia’ groups, blending a toxic mix into an overwhelmingly well-mannered crowd.”

Continuing coverage of the event following the riot within the Capitol building, Hale captured dramatic footage of these groups whom he described as “violently disposed, angry men who have low impulse control and low IQs,” violently engaging National Guardsmen outside doors of the Capitol. “Many were stoned and drunk … [and] QAnon-crazed who are still talking about the generals taking out Biden.”


Was January 6 the climax event of a typical “color revolution”? “Color revolutions” are often sponsored by the CIA or other U.S. government agencies abroad. Engineering a contested election and stuffing the ballot box are typical qualities of “color revolutions” which also seek to create civil unrest, foster violence, and then impose military intervention.

According to the BBC the QAnon phenomenon is “a wide-ranging, completely unfounded theory that says that President Trump is waging a secret war against elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles in government, business and the media,” which “will lead to a day of reckoning where prominent people such as former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will be arrested and executed.”

It apparently began in 2017 when “an anonymous user put a series of posts on the message board 4chan. The user signed off as ‘Q’ and claimed to have a level of US security approval known as ‘Q clearance.’” From that point on, traffic grew exponentially to include “at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who believe in at least some of the bizarre theories offered up by QAnon.”

Attorney Robert Barnes argued – in an interview with Alex Jones, no less  – that the QAnon phenomenon was a tool to help foster civil unrest and instigate the type of violence we saw on January 6. He called it “a sophisticated disinformation psyops campaign” which has signs of “being run by somebody with institutional influence and backing.” Through various means, he believes, it is intended to create this type of event by inciting, through deception, populist, or conservative individuals to instigate violence.

As in many places, like Ukraine, such color revolutions also utilize bloodshed of innocent civilians in order to blame it on the targeted leader as a pretense for their removal from office.

Though Barnes believes the desired outcome from the January 6 event was intended to be much worse, immediately following the protest and subsequent riot, the media blared incessantly that this “coup attempt” caused the deaths of five individuals, while Nancy Pelosi responded by vehemently insisting that President Trump should be promptly removed from office.

Even hard-left journalist Glen Greenwald objected to these “serial journalistic falsehoods” being portrayed about the January 6 riot, especially the mantra about the deaths. Of particular gravity was the tale of “a pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher” which “was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on television, in print, and on social media,” and was cited as a motivation for the second impeachment of President Trump.

This case of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick’s death was emphasized so heavily, according to Greenwald, because it “was the only example the media had of the pro-Trump mob deliberately killing anyone.” Yet, as investigators looked more closely, they were unable to proceed due to a lack of evidence, and it was finally confirmed by the coroner that the officer had died due to the natural cause of a stroke the following morning.

In fact, Greenwald points out “none of the other four deaths were at the hands of the protesters,” either. Three other cases involved a heart attack, a stroke, and a woman who died from an amphetamine overdose. “[T]he only other person killed with deliberate violence was a pro-Trump protester, Ashli Babbitt, unarmed when shot in the neck by a police officer at close range.”

Ashli Babbitt killed by Capitol Police

In his discussion regarding Qanon, Barnes speculated that 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt was likely ensnared in this “psyop” and was under the impression that government, military, and intelligence insiders really wanted her and others to take action in storming the Capitol. This speculation turned out to be true.

Babbitt was killed as she attempted to enter a restricted area of the Capitol, accompanied by a variety of other “protestors.” The identity of the Capitol police officer who shot her has still not been released and in April federal prosecutors announced they would not seek charges in the case. Babbitt’s husband is suing for the identity of the officer and other records related to his wife’s killing, and her family has also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Capitol Police Department for nearly $10 million.

“The reason we don’t know who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt is because the Capitol Police is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Congress,” tweeted Kyle Becker, who runs his own news service. “It is a secretive police force immune from FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] and subpoena power. One might even call it Pelosi’s Praetorian Guard.”

FOIA requires federal agencies to release broad categories of information to the public upon request. Yet Congress is not subject to this law, and since the Capitol Police are a department under the legislative branch, they are also exempt.

