New York Times Says FBI Informant & Handler Were Involved in January-6 Violence at the Capitol

  • Save
  • Save founder Darren Beattie was proven right by a New York Times article published on Saturday that admitted the FBI was communicating with informants embedded in militias that were part of the January-6 violence at the Capitol. He pointed out that the FBI had multiple informants and that the three militia groups, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and Proud Boys, were infiltrated. The New York Times said: “the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.” [Visibility is a too soft a word. Controlling hand would be closer to it.] -GEG

Video featuring Darren Beattie starts at 6:50  – 13:50

Summary by JW Williams

On Saturday, September 25, the New York Times (NYT) admitted that a member of the Proud Boys was busy texting his FBI handler. while attending the protest at the Capitol. Journalist Darren Beattie pointed out that the FBI had multiple informants and that the three militia groups, the Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and Proud Boys, that are blamed for the so-called ‘insurrection’ of the Capitol, were infiltrated “up the wazoo” for many months. He said the NYT wanted to deflect attention away from the texting between the informant and FBI handler during the event because it suggests conspiracy. Steve Bannon said that the New York Times is running damage control for the FBI.

The New York Times admitted “the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.”

Beattie compared the storming of the Capitol to the Michigan plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer where FBI agents and assets accounted for 12 out of 18 men involved; this suggests that the Capitol event may have been orchestrated by the agency, as has happened in many prior cases. The media and the government have promoted the narrative that the storming of the Capitol was an intelligence failure, so the FBI and police could not have prevented it, but evidence shows it is a failed intelligence operation.

Representative Bennie Thomson (D-MS) is the chairman of the House commission investigating the January 6 protest, and he even has a personal lawsuit against Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, the Oath Keepers organization, and the Proud Boys organization, asserting that Trump and his agents on the inside conspired with the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and agents on the outside to incite a crowd to attack the Capitol. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers has not been subjected to vigorous investigation like those around him, including 600 protesters who were arrested; Beattie said that if his communication records were collected, it would show communications between the informant and the FBI handler. Beattie reminded that this happened with the Michigan case and happened with the Proud Boys in the January 6 case, and they don’t want to expose communications with Rhodes.

Stewart Rhodes went on camera in a livestream two months ago and admitted to having armed police officers in DC who were secretly members of his Oath Keepers “Quick Response Force” for the January 6 operation.

Beattie concluded that the American people are not represented by politicians and the government because “unless and until we bring our national security apparatus to heel, politics in this country will be fake…” He said that the key to bringing them to heel is exposing the lies of January 6th.

 From the New York Times:

Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant

As scores of Proud Boys made their way, chanting and shouting, toward the Capitol on Jan. 6, one member of the far-right group was busy texting a real-time account of the march.

The recipient was his FBI handler.

In the middle of an unfolding melee that shook a pillar of American democracy — the peaceful transfer of power — the bureau had an informant in the crowd, providing an inside glimpse of the action, according to confidential records obtained by The New York Times. In the informant’s version of events, the Proud Boys, famous for their street fights, were largely following a pro-Trump mob consumed by a herd mentality rather than carrying out any type of preplanned attack.

After meeting his fellow Proud Boys at the Washington Monument that morning, the informant described his path to the Capitol grounds, where he saw barriers knocked down and Trump supporters streaming into the building, the records show. At one point, his handler appeared not to grasp that the building had been breached, the records show, and asked the informant to keep him in the loop — especially if there was any violence.

The use of informants always presents law enforcement officials with difficult judgments about the credibility and completeness of the information they provide. In this case, the records obtained by The Times do not directly address whether the informant was in a good position to know about plans developed for Jan. 6 by the leadership of the Proud Boys, why he was cooperating, whether he could have missed indications of a plot or whether he could have deliberately misled the government.

But the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.

At the same time, the new information is likely to complicate the government’s efforts to prove the high-profile conspiracy charges it has brought against several members of the Proud Boys.

On Jan. 6, and for months after, the records show, the informant, who was affiliated with a Midwest chapter of the Proud Boys, denied that the group intended to use violence that day. In lengthy interviews, the records say, he also denied that the extremist organization planned in advance to storm the Capitol. The informant’s identity was not disclosed in the records.

The records describing the informant’s account of Jan. 6 — excerpts from his interviews and communications with the FBI before, during and after the riot — dovetail with assertions made by defense lawyers who have argued that even though several Proud Boys broke into the Capitol, the group did not arrive in Washington with a preset plot to storm the building.

They also raise new questions about the FBI performance in tracking the threat from far-right groups like the Proud Boys.

The records — provided to The Times on the condition that they not be directly quoted — show the FBI was investigating at least two other participants in the rally Jan. 6 and asked the informant to make contact with them, suggesting that they might be Proud Boys.

Moreover, the records indicate that FBI officials in Washington were alerted in advance of the attack that the informant was traveling to the Capitol with several other Proud Boys.

The FBI also had an additional informant with ties to another Proud Boys chapter that took part in the sacking of the Capitol, according to a person familiar with the matter, raising questions about the quality of the bureau’s informants and what sorts of questions they were being asked by their handlers before Jan. 6.

Christopher Wray, the bureau’s director, acknowledged to Congress in March that the FBI was studying the quality of the intelligence it had gathered about Jan. 6.

“Anytime there’s an attack — especially one that’s this horrific, that strikes right at the heart of our system of government, right at the time the transfer of power is being discussed — you can be darn tootin’ that we are focused very, very hard on how can we get better sources, better information, better analysis so that we can make sure that something like what happened on Jan. 6th never happens again,” he said during the congressional hearing.

In a statement, the FBI said that intelligence gathering was central to its mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.

“While the FBI’s standard practice is not to discuss its sources and methods, it is important to understand that sources provide valuable information regarding criminal activity and national security matters,” the bureau said.

The new information was revealed at a time when misinformation continues to circulate among far-right commentators and websites accusing the FBI of having used informants or agents to stage the attack Jan. 6. But if anything, the records appear to show that the informant’s FBI handler was slow to grasp the gravity of what was happening that day. And the records show that the informant traveled to Washington at his own volition, not at the request of the FBI.

The question of whether extremist groups like the Proud Boys conspired in advance of Jan. 6 to organize the worst assault on the Capitol in more than 200 years is one of the most important avenues of inquiry being pursued by authorities. But the records describing the informant are only one piece of a much larger puzzle that includes other information about the group.

The informant, who started working with the FBI in July 2020, appears to have been close to several other members of his Proud Boys chapter, including some who have been charged in the attack. But it is not clear from the records obtained by The Times how well he knew the group’s top leaders or whether he was in the best position to learn about potential plans to storm the Capitol.

As more and more Proud Boys have been arrested in connection with the attack, the group has been increasingly plunged into an atmosphere of suspicion about the presence of informants in their ranks.

The dark mood started three weeks after the riot, when it emerged that Enrique Tarrio, the group’s leader, had himself worked as an FBI informant well before he joined the Proud Boys.

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary


For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 months ago

Is it possible some of those “plants” were not just inside observer/reporters, but facilitators guiding things in a pre-planned narrative direction? (Remembering the Dems continuously “looking the other way” when BLM & Antifa repeatedly engaged in deadly anarchy. Was much, most, or all of this designed to politically castrate Trump, turning his DC followers into ‘political prisoners’ as example to others?..

What do you think?