NY Times vindicates Tucker, reports on FBI operatives deeply involved in Jan 6 event

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson said on Tuesday that prior reporting by a noted aggregate website, Revolver News, as well as his own program that the FBI was somehow involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot proved to be correct, as a report in The New York Times late last week indicated.

“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 F.B.I. handler,” the Times reported Saturday.

“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,” the paper noted further, adding later in the story that the informant actually entered the Capitol at one point.

“[T]he records…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,” the Times added.

The Times story went a long way toward “vindicating what we said months ago: FBI operatives were deeply involved in the events of Jan. 6,” before bringing in Darren Beattie, the editor-in-chief of Revolver News, which first broke the story, to comment on what he believes is “the extent” of the federal government’s involvement in the Jan. 6 incident.

“The extent is far more than the Feds and the media were willing to admit,” Beattie began, noting that the Times story actually acknowledges that there were at least two FBI informants involved in the riot.

After suggesting that the Times didn’t cover the story to do Revolver News or Carlson “any favors,” Beattie predicted that the situation with federal involvement that day “is far worse,” predicting “there will be many more informants coming to light in the near future.”

Beattie went on to suggest as well that the Times report “poses a pretty severe strategic dilemma for the Feds and their apparatchiks in the regime media” because during previous Senate testimony regarding the riot, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) “did [FBI Director Christopher Wray] the courtesy of assuming there was no visibility into the protest because they had no informants.

“You see, if they had informants, that would have meant they were ‘informed’ as to what would transpire, and then the question is, ‘Why didn’t you do anything to stop it?'” Beattie said. “Now that we know they had informants, the question re-presents itself.”

The Revolver News editor then referenced other recent reporting in the media using information planted by the FBI, which ostensibly has concluded the protests were spontaneous — that there was no advance planning — as a means of covering up the fact that the bureau did have eyes-on via informants.

“If there was no foreplanning on the part of the so-called insurrectionists, that means there could have been no foreknowledge on the part of the Feds, and they’re absolved from suspicion as to why, if they knew about it, they didn’t do anything to stop it,” said Beattie.

In June, using Revolver News’ reporting, Carlson noted that court documents filed by federal prosecutors against many of the Jan. 6 rioters mentioned “unindicted co-conspirators,” a phrase often used to describe government informants.

“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 added.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Jon Dougherty


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles