WaPo / Philip Bump: Right-wing conspiracy theories are having a bad day

[Dennis Donovan]

WaPo / Philip Bump - (archived: https://archive.ph/VbGnO ) Right-wing conspiracy theories are having a bad day

FBI at the Capitol riot? Nope. Joe Biden taking a bribe? Even more nope. New evidence that emerged Thursday via an inspector general report and guilty plea further debunk the claims.

Column by Philip Bump
Today at 3:24 PM ET

If you spend much time watching Fox News, or if you look to social media sites like X for information about American politics and the U.S. government, you have probably heard two specific claims over the past four years. First, that the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was fomented at least in part by government actors, including from the FBI. Second, that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden took millions of dollars in bribes from a Ukrainian businessman.

You’ve probably heard those claims because each offers a different lens into the purported corruption of the Biden administration and/or the governmental Deep State — and because right-wing media organizations like Fox spent months amplifying them. That claim about the bribes, for example, was hyped by Fox host Maria Bartiromo alone hundreds of times. The agent provocateur allegations about the Capitol riot, meanwhile, were a staple of Tucker Carlson’s former Fox News show.

There was never solid evidence to suggest that either was true. Instead, the assertions relied on the willingness of those on the right and supporters of Donald Trump in particular to embrace flimsy disparagements of Trump’s opponents and, rather than demand incontrovertible evidence from those making the claims, insist that the accused prove their own innocence.

Proving a negative — that someone didn’t do something — is often all but impossible, one reason that those in a weaker rhetorical position often demand it. But, on Thursday, new evidence emerged that brings each of the claims above one step closer to having been affirmatively disproved.

The one about the alleged bribe that Bartiromo found so convincing has already been eviscerated. It depended on an interview the FBI conducted with an informant — a “confidential human source” (CHS) in Bureau parlance. This particular CHS alleged that he’d been told about the bribe by a Ukrainian businessman, and relayed that claim to his FBI handler.

/snip

[regnaD kciN]

1. Will it matter...?

Trump's DoJ and FBI will be tasked to find (or manufacture) evidence to "prove" both of those (along with the 2020 election being rigged) and then file appropriate charges. Sure, they have zero proof that would stand up in a jury trial, but they'll probably just hope to get all the charges to be heard before Trumper judges, who will declare all the defendants to be "flight risks" and order them held without bail until their trials...which will never happen.

[WarGamer]

2. This just isn't accurate...

The report said there were 26 FBI operatives there... and 3 paid informants assigned to the scene...

One FBI operative entered the Capitol and one was on restricted external areas.

It wasn't 200 or 300... but calling it ZERO is a lie.

But the conspiracy theories regarding instigation by the FBI... are debunked.

[Wiz Imp]

3. You're wrong

From the WAPO article which is being quoted:

“We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” the report reads. There were informants at the Capitol that day, it continued, but those were people who, like Smirnov, gave information to the FBI rather than working for it directly. But even considering that distance from the government, the inspector general’s office found no evidence the informants were involved in the day’s violence.

This is taken directly from the report so it is 100% accurate and the post you said wasn't accurate was quoted directly from this article so, it is also 100% accurate.

[Nimble_Idea]

4. hey,

don't let facts get in the way of a bro cool internet post

[WarGamer]

6. 26 FBI informants... 3 of them directed by the FBI (meaning paid)

That's a fact.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn850jj44mjo

The report, from the justice department's Office of the Inspector General, found that 26 "confidential human sources" - or paid informants - were in Washington on the day of the riot.

Three of them had been tasked with gathering information for domestic terrorism cases who might have been going to the rallies on 6 January, one of whom entered the Capitol building.

Of the 26 in total, four confidential sources entered the Capitol during the riot. Another 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol - a security perimeter established in preparation for election certification on 6 January.

[Wiz Imp]

14. And the article that was quoted in the OP pointed that out.

There was absolutely nothing inaccurate in that WAPO article. It was taken directly from the report. Just because the small portion of the article the OP was allowed to post didn't spell out everything doesn't make it inaccurate. Your insisting otherwise is pathetic.

[dpibel]

7. That'll teach me not to scroll before I post

Sorry to dupe what you'd already said.

[Wiz Imp]

17. No apology needed. You did a better job than I did of pointing out how ridiculous the "inaccurate" argument was and is.

There was absolutely nothing inaccurate in that WAPO article. For someone to continue to insist otherwise is a really bad look.

[dpibel]

5. Please. You're saying Bump is lying?

It's surpassing odd to me that you use the word "agent" when, at least according to this column, the number ZERO is correct and you calling it a lie is...ummm...sadly mistaken.

If you can point me to language in the report that contradicts what Bump says, by all means do.