Anne Weismann, chief FOIA Counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, describes the situation this way: “You have a police force that is answerable only to Congress, and not the public, even though they can take actions that will have a direct effect on the public.” Furthermore, she states that at this particular moment in history, it’s “more striking than ever that we have a police force that does interact with the public, but there’s no public accountability.”

Who benefits from the January 6 riot?

During the color revolution in Ukraine, there was an essential element of a false flag operation which occurred when the opposition leaders ordered sniper fire upon their own allied protestors who were clashing with police, as a pretext to blame the sitting president and remove him from office.

False flag operations are a reality throughout history and not just the stuff of “conspiracy theorists.” In 1939, Nazi operatives dressed as Polish soldiers and raided a German radio station on the border and left behind murdered enemies dressed in German uniforms to create a pretense for initiating Germany’s invasion of Poland. Nine years ago, we read how Israel made President George W. Bush furious in 2007 when members of their intelligence agency posed as American CIA spies in an operation to recruit terrorists for committing assassinations against the Iranian regime, endangering Americans and the nation’s interests.

With regards to the U.S. government, false flag operations have been a developed option for planning the initiation of wars, implemented for the purposes of regime change operations abroad, and utilized domestically to terrorize the population.

In evaluating the plausibility of an event being a “false flag” operation, it is reasonable to ask Cui bono? (“to whom is it a benefit?”). Who has benefitted from the event, and in this case, the Capitol riot?

Could it be President Trump, who as a result was targeted for another impeachment trial, deplatformed from multiple social media networks, and cancelled by numerous vendors and banks in the aftermath? How about the up to 47% of voters whose voices were suppressed by big media and big tech and were about to have, finally, a televised presentation given and entered into the record of the Joint Session of Congress demonstrating the overwhelming evidence of a stolen presidential election?

Was it the many individual Americans who came to Washington to exercise three of their five First Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances), who ended up being “cancelled” by firing or pressured resignation, investigated, suspended, or even arrested and detained in a “gulag” for walking into the open doors of the Capitol?

Was it the Christian conservative movement, which is now being targeted for invasive investigation for the crime of speaking freely about the evidence of election fraud and thus “fomenting” this “domestic terrorist attack”?

Or, on the other hand, did it not benefit the “corrupt political establishment” identified by Trump including the deep state “swamp” and the media elite some of whom have vowed to “burn down the Republican party”?

FBI apparently knew ‘planned attack’ was coming

For an event like January 6 to happen, one necessary element would have to be a U.S. Capitol with inadequate security during a most precarious situation involving a joint session of Congress, when the certification of a contested presidential election was taking place, and there were hundreds of thousands of people in the National Mall rallying against what they believe to be a fraudulent result.

Yet reports confirm the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had information of a planned attack by some individuals for weeks, and neither they, nor the Capitol Police, nor the Democrats in charge of Congress adequately prepared for it.

Furthermore, given the fact that the individuals who started to engage in violence at the Capitol began their assault while President Trump was still speaking almost two miles away indicates these groups were operating independently of the rally altogether, and certainly were not acting as a result of it. In fact, since Trump was almost an hour late in beginning his remarks, the agitators may have decided they had to begin their assault before the crowd arrived in order to ensure the presentations on election fraud would not be made in the Congressional chambers during the joint session inside.

Towards the conclusion of his speech, President Trump encouraged the mostly well-mannered and Christian crowd to march “over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” cheering on “our brave senators and congressmen-and-women” who were going to object to the certification of the election and present evidence of significant fraud.

D.C. police zealously unprepared, Capitol Police let in protestors

While a Senate probe confirmed that the Capitol Police were strangely ill-prepared for that day, other questions revolve around why exactly, in some circumstances at least, they appeared to not only let in these larger crowds from the rally after they reached the Capitol, but even waved them in.

Filmed evidence also reveals police in fact gave permission to protestors to remain in the building, so long as they were peaceful, and most of the guests conducted themselves like they were on a March for Life high school field trip as they processed through Statuary Hall, with even some taking selfies with officers.

While the Capitol Police have kept video surveillance records from the building’s system under lock and key, a select group of lawmakers are authorized to view the footage. One is Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) whose staff earlier this month identified a scenario where it appeared an officer passively allowed over 300 people to enter an open door on the upper west side of the building. Johnson has requested answers to several questions pertaining to this incident in a June 10 letter to acting chief of the Capitol Police, Yogananda Pittman.

