The Revolver Affair: An Evaluation of Tucker Carlson’s Recent Accusations Against the FBI

Published on June 21, 2021, at The RF Angle, here

On Tuesday’s episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson reported on a controversial exposé published by relatively new and little known outfit, Revolver News, entitled “Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge.” It claims that the FBI may have been in a position to stop the events of January 6, or even have actively encouraged them to take place, but neglected to take preventative action because the optics of ‘the insurrection’ are politically favorable. The sheer gravity of these accusations has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. Predictably, the histrionics from left-wing media outlets began almost immediately and have been so vociferous as to compel Carlson to respond for three consecutive nights and counting – a rarity indeed. However, it’s noteworthy that push-back has come from the right as well. Below is an honest and sober evaluation of the Revolver Story and the criticism that story has received from pundits on both sides of the aisle.

A Summation of the Revolver Piece Itself

Breaking this story down is no easy task considering that this extremely comprehensive piece clocks in at nearly 10,000 words and requires the reader to reacquaint themselves with the story of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot from last year, but it can be boiled down to its essence as follows:

  • The FBI point man who handled the Governor Whitmer kidnapping case in Michigan last year, where 14 individuals were arrested for plotting to kidnap the Governor of Michigan and storm its State Capital, was immediately promoted to a post in the DC office and was subsequently placed in charge of the FBI’s operations in the ‘1/6 insurrection’ case.
  • As the Michigan case worked its way through the courts, something odd became apparent; the case involved an extraordinarily high number of ‘unindicted co-conspirators.’ In fact, three of the five individuals that drove together in a van to Whitmer’s vacation home turned out to be federal agents – two of which are formally identified as such in court documents and the other is simply referred to generically as “an individual from Wisconsin.” This is highly unusual.
  • As the ‘insurrection’ cases begin to enter their court-room phase, the same pattern is emerging. There is a remarkable number of unindicted co-conspirators, some of which are referred to as “unindicted co-conspirators” and many of which are just referred to generically, often with the word ‘individual(s),’ despite the facts presented clearly justifying their classification as co-conspirators.
  • When reading the indictments to piece together the timeline of activities that the government claims took place that day, it appears that many of the unindicted co-conspirators play crucial leadership roles such as organizing, booking and paying for transportation, providing hardware for radio communications, offering and advocating for illegal activities as well as urging the members of their various organizations to press forward at key moments during the breach of the capitol building itself.

Everything up to this point is verifiable fact based solely on publicly available documents (mostly court filings ) – there is not a single anonymous source cited anywhere in the Revolver story. The authors then ask the reader to make an inference:

  • It is not unreasonable to assume that the majority of these unindicted co-conspirators were federal agents, either Undercover Employees of the FBI or Confidential Informants of the FBI. What else could they be? Considering that the DOJ has embarked on a “Shock and Awe Campaign” (its own words) to seek maximum penalties against those charged in the ‘insurrection,’ what else could explain why so many people, many whom have played key roles, have not been charged? After all, the FBI’s infiltration of the leadership of groups such as the Proud Boys is well documented.
  • The story concludes that if one accepts the reasonable inference that most of these unindicted co-conspirators were indeed federal agents, as they were in the Michigan case managed by the same FBI point man, one must also then conclude, at the very least, that the FBI knew what was going to happen on 1/6 and took no action to stop it – and at the very worst, that the FBI played an active role in bringing the 1/6 ‘insurrection’ to fruition.

In light of all this, The Revolver piece challenges the government to answer three simple questions:

  1. “In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI, DOJ, Pentagon and network news have labeled most responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the federal government, or informants of said agencies?”
  2. “Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous “siege” and what roles did they play (merely passive informants or active instigators)?”
  1. “Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?”

The Response: An evaluation of the criticisms of the Revolver Story

Although the story was originally published by Revolver on Monday, it went largely unnoticed until Tuesday evening when Tucker Carlson, host of the single most watched cable news program in America, reported it on his show. The reaction was swift and severe. The Twitteroti reacted instantly – dismissing the report as a laughable tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory. Of course one cannot help but notice that anyone who tweeted out their condemnation of the story immediately after it aired, certainly didn’t bother to actually read the lengthy piece itself, but that is the quality of discourse we’ve come to expect from that insidious platform.

