Over the last four years following January 6, I can confidently attest to the fact that much of the public is confused about the nuances between undercover FBI agents and their informants, or confidential human sources (CHS). To further complicate the matter, the intention of the CHS has also been assumed to be nefarious.
While many theories exist on both sides of the aisle, the simplest answer is often overlooked:
January 6 was hooliganism, not orchestration.
Understanding these nuances is critical in assessing the conclusions of the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report, released Thursday. The report specifies that no undercover FBI agents were present during the incident, but there were 26 CHS in Washington, D.C., that day, while 23 of them were there on their own accord and not under the direction of the FBI.
Undercover Agents vs. CHS
Undercover FBI agents are actual employees of the FBI who operate in secrecy to gather direct evidence or intelligence. They are directly under the control and supervision of the FBI.
Conversely, CHS are individuals from outside the FBI who are recruited to provide information. They are not employees but assets or informants who might be part of or have access to the groups under surveillance. Their relationship with the FBI is more arms-length, with less direct control over their actions in many cases.
Intent
The assumption that CHS had nefarious intentions often stems from a lack of understanding about their role. Informants are used in law enforcement to gain insights into criminal or potentially criminal activities. Their presence at such events can be to monitor for violence, gather intelligence on extremist groups, or even protect against threats from within these groups. However, without clear information, the public might interpret their presence as an indication of direct federal manipulation.
The fact that 23 of these sources were there on their own initiative might suggest they were already embedded in various communities or groups, providing ongoing intelligence rather than being deployed specifically for the January 6 events. Understanding the roles of CHS within this context does not imply they were there to incite or lead the actions but rather to observe, report, and potentially mitigate threats.
Occam's Razor
The January 6th act, while derided among many on the left as a "riot" or, worse, an "insurrection," was, at most, hooliganism.
READ MORE:
REVEALED: DOJ Details FBI Confidential Sources on Ground on January 6, 2021
OPINION: Why All the January 6 Defendants Deserve a Pardon
While not ruling out the possibility of some level of planning by certain factions, the majority of the crowd's actions on January 6 seem to fit into a pattern of organic, albeit chaotic, crowd behavior rather than a highly coordinated event.
This logic should have guided the DOJ's investigations of the event, instead of the witch hunt that followed driven by political expediency.
Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication to remove references to a "riot" consistent with RedState's view that the events of J6 were neither a riot nor an insurrection.