In addition, contributing to the lack of preparation on behalf of public officials, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had also zealously rebuked calls for a larger police presence one day ahead of the January 6 march.

“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a January 5 letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy.

“The District of Columbia Government has not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies,” she added, claiming that “unidentifiable” federal law enforcement agents could “cause confusion” and “become a national security threat” if they weren’t properly recognized.

Early evidence of an organized operation: ‘agents-provocateurs,’ ‘militants,’ ‘attackers’

J. Michael Waller, a senior analyst for the Center for Security Policy who specializes in “propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion,” was present in the crowd as it processed to the Capitol and wrote how the “deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol bore the markings of an organized operation planned well in advance of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress.”

He describes the activities of “four separate cells or units” on the scene including “Plainclothes militants,” “Agents-provocateurs,” “Fake Trump protesters,” and a “Disciplined, uniformed column of attackers.”

“All of these cells or groups stood out from the very large crowd by their behavior and overall demeanor,” Waller explained. “However, they did not all appear at the same time. Not until the very end did it appear there was a prearranged plan to storm the Capitol building, and to manipulate the unsuspecting crowd as cover and as a follow-on force.”

Along the route of the march, the D.C. Metropolitan police were calmly present up until First Street NW, “exchanging an occasional greeting from marchers” whom Waller describes as “energized and festive… but not one appeared angry or incited to riot.” Beyond this point, where the Capitol Police had jurisdiction, there were “no police at all” which many marchers noticed with surprise.

Waller describes how after proceeding within the crowd he was hemmed-in near the Capitol, without the ability to retreat due to the continuous stream of marchers entering the area, when the group he calls “plainclothes militants” up front appeared to be in a tussle with the police. At this point, a group of Capitol Police in riot gear shot a teargas canister from the inauguration platform, “not at the plainclothes militants at the front line, but into the crowd itself. Then another. Flash grenades went off in the middle of the crowd.”

“No bullhorn or sound system could be heard for the police to communicate with the swelling mass of people,” he wrote. “The tear gas changed the crowd’s demeanor. There was an air of disbelief as people realized that the police whom they supported were firing on them.” This is corroborated by this short video (warning: contains profanity).

At one point Waller describes what he calls a “disciplined, uniformed column of attackers,” which approached from the north.  The group consisted of “agile younger men” walking “briskly, single-file, toward the inaugural stand.”

“Some had helmets and GoPro cameras. Some uniforms bore subdued insignia, including the Punisher skull,” he wrote.  “I had seen them in groups of two or three among the marchers on Connecticut Avenue from the Ellipse.

“Now there were a good three dozen of them, moving in a single, snakelike formation. They were organized. They were disciplined. They were prepared,” Waller said.

The first or second in the line announced, “We’re taking the Capitol!” and they made their way with curious observers disappearing “under the scaffolding beneath the Rotunda entrance.”

Finally, as Waller moved to attempt to exit the area against the current, the crowd was being confronted with men standing on chairs or other elevations yelling variations of “Forward! Do not retreat! Forward!” He later identified these men as agents-provocateurs who were attempting “to corral people as an unwitting follow-on force behind the plainclothes militants tussling with police,” putting them all, including children, the frail and elderly, in physical danger from tear gas and the crush of the crowd.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) read this account aloud during a Senate Rules and Homeland Security Committees Hearing on the U.S. Capitol Attack in February, stating, regarding these groups Waller described above, “I think these are the people that probably planned this [riot].”

Four days after January 6, Epoch Times reporter Joshua Philipp conducted an interview with war correspondent Michael Yon, who was introduced as having covered over 500 protests. From his own witness of the event, he asserted that Antifa led the way “using agent-provocateurs to basically guide Trump supporters into the Capitol building, very successfully.”

Noting their tactics included “wearing the goggles, and the same sorts of 3M masks,” shields and their dress, Yon said, “Antifa clearly led the attack. That was utterly obvious.”

He further described those present as Antifa’s “A-team.”

