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.
= new reply since forum marked as read