It was a false-flag pseudo-operation!

The past week has seen definitive proof that the January 6 Event was a false-flag pseudo-operation. An Inspector General has revealed twenty-six “confidential human sources” – read snitches and provocateurs – that the FBI had on the scene. That’s likely a fraction of the actual cadre of snitches and agents provocateurs the FBI fielded that day. But yesterday evening came strong suggestions that former Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-Wyo.) knew perfectly well that the FBI was running snitches and provocateurs that day. We already know that she suppressed evidence that then-President Donald Trump tried to prevent any violence that day. Now we know that the FBI provoked it – and have reason to suspect that Liz Cheney covered that up, too.

What is a false-flag pseudo-operation?

Whenever a military unit flies a flag other than its own during any operation, historians call that a false-flag operation. During the War of 1812, an eleven-year-old midshipman was aboard a United States Naval vessel (USS Essex)that carried out a classic false-flag operation. She flew the Union Jack to get close to a British man-o-war, then abruptly hoisted the Stars and Stripes immediately before bringing the enemy ship to battle. That midshipman, more than half a century later, became the Navy’s first-ever flag officer. History remembers him best for the Battle of Mobile Bay during the War Between the States.

D__n the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! R-Adm. David Glasgow Farragut USN

When any fighting force carries out an operation against its own side, while flying a foreign flag, it conducts a false-flag pseudo-operation. Governments order such operations to inflame the public and blame a putative enemy for an attack they did not launch.

Evidence for a false-flag pseudo-operation on January 6, 2021

Last Thursday (December 12), Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit reported on the release of an Inspector General’s report from the Department of Justice.

Inspector General David Horowitz produced an 88-page report with this title:

A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Handling of Its Confidential Human Sources and Intelligence Collection Efforts in the Lead Up to the January 6, 2021 Electoral Certification

That title alone suggests that Mr. Horowitz knew how sensitive this subject was. Of course he insisted that none of these snitches did anything illegal. But he did mention three snitches who separately traveled to Washington, D.C. for the event. Horowitz likes to speak of “domestic terrorism subjects” often. Those are most likely Americans with strong patriotic sentiments, who are not pleased to see one-worlders in government. Never once has any such person planted an anti-personnel device in a public place, nor taken a hostage or hostages. The FBI surely knows this.

In addition, twenty-three other snitches were already in Washington, D.C. at the time. They attended the Big Rally for Donald Trump. Here is where Mr. Horowitz has a problem. He confidently asserts that the FBI never authorized any of these people to enter the Capitol or the restricted area around it. But he admits that four of them did enter the Capitol and another thirteen entered the restricted area. And none of those snitches has faced prosecution, even though they were technically trespassing.

Horowitz goes on to assert that the FBI’s Washington Field Office didn’t even know how many such assets it had. That, of course, strains credulity. No one has ever compared the FBI to the Keystone Kops.

More than only those snitches

That report covers only those twenty-six snitches. Jim Hoft asserts that the FBI had many more than that – and some of those were agents provocateurs. His report has extensive links to previous reporting – including twenty separate incidents of provocation, evidence planting, and laying of traps.

The next day (December 13), Hoft recapped a report by Washington Times investigative reporter Kerry Picket from July 2023. That report mentioned “at least twenty-five” snitches, in connection with the appearance by FBI Director Christopher Wray before the House Judiciary Committee. The FBI’s Deputy Director, Paul Abbate, tried to hide the existence of those snitches in Washington that day. Mr. Abbate said the obvious: the FBI could never justify or even excuse it. “Embarrassing” and “problematic” were the words he used.

Mr. Picket has been recapping his own reporting since Thursday, with the release of the IG report.

FLASHBACK July 2023 FBI whistleblower: Deputy director told subordinates to hide Jan. 6 informants.

FLASHBACK July 2023 FBI whistleblower: Deputy director told subordinates to hide Jan. 6 informants – https://t.co/HgWf2PDlCN – @washtimes— Kerry Picket (@KerryPicket) December 13, 2024

An FBI agent told the House Judiciary Committee that Deputy Director Paul Abbate suggested that at least 25 FBI confidential human sources, or informants, involved in reporting to the bureau from the Jan. 6, 2021, protest should not be publicly acknowledged.