“They’re well trained, they’re well organized, they show up with the gear that they need. They’ve got the statements ready to say … They come out, they make great statements for the camera, sound bites. These guys are professionals.”

He said agent-provocateurs will often come to such an event, harness the energy, and direct it to accomplish their own ends. Though, in this case, it is apparent, many regular Trump supporters could identify them, having called out “there’s Antifa here. They’re doing this. Antifa are making us look bad, be careful,” Yon reported.

He also witnessed on one video “a guy with a Trump sticker on the back of his helmet starting to break the window with a truncheon” while another person who appeared “to be a Trump supporter comes to bear hug him and grab him back.”

On another occasion, two black-clad rioters try to do the same, but are stopped by what appear to be regular Trump supporters.

“These are clear agent provocateur actions,” Yon insisted, adding, “It’s an old technique that goes back centuries.”

Tucker Carlson: ‘FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6, according to government documents’

While the specific identity of these apparent “agents-provocateurs” remains unknown, a groundbreaking report by Revolver News, released this summer, and amplified by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, indicates that FBI operatives may have not only participated in the dubbed “insurrection,” but had a role in actually organizing it as a means of entrapment.

Noting the contrast between the government’s posture of demanding openness regarding the events of January 6, and the same government’s concealment of so much, including the name of the law enforcement officer who shot Ashli Babbitt and the “more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol” never released, Carlson added that the “the government is hiding the identity of many [more] law enforcement officers who were present at the Capitol.”

“According to the government’s own court filings, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot, sometimes in violent ways,” explained Carlson. “We know that because, without fail, the government has thrown the book at most of the people who were in the Capitol on January 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them. Many of them are still in solitary confinement.”

“But strangely, some people who participated in the riot haven’t been charged. Look at the documents. The government calls these people ‘unindicted co-conspirators.’ What does that mean? It means that in potentially every case, they’re FBI operatives,” he said.

Carson went on to provide the example of one “unindicted co-conspirator,” referred to as “Person Two,” who shared a hotel room and “stormed the barricade” with a hapless indicted 65-year-old man named Thomas Caldwell. The latter was led to believe a “quick reaction force” would be directed by someone called “Person Three.”

“But wait,” Carlson continued. “Here’s the interesting thing. Person Two and Person Three were organizers of the riot. The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So, FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6, according to government documents.”

As early as 2012, Rolling Stone Magazine reported on how in response to 9/11, the FBI adopted new counter-terrorism tactics which actually equated to incidences of entrapment. In these scenarios, operatives would set-up violent terrorist plots, even pressuring and tutoring vulnerable individuals, and then swoop in as the heroes to stop it, providing the agency with favorable publicity in its fight against “Islamic terror.”

Carlson also mentioned a book titled The Terror Factory, wherein the author “analyzed every terror prosecution from 2001 to 2013 … [and] found that at least 50 defendants were on trial because of behavior that the FBI had not only encouraged, but enabled.”

Another example includes a terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, in 2015, where an FBI agent helped facilitate a shooting spree which was thwarted by local police before the gunmen could harm any innocent people.

Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Liberty Report claims “it is sort of a long-standing joke that ‘the FBI foiled an FBI terror plot.’” He also pointed out, that though he did not personally participate in the infraction at the Capitol, Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys – one of the alleged right-wing militia groups which did participate in the Capitol incursion – had actually been a prolific FBI informant in the past, though there is no evidence of any such activity in recent years.

In summary, Revolver states, “the leading planners and provocateurs of the 1/6 incursion weren’t the individuals who have been publicly charged with crimes, but the unindicted persons who were present at the Capitol alongside them,” leaving it questionable if the disturbance would have happened at all apart from “substantial agitation by federal law enforcement.”

With the tactics the FBI developed for its war on terror, Carlson observes “the bureau has changed its focus. It’s no longer going after Islamic extremism. It’s now going after Joe Biden’s political opponents – those are the domestic terrorists they’ve been telling you about. This is a nightmare; it’s a nightmare for civil liberties, for democracy itself. We should have seen it coming. We didn’t.”