By Wednesday morning, all the usual suspects showed up (with one notable absence discussed below) to denounce Carlson, Revolver, Fox News and anyone who reads or watches them. Criticism came from CNN, The Huffington Post, MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Joe Scarborough and Chris Hayes, MSN, Newsweek, Salon, The Hill, , Yahoo News, and Media Matters, just to name a few.

Democratic Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) tweeted:

Republican Adam Kinzinger, an ardent never-Trumper, joined the chorus of criticism telling MSNBC, “This is the legacy of Trump and Trumpism… This is the legacy of blatant and outright lies to people that are being abused for their raw noble patriotism.”

The Washington Post published a piece entitled, “Tucker Carlson’s wild, baseless theory blaming the FBI for organizing the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.” This article is the only one from the left (that I can find) which offers its readers anything remotely close to a serious critical analysis. Virtually all the others cite this story as authoritative, if they bother citing anything at all. WaPo offers two primary arguments to discredit the theory asserted by Revolver and Carlson.

First, they point to social media posts by Thomas Caldwell, an alleged member of the Oath Keepers organization who has been charged with crimes related to his participation in the events of January 6. His social media posts seem to indicate that “PERSON 2” in the Caldwell indictment was in fact Caldwell’s wife. The indictment includes a text message from Caldwell to an alleged co-conspirator stating, “…[PERSON 2] and I will be in a hotel within striking distance of the city…” (see page 11 of the Caldwell indictment). Caldwell posted numerous pictures of him with his wife that day and it is reasonable to assume that they stayed in the same hotel room. Given that she is not named anywhere else in the indictment, and will almost assuredly meet the standard of “co-conspirator” it is seems logical that she is in fact “PERSON 2,” not an FBI agent. I agree with WaPo on this point, but that only accounts for one single unindicted co-conspirator; there are dozens more.

The second point is the most important as it is cited by numerous other stories. WaPo claims, “[l]egal experts say the government literally cannot name an undercover agent as an unindicted co-conspirator.” They provide a court case to back that claim up. The case, US v. Rodriguez 765 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1985), is a 1985 case from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which involves a drug dealer appealing his conviction of a conspiracy charge (among other things). The court states, “The government acknowledges that Rios and Jimenez [an FBI agent] cannot be considered parties to the illegal agreement since government agents and informers cannot be conspirators” (Id at 1552, 11th Cir. 1985). In my opinion, this case alone is not sufficient to support WaPo’s claim.

In order to be convicted of conspiracy, an individual must enter into an agreement with at least one other individual person to commit a crime. What the court is saying here, is that if the “other” individual is in fact an government agent, then there can be no “conspiracy” because that agent didn’t really intend to commit a crime along with defendant – because he/she was just pretending. That’s all fine and well but in the Caldwell indictment the government is not relying on those potential FBI agents to ‘establish a conspiracy.’ There is an ample number of known, named co-conspirators which they can can rely on for that purpose. The case law above says nothing about limiting the government’s ability to merely use the descriptive term “unindicted co-conspirators” when referring to persons it does not rely on to establish a conspiracy. If the guilt or innocence of the individuals indicted for the 1/6 riots hinged on the status of government agents presented (wrongly) as “unindicted co-conspirators,” there would be a problem; but that’s not the case here.

Furthermore, the indictments often use the generic term “an individual” to describe people who played key roles in the “insurrection” and whose identity is likely known by the government. Why aren’t they referred to as “unindicted co-conspirators” like the others? What is the explanation for this glaring irregularity? We look to the case of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot mentioned earlier for a possible answer. You will recall that three of the five men in the van that drove to the Governor’s vacation home were FBI agents. In that indictment, the government refers to one of those agents as “an individual from Wisconsin” rather than as a confidential informant like the others. The defendant and the Court itself were initially unaware that this man was working for the government. That “individual” turned out to be a confidential informant named Steve Robeson, who blew his cover a month after the filing of the indictment during an interview with The Detroit News. Mr. Robeson played a key role in executing the kidnapping plot and therefore it is reasonable to infer that the reason he wasn’t referred to as a “government agent” in the charging documents is because it would have raised serious concerns about entrapment. In fact, the failure of the prosecutor to disclose that fact may very well have blown the case. It will certainly justify grounds for appeal. After outing himself as a government agent, presumably by accident, Mr. Robeson was arrested by the FBI and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm; he is currently facing 10 years in federal prison.