According to the whistleblower disclosure sent to the committee, Mr. Abbate notified one or more of his subordinates that the more than 25 informants were too problematic or embarrassing for the FBI to have their existence made known to the public and that the existence, activities and identities of these FBI confidential human sources should not be released.

An FBI agent told the House Judiciary Committee that Deputy Director Paul Abbate suggested that at least 25 FBI confidential human sources, or informants, involved in reporting to the bureau from the Jan. 6, 2021, protest should not be publicly acknowledged.
According to the… https://t.co/JmVCTSmWTd— Kerry Picket (@KerryPicket) December 13, 2024

A CNN account reacted to the IG report with this:

No undercover FBI agents were at the US Capitol during the insurrection, a Justice Department watchdog has found, rejecting claims by allies of President-elect Donald Trump that the violence on January 6, 2021, was provoked by federal agents.

No undercover FBI agents were at the US Capitol during the insurrection, a Justice Department watchdog has found, rejecting claims by allies of President-elect Donald Trump that the violence on January 6, 2021, was provoked by federal agents https://t.co/WethxbOGED— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) December 12, 2024

That’s stretching a point. Mr. Horowitz did not care to admit that the FBI had any sworn agents on the scene. But he did admit that seventeen paid snitches did enter the restricted area, including four who entered the Capitol. Reaction to this CNN-affiliated post was uniformly negative and consisted of cat-calling and refutations. Many cited the actual report mentioning those seventeen trespassing snitches.

What did Liz Cheney know, and when did she know it?

Yesterday evening at 6:00 p.m. EST, Cullen Linebarger of TGP dropped a thunderclap of a report. It refers to a report earlier in the evening by The Washington Examiner. According to it, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday Morning Futures program yesterday morning. In that segment, he asked why Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-Wyo.) had seen fit to belittle him and others for raising questions about the investigation, such as it was, by the House Select January 6 Committee.

When Ms. Bartiromo asked him to comment on the IG report, he said:

The Inspector General’s report confirmed what a lot of us had wondered for a long time, and what we repeated questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray and other DOJ officials about. Which is: whether, and to what extent, there may have been government assets on the ground, involved in what happened on January 6, 2021. They [disrespected] our questions, They refused to answer them, they neglected them. And then a lot of people, including The Huffington Post, including [Representative] Cheney, called those of us who were asking the questions, “nut cases,” [implying] that we were crazy for asking them. Well now it appears we weren’t so crazy after all, that we had perfectly legitimate reasons to ask the questions, and those questions were not at all what Liz Cheney and The Huffington Post wanted everyone to suppose.

This exchange, between Sen. Lee and former Rep. Cheney, in November of 2023, was typical:

Here’s some January 6th video for you. Fmr. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)

Here’s some January 6th video for you.

pic.twitter.com/MReMysC534— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) November 17, 2023

Liz, we’ve seen footage like that a million times. You made sure we saw that—and nothing else. It’s the other stuff—what you deliberately hid from us—that we find so upsetting. Nice try.

P.S. How many of these guys are feds? (As if you’d ever tell us). Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Liz, we’ve seen footage like that a million times.

You made sure we saw that—and nothing else.

It’s the other stuff—what you deliberately hid from us—that we find so upsetting.

Nice try.

P.S. How many of these guys are feds? (As if you’d ever tell us). https://t.co/FryO0VdLdP— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) November 18, 2023

Hey, [Senator] Lee – heads up. A nutball conspiracy theorist appears to be posting from your account. Fmr. Rep. Cheney

Hey @BasedMikeLee – heads up. A nutball conspiracy theorist appears to be posting from your account. https://t.co/N26lfzPZPU— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) November 18, 2023

Fmr. Rep. Cheney

Ms. Bartiromo asked about that exchange, and pointedly asked whether Liz Cheney will require a preemptive pardon. The Senator replied:

I don’t know what she might have known at the time. But what I do know is this: it’s very strange that she would call people who were raising these questions nut jobs, nut cases, whatever it is that she wanted to say, when she herself, a member of this January 6th investigative committee, had access to a lot of information. This begs the question: did she know, in fact, that what Mr. Horowitz put out recently in the inspector general report? Did she know this already? If so, why was she up there calling into question the sanity of anyone if even raising the question?