But here is what the WaPo piece says:

“We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” the report reads. There were informants at the Capitol that day, it continued, but those were people who, like Smirnov, gave information to the FBI rather than working for it directly. But even considering that distance from the government, the inspector general’s office found no evidence the informants were involved in the day’s violence.
“We determined that three CHSs had been tasked by FBI field offices in the days leading up to the January 6 Electoral Certification, with the required approval of the [Washington field office], to travel to DC for the events of January 6 to report on domestic terrorism subjects who were possibly attending the event,” the report states. Later, it notes that in addition to these three, the review “found that 23 other FBI CHSs were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events planned for January 6.” The FBI only knew that five of those informants were likely to be in D.C.

Please do not tell me that you mean "agent" in the broad sense of the word, as in someone acting on another's behalf. You cannot use the terms "FBI" and "agent" in close proximity without your reader assuming that you are referring to a full-fledged, sworn FBI employee. And really, the same applies to "operatives."

But I know you will not make that response, because that degree of sophistry is beneath you.

[WarGamer]

9. I changed agent to directed informant...

which means paid by the FBI and directed to be there...

[dpibel]

11. What's your source for that term?

I find "directed informant" neither used nor defined in either of the articles now being bandied about.

[WarGamer]

13. I can't find it...

But a "directed informant" is one who has received a REQUEST and PAYMENT to do a job.

Three of them had been tasked with gathering information for domestic terrorism cases who might have been going to the rallies on 6 January, one of whom entered the Capitol building.

Some of those sources fed information back to the bureau during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to the report. Three of those 26 went to D.C. with the approval of the Washington Field Office to report on possible domestic terrorism subjects who were possibly attending the event.

3 of them were tasked with collecting information and relaying it back to their FBI handler in real time.

Again... the RWNJ conspiracy theory was ridiculous... but it just seems to me that some reporting leaves out the facts about the FBI affiliated folks who WERE there.

[dpibel]

15. Please give me your source

I am not familiar with the term "directed informant."

With all due respect, I'm not willing to just take your word for it that it's a common term and you are offering the one and only definition.

And given that the story at issue pretty plainly says that there were 26 people in DC with some FBI affiliation is a bit of a hard sell that the journo "leaves out the facts."

I think you tilted at a straw man to begin with (where did you come up with the ZERO assertion that you were scolding in the first place?). What's going on now is called, IIRC, backing and filling.

[WarGamer]

18. Bumps sub headline of his article... "FBI at the Capitol, nope."

My disagreement with Bump is... yes they were at the Capitol riot... even receiving real time info from the crowd.

It's possible to debunk RWNJ nonsense without over exaggerating reality.

[WarGamer]

10. Bump and the article are splitting hairs...

They say no employees... yeah because they are paid informants.

Stuff like that.

Only RWNJ believe the FBI started the riot...

But only a fool would believe the FBI had NO PEOPLE on the ground.

[dpibel]

12. I'm not sure that's all the hair-splitting that's going on here

You made a clearly wrong scolding assertion.

You got called on it.

You edited your original post (just out of curiosity, how do you do that without leaving an edit history?) to better fit your argument.

But, fact is, informants aren't employees (and there's actually nothing in either of these articles that supports your assertion as proven fact that these CHS's were paid).

BTW, on edit: I'm not aware that the argument turns on whether there were zero people associated with the FBI or more. The RWNJ story is that the FBI was pretty much running the thing, from fomenting the violence to directing traffic to whatever. You know: "Ray Epps did it." If the FBI can pull that off with 26 informants it really is more powerful than I give it credit for.

[WarGamer]

16. page 77 of the actual report...

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/thecentersquare.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/f1/0f19468e-b8bd-11ef-b268-9b846a857950/675b35c755b40.pdf.pdf

Findings Regarding FBI CHSs Who Were in DC on January 6, Including Three that Had
Been Tasked to Report on Predicated Subjects Believed to be Attending the Rally

Had been tasked... means directed and paid.

The other 23, according to the report went there on their own free will.

[dpibel]

20. OK. Your say-so.

"Had been tasked...means directed and paid."

You source does not provide that definition. The only source I can see here for that definition is you.

It really doesn't matter. I think your level of dudgeon is a bit high here, all things considered.

[Wiz Imp]

21. From the executive summary of the OIG Report

No Undercover FBI Employees at Protests or at the Capitol on January 6. We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6.

Today’s report also details our findings regarding FBI CHSs who were in Washington, D.C., on January 6. Our
review determined that none of these FBI CHSs was authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted
area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to
commit illegal acts on January 6.

Game. Set. Match.

[JanMichael]

8. Yeah they're doing terrible. All branches of government in the federal level.

They're doing just awful.