‘Jayden X,’ Black Lives Matter, and the death of Ashli Babbitt

One individual involved in the Capitol riot, who is evidently not averse to conducting a false flag operation is John Sullivan, also known as “Jayden X,” and the founder of a “revolutionary” group called Insurgence USA. The Epoch Times reports that Sullivan had “attended a number of Black Lives Matter protests last year, posted numerous anti-police and anti-Trump statements, and also allegedly posted on Twitter support for armed revolution.”

According to federal prosecutors, he apparently bragged to witnesses that he brought his megaphone to the Capitol in order to incite Trump supporters to riot in the building.

Notably, Sullivan recorded the widely disseminated video of Ashli Babbitt’s tragic shooting. Though he identified himself as a journalist who was documenting the incident, prosecutors have charged him with actively participating in the breach of the Capitol which is plainly evident when watching his own video as analyzed by recent Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

The former mayor of New York City shows how Sullivan appears to be a professional rioter as he provides training to other agitators online including the wearing of all black, along with the proper equipment to bring.

Capitol surveillance video released during the last Trump impeachment trial shows protesters, some dressed in typical Antifa dark clothing and back packs, one with full body armor, suddenly pouring into the Capitol, and on another occasion, being stopped by Trump supporters as they attempted to do the same.

Following the shooting of Babbitt, Sullivan is also captured on his own video celebrating with young female photojournalist Jade Sacker, who presents NBC, NPR, and the Huffington Post as clients. “We did it!” she exclaims.

In a very revealing, 12-minute video analysis of the shooting incident, Japanese independent journalist Masako Ganaha draws some conclusions regarding the possible presence of organized operatives on the scene. She identifies two men “dressed like Trump supporters,” who worked to agitate those present while communicating with each other. She also identified Sullivan and documented his past participation with Antifa.

“I don’t say everyone who got inside the building is Antifa,” she said. “But I clearly see the ones that were leading the crowd, agitating the crowd were not Trump supporters. And, I think they had a plan, and they played well.”

From Sullivan’s video, Giuliani also identifies two other men involved in the incursion who seem to be working with Sullivan by giving him nods of approval (at 25:30), and asks whether or not there has been an investigation of these men.

Sullivan was arrested and is now charged with eight infractions, including a weapons charge, in connection with his participation in the Capitol riot. It was revealed in the court proceedings that CNN and NBC each paid him $35,000 for rights to his video, though reports in May indicate that unspecified U.S. authorities seized $90,000 from him having concluded that is the total he had been paid by news outlets for the footage that he took while committing alleged crimes.

Despite his history of anti-police activism, including separate charges in Utah from last summer involving rioting, threatening violence, and criminal mischief, leftist agitator John Sullivan was released without bail following his January arrest.

Political persecution and ‘torture’ of Trump supporters

Hundreds of actual Trump supporters who came to the Capitol that day, however, were not so fortunate.

Julie Kelly, a senior contributor for American Greatness, has documented how the Biden administration’s unprecedented “shock and awe” investigation of the January 6 riot represents a “weaponization of powerful federal agencies against regular Americans who dared, not just to vote for Donald Trump, but also to doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.”

According to her reports, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has arrested and continues to hold hundreds of “political prisoners” in a dedicated jail under “harsh almost solitary confinement conditions” while denying them bail and the constitutional right of a speedy trial.

Calling it “political persecution against Trump supporters,” Kelly reports that the FBI continues to be on a “nationwide manhunt to find and arrest anyone who participated in the January 6 protest, including those who did nothing more than allegedly trespass on public property.”

One story involves a 69-year-old Joseph Bolanos from the Upper West Side of New York City. Having traveled to D.C. to meet some friends from California at the rally on January 6, Bolanos, a registered Democrat, never even entered the Capitol. The FBI, having received a tip that he was present there, interviewed him on February 4, and then, a week later, he was awakened in his 94-year-old mother’s apartment by loud banging. “I opened the door and there’s about 10 tactical police soldiers and one is pointing a rifle at my head,” he said. “[They had] a battering ram and a crowbar.”

Simultaneously, another team had broken down the door of his own empty apartment. Both dwellings were ransacked, all his devices were confiscated, and he was handcuffed and paraded outside to an FBI car to be interrogated for four hours with a tipped-off NBC camera crew present to film and later broadcast the incident. In the car, Bolanos suffered a stroke, an ambulance was called, and he was admitted to Mt. Sinai hospital.

