FBI and DHS Attempted to Recruit Green Beret to Infiltrate Oath Keepers Before Jan. 6 Riot

Throughout 2020 the Black Lives Matter terrorist group was linked to conservatively 91% of the riots that resulted in the most expensive property damage in US insurance history

Then on January 6, after one million Trump supporters rallied with President Trump at the Ellipse outside the White House, some 900 individuals went inside the US Capitol. Over 400 have since been arrested even those who were waved into the US Capitol by the police standing at the exits.

Since January the Deep State and Democrats will not release videotapes to Republican lawmakers from January 6th inside or outside the US Capitol.

On Tuesday Revolver News published an important piece on the “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Jan. 6 attack who were never charged by the DOJ or FBI for their part in the violence on Jan. 6.

The “unindicted co-conspirators” were frequently the most violent and leaders of the assault on the US Capitol. They are also likely FBI informants.

And now we have proof that the FBI was actively recruiting military members to infiltrate and spy on the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys before the Jan. 6 protests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

(derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) (1956–1971) was a series of covert and illegal[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations.

...The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971.[12] COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day and have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination.[13][14][15][16] The FBI’s stated motivation was “protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order”.[17]

...Illegal surveillance
The final report of the Church Committee concluded:

Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been illegally collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret and biased informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone “bugs”, surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous—and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations—have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity.

Groups and individuals have been assaulted, repressed, harassed and disrupted because of their political views, social beliefs and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory, harmful and vicious tactics have been employed—including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

Governmental officials—including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law—have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.

The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its appropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them.[92][93]

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. government of assassinating Ashli Babbitt,

In his Monday interview with NBC News, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. government of assassinating Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran whom Capitol Police shot during the January 6 riot.

Putin referenced Babbitt’s death, without using her name, when NBC’s Keir Simmons asked if he ordered the assassination of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. Navalny was nearly killed with a nerve agent while flying from Siberia to Moscow in August 2020, recovered after treatment in Germany, and was jailed upon returning to Russia in January 2021. Agents of Russia’s FSB security service have been implicated in the attempt on Navalny’s life.

Simmons asked about Navalny after Putin deflected and stonewalled his questions on political repression in Russia. Putin used the January 6 incident to argue there is repression in America as well.

“Of course not. We don’t have this kind of habit of assassinating anybody. That’s one,” Putin said to the charge of ordering the attack on Navalny.

“Number two is I want to ask you: Did you order the assassination of the woman who walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman? Do you know that 450 individuals were arrested after entering the Congress? And they didn’t go there to steal a laptop,” he continued.

“They came with political demands. Four hundred fifty people have been detained. They’re looking at jail time, between 15 and 25 years. And they came to the Congress with political demands. Isn’t that persecution for political opinions?” Putin asked.

Putin accused the U.S. government of twisting and bypassing its own legal procedures to level excessive punishment against the Capitol protesters, while the Russian dissidents he is accused of repressing are, he claimed, actually criminals who have been convicted with due process:

Some have been accused of plotting to topple, to take over government power. Some are accused of robbery. They didn’t go there to rob.

The people who you have mentioned, yes, they were convicted for violating their status, having been previously convicted, given suspended sentences, which were essentially a warning to not violate the Russian laws. And they completely ignored the requirements of the law. The court went on and turned the conviction into real jail time.

Thousands and thousands of people ignore requirements of the law, and they have nothing to do with political activities, in Russia every year and they go to jail. If somebody is actually using political activities as a shield to deal with their issues, including to achieve their commercial goals, then it’s something that they have to be held responsible for.

Putin was referencing criticism that the January 6 protesters have received disproportionately stern treatment, a sentiment several Republican senators expressed in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland sent on June 7. Critics note that despite media and Democrat insistence that the Capitol Hill riot was an “insurrection,” most of the charges filed to date have been for milder infractions.

Simmons responded by calling Putin out for his habit of saying “What about America?” every time his government is accused of transgressions. Putin, like the Chinese government, is adept at studying American media controversies and finding social stress points to hit, opportunities to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy and deny it has the moral standing to criticize human rights abuses elsewhere in the world.

As Putin was surely aware, Babbitt’s death is once again in the news because her family is demanding to know the identity of the Capitol Police officer who shot her. The family’s legal representatives are accusing the government of concealing the officer’s identity because he may have a questionable service record, and because “they don’t have a good explanation for the shooting.”

The Babbitt family lawyers have announced plans to file a $10 million civil lawsuit against the Capitol police for her death, charging that excessive force was used against the unarmed woman. The Justice Department said in April that it would not file charges against the officer.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/16/putin-accuses-us-government-assassinating-ashli-babbitt/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.