By far the strongest case against the Revolver story is made by the well-regarded conservative blogger ‘Allahpundit’ in an article posted on Wednesday. He accepts the case law offered by WaPo, at least for the sake of argument, and goes on to claim that the most likely explanation for the existence of so many “unindicted co-conspirators” is that they were genuine participants in the riot who were subsequently arrested, and then cooperated with authorities in exchange for information and/or leniency, essentially becoming federal agents after the events of 1/6. Allahpundit goes on to hypothesize, “It may be that the feds are planning to charge the unindicted co-conspirators eventually but are waiting to figure out how lenient to be depending upon how useful their information is.(emphasis added)

This is certainly plausible but it runs contrary to American jurisprudential norms. Everyone who has ever seen an episode of Law & Order understands the commonly employed tactic of letting the ‘small fish’ go in exchange for help catching the ‘big fish.’ The problem in this case is that so many of the unindicted co-conspirators are themselves the ‘big fish’, while the parties actually being charged are comparatively smaller fish. The dynamics are upside-down. If Allahpundit’s theory is right, then the government already has its case against the big fish, but is waiting to see how useful they are in prosecuting the small fish. Where is the sense in that? How does granting leniency to the big fish fit into the DOJ’s hard-nosed, throw-the-book-at-’em campaign of “Shock & Awe?” It’s not impossible, but there is ample reason to be skeptical here.

My final point about the reaction to this story is a noteworthy absence of criticism from the New York Times. As of the writing of this article, I can find no mention of this story in the “paper of record” – not a peep. This is surely not an oversight on their behalf. I can only speculate as to why this may be, but my hope is that the editorial board at the ‘gray lady’ recognizes the validity of the story and the potentially catastrophic impact this could have on the country if it turns out to be true. Presumably there is someone on that editorial board who realizes that a refutation will require something more significant than the thirty six year-old, off-point case law that their WaPo counterparts haphazardly threw at it.

CONCLUSION

The Revolver Story does not provide conclusive proof that the FBI participated in, or even ‘allowed to happen’ the events of 1/6… but it certainly does raise the possibility that they might have, thus producing some very serious questions about how exactly the DOJ and FBI are handling the prosecution of crimes associated with an event of extraordinary national importance. This is a legitimate story, and if true, the implications could lead to a genuine national disaster. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the Biden Administration to quickly provide complete and honest answers to the three questions posed by Revolver, and echoed by Tucker Carlson:

  1. “In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI, DOJ, Pentagon and network news have labeled most responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the federal government, or informants of said agencies?”
  2. “Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous “siege” and what roles did they play (merely passive informants or active instigators)?”
  1. “Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?”

If there are acceptable answers to these very reasonable questions, and I sincerely hope that there are, the Administration needs to provide them as quickly as possible. The longer they go without providing answers, the more it appears to millions of Americans that the entire law enforcement apparatus of the federal government has become a political tool of the Democratic party, weaponized to generate headlines that maintain a narrative designed to keep themselves in power. The current political climate in this country is a powder keg – if the FBI was in a position to stop the events of 1/6 and declined to do so, or if, God forbid, they played an active role in it, that just might generate the spark that ignites it all. The longer we go without answers, the worse it looks.

Tick, tick, tick, tick….

You can see Tucker Carlson’s monologue from June 16th at the link below

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6259072602001

3 thoughts on “The Revolver Affair: An Evaluation of Tucker Carlson’s Recent Accusations Against the FBI

  1. Pingback: Former Chief-of-staff confirms that Pentagon declined National Guard support 2 days before Jan. 6 “Insurrection” | Michael Ross Greenberg

  2. Pingback: THE “BIG 3” MILITIA GROUPS HAVE BECOME FBI HONEYPOTS – EXPANDING NSA JURISDICTION TO INCLUDE ORDINARY AMERICAN CITIZENS (WITH THE WRONG OPINIONS) | Michael Ross Greenberg

  3. Pingback: Lead FBI Agent in Whitmer Kidnapping Case is Arrested in Bizarre Domestic Abuse Case | Michael Ross Greenberg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s