Four months later, Bolanos has still not been charged, his devices have not been returned, his reputation has been destroyed, and he insists he has not committed any crime.

With many other cases, in what Kelly calls a “purely punitive move,” defendants are transported from their home states to a dedicated jail in D.C., which “allows them to leave their cells for an hour a day. Religious services are not allowed; they can’t exercise and access to personal hygiene such as showers is nearly nonexistent.” In other words, these detainees, “before a single moment of their trial has begun, suffer the same harsh treatment as convicted criminals incarcerated in the D.C. prison system,” even though many of them have no prior criminal record.

One of the inmates, Jacob Lane, told his father that he and his fellow detainees are being tortured “mentally, physically, socially, emotionally, legally, and spiritually.”

Another, Jonathan Mellis – who was denied a temporary release to attend his father’s funeral in Virginia – wrote that he and his fellow inmates are threatened by the guards with violence regularly. “We all know that getting our hands tied together and being beaten is something the DC jail officers have already done to Capitol rioters in this pod.”

The attorney of one detainee has raised an alarm complaining that his client, Ryan Samsel, had been subjected to such a severe beating it broke his nose, dislocated his jaw, fractured his skull, and caused him to be blind in one eye.

The new ‘two-track justice system’ in the U.S.

Recently, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) explained in a speech on the floor of the House how left-wing Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) “domestic terrorists … did a horrific and jaw-dropping amount of damage to cities across America during 2020,” including 2,385 looting incidents, 624 arsons, 97 burned police vehicles, more than 2,000 injured police officers, a death toll of 25 Americans, and a bill of $2 billion.

In an email to Kelly, Mellis wrote, “I would like to voice my confusion as to why left-wing rioters are set free and shown mercy while being the source of hundreds of riots last year all over the country, causing billions of dollars in damage, dozens of deaths, yet the right-wing rioters from Jan. 6th are treated in the harshest terms.”

Greene noticed the same as well in addressing what she called the “two-track justice system” in the United States. “If you are part of the Democrat-sponsored domestic terrorist organizations BLM and Antifa, you can burn down American cities for an entire year, get bailed out of jail, and face no investigation or commission from Congress,” she said.

“Meanwhile, if you’re a Trump supporter who happened to be at the Capitol on January 6, you face exorbitant bail, solitary confinement, abusive jail guards, and no due process. This is an outrage,” the freshman Congresswoman emphasized.

Tucker Carlson drew the same comparison, highlighting the story of Anthony Alfred Griffith from Oklahoma, who has been arrested by the FBI. “Griffith didn’t throw fire-bombs at a police car. He didn’t loot anything. He didn’t torch a Wendy’s. He did something far worse,” Carlson explained.

According to one news outlet, “Griffith walked into the U.S. Capitol building through the open doors on January 6, telling the agents he did not see any police officers as he entered the building. He then went into a nearby office where he ‘interacted with some individuals’ before exiting the building. However, he reentered the U.S. Capitol Building again a short time later, where he meandered through the hallways and took a few photos.”

Highlighting the contrast, Carlson concluded, “For that act of terrorism, Anthony Griffith faces seven years in prison.”

Another case involves the story of Bruno Cua, an 18-year-old homeschooler from Georgia, with no prior record, who attended the rally with his parents, entered the Capitol, and was later arrested and held in custody for approximately two months, without bail, despite his not being accused of vandalism, violence, or theft. In addition, the teenager’s disbelief that Joe Biden was duly elected to the presidency provided further proof in the view of prosecutors that he should be detained until the conclusion of his trial.

Yet, the same U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. cut a plea deal earlier this spring with a couple of teenage girls who carjacked an Uber Eats driver and murdered him in the process.

In an interview with the Ron Paul Liberty Report, Kelly observed how, “You have the same office that now is prosecuting a teenager for his political beliefs also trying to find a plea deal for two juveniles who assaulted and then killed an Uber Eats driver … So they showed no mercy for an 18-year-old Trump supporter, but now are doing everything that they can to make sure that these juveniles [13 and 15, are treated with leniency].”

Carlson commented, saying “unequal treatment under the law is on stark display across the country right now.”

