+1 vote
in General Factchecking by Master (5.4k points)
In order to protect the country from fictional right-wing "patriot" groups, did the FBI become an insurrectionist "patriot" movement?
by Journeyman (3.1k points)
Note: I'd recommend anyone factchecking this to figure out where the Revolver got its information and check that, rather than just Googling (it should mention that in the Revolver article itself).

3 Answers

0 votes
by Novice (540 points)
selected by
 
Best answer

This is False

Fact check: Claims of FBI role in Jan. 6 Capitol attack are false (yahoo.com)

"FBoperatives were organizing thattack othCapitol oJanuary 6."

But that theory relies on a false assumption: that anyone identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in charging documents is a government agent.

In fact, legal experts say that term cannot be used to describe FBI agents or undercover government operatives."

This is propaganda from far right wing Facebook pages spread by FOX. There is no evidence of this and whatever claims being made are not even applicable to FBI agents.

False
by Novice (690 points)
+1
1) Revolver's claims aren't dependent upon every unindicted co-conspirator being a government agent.
2) "Legal experts say" is weasel-words, and
3) what possible mechanism, legal or otherwise, would grant "FBI agents or undercover government operatives" immunity from indictment?
0 votes
by Apprentice (1.2k points)
This statement is false. There is no evidence that suggests the FBI was complicit in the January 6th insurrections of 2021. According to MotherJones.com, the FBI warned Congress of the right-wing extremist. The author claims the failure to prevent this is on the capital security measures.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/02/the-fbi-warned-congress-of-right-wing-violence-before-jan-6th-capitol-police-leaders-never-saw-the-report/
Exaggerated/ Misleading
by Novice (690 points)
edited by
1) The lack of evidence is not evidence that a claim is false.
2) The existence of an FBI warning about "right-wing extremists" prior to the event is irrelevant to the claim made by Revolver that the FBI ceased their investigation of these specific perps, removed them from their calls to the public for information on the suspects after the event, and never indicted any of them. In addition, the alleged ignored warning only strengthens the claim that the Capitol Police were somehow restrained from preventing the events of J6.
0 votes
by Novice (690 points)
edited by
The Revolver report seems to be true, that there was a conspiracy by several easily-identifiable individuals, including Ray Epps,  who on video, broke many laws as they executed their premeditated Capitol break-in to lead an unsuspecting mob spilling out of the Trump demonstration straight into the Capitol (without any visible sign that it was illegal) and that the FBI cooperated in removing these individuals from their investigations/prosecutions.

(Edit 2023-5-19:) Hearings before the House Judiciary's Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government lend solid evidence to support this claim. "The Washington, D.C. FBI Field Office CONFIRMED that undercover officers, confidential informants, and FBI assets were present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, despite FBI Director Wray testifying to the contrary!" - https://www.newsmax.com/politics/matt-gaetz-fbi-christopher-wray/2023/05/18/id/1120400/
True
by Genius (41.9k points)
Thanks for the enthusiastic commenting and fact-checking @Klugeman. Revolver.com seems to suggest that the FBI is involved in the January 6th incident because they didn't take action against Epps. They don't actually present any evidence that's concrete and really demonstrates a smoking gun. Is there any legitimate sources also presenting this view or with clear proof? Also if the FBI was implicit and the evidence was very powerful, wouldn't there have been more outrage or some type of reaction/coverage? Just thinking out loud...
by Novice (690 points)
@zenyogi - No. It's not just Epps. Revolver documents a whole list of perps, all of whom were videoed on that day committing all of the most egregious of the crimes. The FBI originally posted them as wanted, but they were thereafter withdrawn from the websites. Garland and the DOJ have explicitly refused to answer questions regarding these persons. Is there some other, reasonable explanation, other than the FBI's involvement in the coverup? And if you have not heard any outrage about this and all the other evidence of serious crimes by the Feds, then it only means you need to listen to other information sources. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fbi-whistleblowers-abuse-of-power-judiciary/2023/05/15/id/1119887/
by Genius (41.9k points)
@Klugeman - thanks for your response. While the FBI hasn't been clear on their reasoning for their actions -- maybe there's an internal investigation or something we are unaware of? I really don't know. I'm just saying the evidence isn't as concrete as it could be to rate the claim as a solid "true." Oh yes, I'm aware of NewsMax, but its reliability rating isn't so high, so that's something to consider as well as its political leaning. https://www.biasly.com/sources/newsmax-bias-rating/
by Novice (690 points)
edited by
@Zenyogi - You ought to be aware by now that the House is investigating the Fed, due to the elections of 2022, which have allowed it to act somewhat independently from the otherwise totalitarian US regime, and that the Durham report has confirmed virtually all Federal anti-Trump malfeasance. And I didn't cite Newsmax to bolster any particular claim, but rather just to show you that there's indeed a whole world of information outside the regime's echo chamber of disinformation (i.e. the MSM).
by Novice (690 points)
@Zenyogi, @factor, @RStrauss, @SaidNonoal04, @Branand2 - at this point, the "best answer" is still showing as @Branand's, as solid "FALSE", with a single vote, despite the fact that the only thread on the topic, this thread, has concluded that the claim is mostly "TRUE". How does that work?

Community Rules


Be respectful.

There is bound to be disagreement on a site about misinformation. Assume best intentions on everyone's part.

If you are new to factchecking, take some time to learn about it. "How to Factcheck" has some resources for getting started. Even if you disagree with these materials, they'll help you understand the language of this community better.

News Detective is for uncovering misinformation and rumors. This is not a general interest question-answer site for things someone could Google.

Posting

The title is the "main claim" that you're trying to factcheck.

Example:
Factcheck This: Birds don't exist

If possible, LINK TO to the place you saw the claim.

Answering

LINK TO YOUR EVIDENCE or otherwise explain the source ("I called this person, I found it in this book, etc.")

But don't just drop a link. Give an explanation, copy and paste the relevant information, etc.

News Detective is not responsible for anything anyone posts on the platform.
...