The January 6, 2021 'insurrection' needs an independent investigation

Neither the FBI nor the media have thoroughly investigated the January 6, 2021 "insurrection."  Given the lingering questions about it and the unreliability of those two institutions, Americans deserve an independent investigation.

The January 6, 2021 disturbance at the Capitol was a godsend to the radical left and its supporters.  Media claims that BLM and Antifa riots were "mostly peaceful" and politicians claiming that these groups are not organized haven't convinced Americans.  After approximately 2 billion dollars' worth of property damage and over two dozen deaths, the Deep State finally has a distraction because it can point to January 6 and draw attention away from the BLM and Antifa riots.

Is it possible that the radical left realized this potential benefit and decided to infiltrate the protest to ensure that it was more violent?  Does it matter that FBI chief Chris Wray claimed there was no evidence Antifa members played a role during the January 6 U.S. Capitol protests?

Despite what FBI chief Wray says, there was at least one radical leftist posturing as a Trump-supporter at the Capitol.  John Sullivan fancies himself a leader of numerous leftists.  He was accompanied by a female, Jade Sacker, a documentary photographer from a Native American family culturally displaced from their land.  It is unlikely that she is a Trump-supporter.

Sullivan's brother, James Sullivan, claims there were 226 members of Antifa involved in the attack on the Capitol on January 6.  One of John Sullivan's correspondents, deaththreat, claimed, "I was in front line (sic) of the battle and know who was there (sic) personally. It was a large sum of anti-thumpers."

The FBI claims Antifa was not involved.  It has performed a thorough investigation, and therefore anyone believing otherwise is a conspiracy theorist or mentally imbalanced.  However, the FBI might have a reason to conceal the radical participation.

The FBI routinely infiltrates radical groups.  Jeremy Brown attended the Stop the Steal protests in Washington, D.C. on January 6.  He has videotaped FBI efforts to recruit him to spy on patriot groups.  He did not release these tapes until he became angered by the lies surrounding the event: "After listening to politicians and the FBI Director, Chris Wray, tell lie after bald-faced lie to the American People, he could not stay silent any longer."

John Sullivan's radical actions are played down by the media.  PolitiFact claims there's no evidence that Sullivan "incited [the] insurgence" on his own.  Jade Sacker claimed, "He was vocal, but I wouldn't say he was inciting violence."  Sullivan is on tape saying, "If we don't get in, we're going to burn this s--- down" among other obscene and volatile remarks.

Could the FBI be involved in activities that it would not want the American public to know about?  According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in the past ten years, there've been twenty terrorist plots against the U.S.  Three of those plots were real; the other 17 were created — and then stopped — by the FBI.

Perhaps the judge is under a lot of stress and needs his meds increased.  But wait.  Here we have the newspaper of record, a paper that prints only what is fit to print, saying essentially the same thing.  The New York Times reported details on several of these plots.  The article claims, "[A]ll these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists."  Informers are recruited because of a vulnerability and "are often convicted felons working in exchange for leniency."  Judge Colleen McMahon commented on one pathetic case: "[o]nly the government could have made a 'terrorist' out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope."

The secrecy surrounding the events of January 6 has raised more interest in the government's actions.  The murder of Ashli Babbitt is one example.  This 5'2" woman was shot at close range by a plainclothesman while she attempted to climb through a window.  There is not a use of force policy in the civilized world that would permit an officer to discharge his weapon in such a situation.

An authority on such matters, Chris Cuomo, asserted, "Police are trained to deal with non-compliance, with force that is not lethal."  Perhaps the officer mistook his Glock for a taser.  Yet Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) stated, "When they broke the glass in the back, the [police] lieutenant that was there ... didn't have a choice at that time."  Perhaps the requirements for the Capitol police need to be raised.  Since 2015, there have been three incidents where Capitol police left their service weapons in restrooms.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).  He has a Master of Arts degree in international relations from St. Mary's University.  He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.  He is featured on the BBC's program "Things We Forgot to Remember:" Morgenthau Plan and Post-War Germany.

Image: January 6.  YouTube screen grab.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you experience technical problems, please write to