Opinions Editor Jack Jursnich asks: “Does the current J6 narrative still hold water?”
BY: JACK JURSNICH
Opinions Editor
For over four years now since January 6, 2021, government officials, select committees, and outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray himself, have all doubled down on the insurrection narrative surrounding J6. They have all said that it was Donald Trump and his supporters that single-handedly incited the storming of the capitol, and to the question of whether the FBI was involved, Director Wray has denied that any agents were there that day.
However, a new report released by the DOJ Inspector General has found that 26 FBI confidential human sources (CHSs) were in Washington D.C. that day, and nearly half of them were involved in the events that unfolded. Four went inside the capitol, thirteen went into the restricted area around the capitol, and nine attended other January 6 events. Three CHSs were tasked by their FBI field offices to investigate specific subjects and travellers. Half of the CHSs notified their field offices about their travel plans for the event, and the other half did not. All CHSs – except those tasked to follow subjects – were not instructed by the FBI to attend the J6 events, nor were they tasked to commit any illegal acts.
To Director Wray’s credit, these aren’t official FBI agents or undercover employees, but they are confidential subjects involved with the J6 attack that had viable links to the FBI at the time. So, when asked in a hearing about how many agents were in D.C. that day, and Wray says there weren’t any, he’s not lying because technically they’re not agents; but the part he doesn’t want to say is that there were 26 CHSs in D.C. that day, and half of them were involved in some way.
One point I’d like to make is that none of these CHSs were ever prosecuted or investigated. I would think that these individuals would be the first to be questioned given there’s been plenty of J6 protestors that never even breached the capitol but still have been prosecuted. So, why the unfair prosecution?
There’s a lot of questions that I doubt Wray wants to clear up, like who these CHSs were, what exactly they did that day, and how they came to be CHSs. Though, I think the biggest question here is that if the FBI didn’t tell the truth before, what says they’re telling the truth now? And those that doubled down on the FBI’s answer, like Liz Cheney and others of the J6 Committee, what makes their assessment of the J6 events at all trustworthy?
The liberal media has already tried to spin this new report, and just like with Director Wray, they’re technically not lying, they’re just not saying the hard part out loud. NBC doesn’t want to say there were 26 CHSs on J6, rather they only want to say there were no “undercover employees.” They’ll say this was a “misstep” by the FBI, but they won’t say how convenient it is for this information to come out four years later just after the election, especially since there’s already been the committee’s investigation into J6 about two years ago.
Was this information not available then? If so, why not? Was the J6 committee not interested in this information, or did they choose to leave it out so they could lean into the “insurrection” narrative? Or, did the FBI simply not reveal this information to the committee? These questions still need to be answered, but the report pokes too many holes into the original narrative for it to be ignored.