Meanwhile the Capitol Police and federal government are withholding over 14,000 hours of video surveillance footage from the day, which could help provide exculpatory evidence for many of the approximately 550 individuals who have been arrested, including the numerous who remain in extended solitary confinement without bail.

Members of Congress ‘domestic terrorists’?

As the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” seeks to chill free speech regarding crucial violations of election integrity and unconstitutional government COVID-19 restrictions, while punishing such violators for “incitement,” the American people appear to be facing perhaps the most aggressive attack on their civil liberates in the nation’s history.

Tucker Carlson recently highlighted a statement by former Assistant Director of the FBI, Frank Figliuzzi which might indicate the next steps the administration hopes to accomplish in its agenda. As summarized by Carlson, Figliuzzi indicates how “the goal is to round up people who dissent against the regime and throw them into solitary and that’s including Members of Congress.”

“What have we learned from our experience with international terrorism?” Figliuzzi asked in the clip from MSNBC. “In order to address that problem of arresting low-level operatives is merely a speed bump, not a roadblock, in order to really tackle terrorism in this time domestically, you’ve got to attack and dismantle the command-and-control element of a terrorist group. That may mean people sitting in Congress right now.”

“Round up sitting members, duly democratically elected Members of Congress, because they oppose the regime?” Carlson responded. “Even Vladimir Putin is not doing that!”

As referenced above, such phrases may indeed indicate a foreknowledge or intention of future initiatives or events. Prior to November 3, Joe Biden, the Democrats, Big Media, and Big Tech seemed to oddly expect a contested election. For example, Axios reported just before the election that should the media declare Biden the winner, he planned “to address the nation as its new leader, even if President Trump continues to fight in court.”

In addition, an NBC news piece feared President Trump may claim the election was “rigged,” and his supporters, with “a sizable online network,” were “poised to amplify any [such] claims.” And in order to suppress such an expectation, Twitter implemented a new policy prior to election day, that users of the social network “including candidates for office, may not claim an election win before it is authoritatively called” by the mainstream media or state election officials.

During the first presidential debate, Biden strangely appeared to intentionally prepare the audience for a refusal on the part of his opponent to concede the election. “But, by the way, if, in fact, he [Trump] says he’s not sure what he’s gonna accept, let me tell you something, it doesn’t matter. Because if we get the votes, it’s going to be all over. He’s going to go.”

Considering that despite the continued crumbling of the January 6 narrative, how the same political, deep state, and media establishment that have brought America a long series of hoaxes (Russia, impeachment, useless and unconstitutional COVID-19 restrictions), is still utilizing this “insurrection” tale to justify an unprecedented “nationwide manhunt” for holding and abusing pro-Trump “political prisoners,” and setting in place structures for the punishment of political dissent, other current utterances of Biden and the establishment just may indicate their expectation for the people’s future.

On the heels of election day, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin stated, “We have to collectively burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them. Because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.”

Former FBI director James Comey, who was behind many of the politically motivated violations of the law by the bureau in recent years, agreed, stating, “The Republican party needs to be burned down or changed.”

Finally, in March, when asked a question by a reporter if he was planning on running for reelection in 2024, Biden remarked, “I have no idea. I have no idea if there will be a Republican Party [in 2024]. Do you?”


FBI likely played role in organizing Jan. 6 riot, says report entered into Congressional record

Biden admin encourages Americans to report ‘radicalizing’ family, friends to gov’t

Pro-Trump Jan. 6 ‘political prisoners’ rotting away in dedicated DC prison, without bail or trial

Marjorie Taylor Greene excoriates Dems for seeking Jan. 6 Commission while ignoring BLM riots

US House passes bill creating Jan. 6 commission with broad powers to investigate conservative groups

DOJ targets 18-year-old homeschooler, suggests it’s a crime to believe 2020 election stolen

In some videos, Capitol police appear to let protestors into US Capitol, pose for selfies

Leftist activist who filmed Babbitt’s death charged for forcibly entering Capitol building during Jan. 6 riot

Recent History Suggests FBI Involvement in January 6 (article from American Greatness)

Deprogramming of January 6 Defendants Is Underway (article from American Greatness)