This weekend, police in Columbus, Georgia arrested a 39-year-old man called Justin Tyren Roberts. Over the course of a single day, Roberts shot five separate people in two different states. We know this because Roberts has admitted it. He also said why he did it. In his confession, police say, Roberts, “explained [that] throughout his life, specifically white males had taken from him.” So he decided to kill them. In one case, Roberts walked up behind a white man, a total stranger, as he was getting out of a car and shot him in the back.
By any definition, these were crimes of viciousness motivated by race hate. They’re not unique in this country — not by a long shot. If we wanted to — and we don’t — we could do a whole show on crimes like these. Nor are they especially surprising, when you think about it.
If you really believed the propaganda from the Democratic Party and BLM are telling you — that white males are intentionally destroying the world — you might be motivated to hurt someone. Why wouldn’t you? What’s striking is how little attention Justin Tyren Roberts’ shooting spree has received. Imagine if the colors here were reversed. Roberts would be leading every newscast tonight. Needless to say, he’s not. In fact, this may be the last time you hear his name on television. On one level, that’s fine with us. Picking at the wound, America’s wound is unwise. We’ve always thought that. We think it more now than ever. A multi-racial country can only survive if it self-consciously deemphasizes race — if it treats every person as an individual and not a member of some larger group that’s guilty or innocent. That should be the goal, it’s our history, and we should get back to it as soon as we can.
But that’s not what our leaders are doing. They’re doing just the opposite. They’re working hard to divide us into warring camps with lies. They’re telling us a story that is completely — and very much intentionally — disconnected from reality. They’re claiming that something called white supremacy, a term they never define, is the greatest threat we face. A greater threat than Al Qaeda or ISIS. Our thoroughly craven attorney general told us that very lie today.
MERRICK GARLAND: In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority of the white race.
That was the Attorney General of the United States stating a fact backed up by the FBI. So it’s fair to ask the obvious questions.
Who are these violent white supremacists exactly? What are their names? What crimes have they committed? We still don’t know. Merrick Garland didn’t tell us. He spent most of his speech talking about the riot at the Capitol on January 6th, an event that had nothing whatsoever to do with race. But Merrick Garland lied about that. He, like the rest of the liars you see on television, wants you to believe and wants history to record, that January 6th was an attempted insurrection by white supremacist revolutionaries bent on taking over this country. We came this close, Garland said. And that’s why “We must adopt a broader societal response to tackle the problem’s deeper roots.”
Because of January 6th, says the chief law enforcement officer in the United States of America, and many other members of Joe Biden’s cabinet, we must now use law enforcement and military force to arrest, imprison, and otherwise crush anyone who leads opposition to Joe Biden’s government. That’s their position. They say it out loud.
So what is this, exactly? Well, it’s a big change in the way the U.S. government treats its own citizens. We’re looking at the transformation of a democratic republic into something else. We’re looking at growing authoritarianism. That’s not an overstatement. Vladimir Putin knows authoritarian systems well. He sees very clearly what’s happening in this country.
KEIR SIMMONS, NBC: Did you order Alexei Navalny’s assassination?
PUTIN: Of course not. We don’t have this kind of habit of assassinating anyone. That’s number one. Number two, 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. They came with political demands.
Under normal circumstances, we wouldn’t quote a foreign adversary criticizing our government, but honestly, those are entirely fair questions. Who did shoot Ashli Babbit? Why don’t we know? Are anonymous federal agents now allowed to kill unarmed women who protest the regime? That’s OK now? No, it’s not ok. It will never be ok. And why are all those January 6th protesters still in prison on trespassing charges, while so many Biden voters who torched federal buildings are walking free? What’s the answer to that question? If that happened in Russia, we rightly call it scary. We’d call Putin a dictator. In fact, we do call him a dictator.
And speaking of January 6th, why are there still so many things, basic factual matters, we don’t know about that day? Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol? What could possibly be the reason for that? Even as they call for more openness. We need to get to the bottom of it. They could release those tapes today, but they’re not. Why?
We ought to be asking those questions, urgently. Because as the attorney general reminded us, a lot depends on the answers. At least one news organization is. Revolver.news is a new site and turned out to be one of the last honest outlets on the internet. A new piece on the site suggests an answer to some of these questions. We know the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers who were present at the capitol on January 6, not just the one who killed Ashli Babbitt. According to the government’s own court filings, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot. Sometimes in violent ways.
We know that because, without fail, the government has thrown the book at most of the people who were in the Capitol on January 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them. Many of them are still in solitary confinement tonight. But, strangely, some people who participated in the riot haven’t been charged. Look at the documents. The government calls these people “unindicted co-conspirators.” What does that mean? It means that in potentially every case, they’re FBI operatives.
For example, one of those “unindicted co-conspirators” is someone the government identifies only as “Person Two.” According to those documents, “Person Two” stayed in the same hotel room as an “insurrectionist” named Thomas Caldwell, who’s alleged to be a member of the group called the Oath Keepers. “Person Two” also “stormed the barricades” at the Capitol on January 6, alongside Thomas Caldwell.