As far as these preemptive pardons go, it really is interesting, how many people [have appeared] on this list. I wonder whether that is actually going to happen, or whether this is sheer speculation. But if it’s not speculation, who else is on the list? I would really like to know that.

Ms. Bartiromo then asked about the rumored destruction of evidence. Sen. Lee replied:

What I do know is that, when the Democrats lost their electoral majority, when the new majority came in and started looking for documents, there was a bunch of stuff missing. As far as who [might] have destroyed what, I don’t know. But this does make me wonder what role she might have had in it, as well as other Members of the Committee.

At one minute to midnight Saturday, before he appeared on Sunday Morning Futures, Sen. Lee had this response to last year’s snide post by former Rep. Cheney:

Liz Cheney called me a “nutball conspiracy theorist” for asking questions about FBI’s involvement on January 6^th. The DOJ Inspector General’s report confirmed that I had good reasons to ask these questions, which Christopher Wray repeatedly dodged.

Liz Cheney called me a “nutball conspiracy theorist” for asking questions about FBI’s involvement on January 6th

The DOJ Inspector General’s report confirmed that I had good reasons to ask these questions, which Christopher Wray repeatedly dodged https://t.co/IQC10Saf1z— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 15, 2024

Analysis

CNAV, TGP, and many others have maintained since it happened that the January 6^th Event was a false-flag pseudo-operation. That an Inspector General from a Democratic administration sees fit to admit part of the truth, demonstrates two things. First, admitting part of the truth while denying the rest is a standard propaganda tactic. Second, it shows weakness. Were the administration operating from a position of strength, they would never admit even as much as they just did.

As for Liz Cheney, William Shakespeare would know exactly what to say:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Hamlet III.ii.219

In 2022, Liz Cheney lost her primary to her successor, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.). But, it seems, she couldn’t leave the January 6^th Event alone. She had to share carefully edited footage to show that patriotic Americans, in an out-of-control rage, ran riot. Never mind that this would have been the most pathetic riot in history. At least 100,000 people attended that Big Rally, perhaps 200,000 – enough for twenty infantry divisions. Had they made a definite plan, they could have occupied the Capitol easily. Perhaps the presence of a division of National Guardsmen would have persuaded the planners to abort any such plan. Or perhaps not.

We’ll never know for sure – because Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then Speaker of the House, refused President Trump’s offer of those troops. Instead, her daughter showed up with a film crew, shooting whatever footage she might splice together afterward. Even then, the Democrats were planning to make Republicans look bad.

Role of the FBI

The FBI was their enforcement arm – or rather, on loan from the Deep State. Theirs was the plan to provoke the crowd into such violence as actually occurred. And remember: only one person died from a shot fired in anger. That was Ashli Babbett – on the patriotic side.

The January 6 Committee – which Trump calls “The Unselect Committee” – suppressed all evidence exculpatory of any protesters, or incriminating of the FBI. Liz Cheney was part of that. So look again at her ridiculous exchange with Sen. Lee. She shares edited footage. The Senator reminds her sharply of the suppressed evidence, and the suspicions of FBI snitches and “cutouts” (undercover operatives) on the ground. Her reply amounts to two words: “You’re” and “nuts.”

The termagant (no lady she) did indeed protest far too much. Sen. Lee, of course, is playing the perfect gentleman, saying “I wonder” when he means “I know.” And he’s asking the right question: what did the token ranking member know, and when did she know it?

In any case, the American people have the proof they need. Delaying the release of that proof until after the election was a very clever trick – that didn’t work. The more reason for President-elect Trump to investigate this matter – fully. He’s taken one important step already: nominating a new Director who will hold the FBI up by its collective ankles and shake it. Which is just what the county needs to see happen.