[Initech]

19. Good! Fuck them all!

Conspiracy theory bullshit has been destroying the country and tearing us apart since 2012. The sooner this shit dies the horrible death it deserves, the better!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

22. As another Jan. 6 conspiracy theory collapses, JD Vance pretends otherwise

Despite the vice president-elect's claims, the Justice Department's inspector general just shredded a key Jan. 6 conspiracy theory.
https://bsky.app/profile/stevebenen.com/post/3ld6xa52ib22s

The Justice Department's inspector general shredded the "fedsurrection" Jan. 6 conspiracy theory that's popular with far-right Republicans.

For JD Vance to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/another-jan-6-conspiracy-theory-collapses-jd-vance-pretends-otherwise-rcna184106

Republican conspiracy theorists are probably quite accustomed to reality discrediting their ideas, but this has nevertheless been a rough week for them. Many GOP officials, for example, were heavily invested in Alexander Smirnov’s dubious claims about President Joe Biden, but the profiteer has since admitted that he made up the allegations.

In case that weren’t enough to ruin Republican conspiracy theorists’ day, the developments in Smirnov’s criminal case coincided with an important inspector general’s report. The New York Times reported:

More than two dozen F.B.I. informants were in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, but contrary to widespread conspiracy theories, bureau officials did not order anyone to break the law as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol that day, according to a report by a Justice Department watchdog released on Thursday. After a nearly four-year investigation, the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, also determined that the F.B.I. had not stationed any undercover agents in the crowd that gathered at the Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s electoral victory over Donald J. Trump in the 2020 election.

Horowitz’s full, 88-page report was published online and is available to the public......

The far-right conspiracy theory wasn’t that the Jan. 6 mob included some who were confidential FBI informants. We already knew this. Some even testified during Jan. 6 criminal cases.

Rather, as Vance really ought to know, the conspiracy theory is that the FBI was somehow responsible for instigating the attack and entrapping Trump’s poor, unsuspecting supporters.

Horowitz’s findings shred these claims. Not only did the IG conclude that the FBI informants weren’t authorized or encouraged to break the law, but the same findings made clear that there were no undercover FBI employees at the Capitol, either.

If Republican conspiracy theorists want to apologize right about now, that’d be great. If they want to enjoy a little quiet time, that’d be understandable. But for Vance to suggest that the inspector general’s findings somehow bolster Republican conspiracy theories is ridiculous.

[BoRaGard]

23. G.O.P. will rot in Hell for bearing false witness

and thereby pissing all over the COMMANDMENTS in The Bible. What manner of spiritual sickness is this?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. Trump's effort to move the Jan. 6 goalposts is literally unbelievable

When a Justice Department investigation discredited a key Jan. 6 conspiracy theory, Donald Trump cynically tried to tweak the absurd underlying claim.
https://bsky.app/profile/democracyblue.bsky.social/post/3ldghtrp4w22f

Trump’s effort to move the Jan. 6 goalposts is literally unbelievable
When a Justice Department investigation discredited a key Jan. 6 conspiracy theory, Donald Trump cynically tried to tweak the absurd underlying claim

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-effort-move-jan-6-goalposts-literally-unbelievable-rcna184331

Proponents of Jan. 6 conspiracy theories are probably accustomed to embarrassing setbacks, but last week was especially brutal. The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, unveiled the detailed findings of a four-year investigation, which concluded that while there were FBI informants at the Capitol, no FBI officials were responsible for instigating the attack......

No, I’m just kidding. The president-elect actually published an item to his social media platform, shortly before midnight on Friday night, that cynically tried to move the goalposts.

“Wow! This is big news,” the Republican wrote. “What a disgrace. Let J-6 Hostages out NOW!!!”

This came on the heels of Vice President-elect JD Vance taking a related step, pretending that humiliating news for Jan. 6 conspiracy theorists should actually be seen as evidence that helps Jan. 6 conspiracy theorists.

But these efforts are literally unbelievable. As we discussed last week, too many Republicans and their allies have spent nearly four years pushing the idea that federal law enforcement instigated the insurrectionist assault. The absurd claims grew so common that they were given a name: The “fedsurrection“ narrative was rooted in the idea that it was the FBI, and not Trump’s rabid followers, that was responsible for the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.....

Nevertheless, the incoming president is very likely to reference last week’s revelations when he prepares pardons for Jan. 6 criminals. In fact, as part of Time magazine’s latest cover story on Trump, published last week, the Republican not only said he intends to issue these pardons, he added that he hopes to do so “maybe” within “the first nine minutes” of his second term.

I’m not quite sure how that would work — perhaps he’ll interrupt his own inaugural address? — but time will tell.

As for the nature of Trump's plan, NBC News reported that the president-elect has expressed confusion about key elements — he’s said, for example, that he thinks most or all Jan. 6 defendants were being held in a Washington, D.C., jail, for example, when in fact only a handful of defendants are still being held pretrial — and even some of the Republican’s allies have expressed concern about his “level of awareness of the details.”