The government’s indictments further indicate that Caldwell — who by the way is a 65-year-old man — was led to believe there would be a “quick reaction force” also participating in January 6. That quick reaction force, Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called “Person Three” — who had a hotel room and an accomplice.
But wait. Here’s the interesting thing. “Person Two” and “Person Three” were organizers of the riot. The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6, according to government documents. And those two are not alone.
In all, Revolver News reported that there are, quote, “upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities — and in some cases much, much more severe activities — as those named alongside them in indictments.”
Huh? So it turns out this white supremacist insurrection was, again, by the government’s own admission in these documents, organized, at least in part, by government agents.
Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. In March, the FBI director admitted the bureau is infiltrating as many dissident groups as it possibly could.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: There must be moments where you think if we would have known, if we could have infiltrated this group or found out what they were doing, and that — you have those moments?
WRAY: Any time there is an attack, especially one that’s this horrific, that strikes right at the heart of our system the government, right at the time of transfer of power is being discussed, you can be darn tooting that we are focused very, very hard on how could we get better sources, better information, better analysis so that we can make sure that something that what happened on January 6th never happens again.
Wait a second – there’s a huge difference between using an informant to find out what a group you find threatening might do, and paying people to organize a violent action, which is what happened, apparently according to government documents, on January 6.
That’s a line, and the FBI has crossed it. And that’s not the first time. They crossed that line in Michigan. Remember that plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer? And Whitmer is able to cover some of her own incompetence, although not all, by pointing to the fact that she’s not a victim. In the FBI’s telling, a whole team of insurrectionists was going to drive a van up to Gretchen Whitmer’s vacation house and throw her in the back and drive away.
The mastermind, the bureau said, was a man called Adam Fox. Who was Adam Fox? He turned out to be a homeless guy who was living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop.
The whole story was a farce. Insulting really. But if you read the government’s charging documents carefully, and you should, you’ll see that it gets even more ridiculous. It turns out that one of the five people in the planned “Gretchen Whitmer kidnap van” was an FBI agent. In the van. Another was an FBI informant. The feds admit that an informant or undercover agent was “usually present” in the group’s meetings. In other words, nearly half the gang of kidnappers were working for the FBI. Remember the guy who suggested using a bomb to blow up a bridge as part of the plot? That got a lot of coverage. That guy was an undercover FBI agent.
If you wondered why they’re always comparing January 6 to 9/11, there’s your answer. They’re using the same tactics. And a lot of us missed this the first time around. We didn’t see the obvious. If you empower the government to violate civil liberties in pursuit of a foreign terror organization, and there are foreign terror organizations, it’s just a matter of time before ambitious politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent. That’s what we’re seeing now. We should have seen it earlier.
Trevor Aaronson’s book “The Terror Factory” analyzed every terrorism prosecution from 2001 to 2013. Aaronson found that at least 50 defendants were on trial because of behavior that the FBI had not only encouraged, but enabled. FBI agents were essentially the plotters in these crimes. They made the crimes, crimes.
In 2012, a writer for The Nation called Petra Bartosiewicz found that FBI informants had quote,
“Crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior, which is allowed and good, to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself.”
And we checked. We looked carefully, and that’s not an exaggeration. One of those plots was an Islamic terrorist attack in 2015 in Garland Texas. It turns out the FBI played an active role in that shooting.
ANDERSON COOPER: The FBI was much closer to the Garland attack than anyone realized. Anderson Cooper: After the trial, you discovered that the government knew a lot more about the Garland attack than they had let on?
DAN MAYNARD: That’s right. Yeah. After the trial we found out that they had had an undercover agent who had been texting with (Elton) Simpson, less than three weeks before the attack, to him “Tear up Texas.” Which to me was an encouragement to Simpson.
ANDERSON COOPER: The man he’s talking about was a special agent of the FBI, working undercover posing as an Islamic radical.
So they’re doing that to Islamic radicals, what are they doing to American citizens? That should worry you. In a moment of uncharacteristic honesty, a former FBI Assistant Director called Frank Figliuzzi explained on MSNBC. The goal is to round up political dissenters and throw them in solitary — including members of Congress.
FIGLIUZZI: What have we learned from our experience with international terrorism? In order to address that problem, arresting low-level operatives is merely a speed bump, not a roadblock. In order to really tackle terrorism, this time domestically, you’ve got to attack and dismantle the command and control element of a terrorist group…That may mean people sitting in Congress right now.
Round up duly-elected democratic members of Congress because they oppose the machine? Even Vladimir Putin’s not doing that. And a former Assistant Director of the FBI called for it on television, and no one noticed.
Why not round up the FBI operatives who were rioting on January 6? Why not identify the guy who killed Ashli Babbit? This is crazy, and we should resist it.
This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson’s opening commentary on the June 15, 2021, edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”