a reason. So you really think you can evaluate Kissinger? No, you cannot evaluate Kissinger because it's all this and always has been.

Yeah, if this one board member had not decided to not only quit, because if she had not quit I don't think we would ever heard this, right? It seems related to her quitting. I think she would have kept quiet and maybe had more decorum as a board member. But this is really valuable for the permanent record. So I don't know what the problem was. They've been pretty unspecific about it.

All right. If you're not following Kyle Becker on X, you're really missing out in my opinion. He is in the top, I don't know, definitely top 10, maybe top five of useful news-related independent journalists. Probably top five. You know he's in there with Greenwald and Shellenberger, Kano the Great. Those are accounts that are just always have the best stuff.

All right, and it's so good that I want to read you his very long post because he summarizes the January 6 situation really well and you need to have it resummed every once in a while because it's complicated. So let me just read Kyle Becker's thing. So he says, so it turns out there were at least 200 feds and undercover operatives working the Trump entrapment plot on January 6. Now don't get too excited about that. That's not a verified fact. He says his source is that's according to US Representative Clay Higgins, Republican, who sat down for a recent interview and said the FBI was not just participating in the January 6 acts from within. I suspect they had over 200 agents. So this was one politician who suspects, right? So I'd say well we have verification I'm sure that they were there but 200 would be a whole different story than 50. Would you agree? Well 50 might be the same story. 200 would be a bit a different story than 20. That would be a different story.

All right, so there's one person who thinks that he suspects there were over 200. So I wouldn't rely on that number. That's just one person's speculation. And that they were addressed as Trump supporters and etc. Now Kyle says again he's not buying into the number entirely. He says this figure is in the realm of possibility given the newly released J6 videos, court documents and witness statements. I would agree. I would agree with it's in the realm of possibility. Probably high but in the realm. I mean if it's 100 would have changed your mind? If you find out there were only 100 and not 200 that wouldn't change your mind much would it? 100's a lot. So but here's the important part. And when you track, this is in quotes so I guess this must be what Clay Higgins said: and when you track the text threads and the communications within those groups and find the origins of suggestions of potential violence or an active occupation of the Capitol on January 6, you'll find that those messages were led by members of the groups that ended up to be the FBI agents and had infiltrated the group, he said.

Now is that true that we have enough of a pattern that the groups that were involved, at the very least we know that they had, they were infiltrated and that the feds were the ones who made, might have been the provocative ones, which of course is not allowed. All right. So Higgins continued, so the FBI's involvement was deep, not just on J6 but on the days and weeks and months prior. All right, so we don't know the exact number but there's apparently evidence that some number of them may have been instigators and that would be the key point. Whether the FBI were the instigators or would it have happened organically?

Now Kyle says there's now zero doubt that J6 was a setup. Well setup does a lot of work but he says the Trump incitement narrative had been hatched months prior as the infamous Time shadow cabal article made clear. All right, so Time Magazine. So Kyle says the J6 riot was war gamed multiple times before the Electoral College. Wow, did you know that it was war gamed ahead of time? Is that in the Time article? I don't know about that. All right. The FBI unconstitutionally used NSA surveillance to track the extremist groups seeking to disrupt the event. They had federal informants embedded in multiple extremist groups including the Proud Boys.

Now here's sort of a payoff here. He says yeah somehow the FBI, Capitol Police were woefully unprepared despite multiple advance warnings. Yeah, how do you have all these embedded FBI agents who are fully aware of what January 6 is going to turn into because they're part of the organizations that are going to do it and they don't warn anybody? Or if they did warn them they weren't prepared. That doesn't quite track, does it?

He goes on, DC Mayor Bowser, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Senate Majority Mitch McConnell and others refused to press for more National Guard despite it being documented and on the record that former President Trump wanted 10,000 National Guard troops outside Congress to protect the Electoral College. Is that an established fact that's documented that he asked for 10,000 and they turned it down? What else do you need to know? If the groups that were the aggressive ones had FBI informants and we have records that the FBI informants might have been the ones riling things up and then we know that since everybody knew there would be a problem and Trump knew it too and he asked for reinforcements and he was denied, that looks exactly like a setup, doesn't it? What else would it be? I mean even incompetence, it would be tough to stretch this to incompetence. Usually I'm going to take the incompetence argument as the obvious one. Oh that people were just dumb because that explains a lot. But this would be a level of dumb that would be hard to explain. They're not that dumb, are they?

Kyle goes on, says also there was no centrally coordinated plot to overturn the results of the election as FBI sources told Reuters in a 2021 report. That's a big deal. And indeed he says that was the entire point of the election challenges during the convening of the Electoral College. If Donald Trump wanted to overturn the 2020 election he would not have disrupted the Electoral College. He would have continued to pursue his legal challenge. That makes sense to me. It seems that if you're going to do the legal challenge that the riot is working against your own interests. Like it's like pick one. Pick the riot or pick the legal way. They don't kind of work together. It's a good point. Trump would not have sent in unarmed extremists to disrupt Electoral College in order to retain power. This is not only illogical, it's absurd on its face. It is absurd because at best they could have delayed things a day and then Supreme Court would have worked it out and literally nothing would have happened.

So nonetheless this ridiculous partisan narrative has constituted the basis for prosecuting a former president and what has devolved into a partisan show trial. Yeah, I don't know. So you know there's still some questions about the number of feds but if people are guessing 200 it wasn't five, right? It wasn't five. I'm going to put my own guess on it. We'll probably never know. I'm going to put my own guess on it at between 30 and 50. Between 30 and 50. Just a guess based on living in the world and how hard it is to get anything done and that sort of thing. And they probably would have thought that was enough. So some of you are guessing 100. 200 seems high. I mean if it's 200 that would explain everything.

All right. And then we have the Governor Whitmer situation to tell us that things can get out of control with the undercover assets. So we know that's a thing. Is a claim that feds are responsible for January 6. That would be the current claim but I don't know that. I don't think that Trump had enough proof of that to make it part of the court case. But remember the standard for government is guilty until proven innocent. The standard for citizens is the opposite. We're innocent till proven guilty. So if you have allegations about the number of feds and they're not forthcoming about the number, you should assume they're guilty. Not because it's necessarily guaranteed to be true but it's the only smart way to play it. If the government won't tell you what they're doing, assume it's corrupt every time, right? In the great unlikely chance that something else is happening, okay you got it wrong that time but you're going to be right nine out of 10 times if you assume that when they're hiding stuff there's a good reason they're hiding it and it's not a reason you like.

So yes, the mere fact that the FBI will not disclose how many agents were involved, I consider a proof of crime in a logical sense but not a legal sense. Logically it's proof because, and again make the distinction, if it were you as an individual that's not proof. You're going to have to prove I did it. But when the government says we're not going to tell you this valuable information that you want to know and by the way we can't even tell you that there's a reason we can't tell you, right? Because suppose they said yes the number is 200 but we don't want to tell you how many are embedded in the groups and how many were just working that day. That's not good enough because they don't have to tell us that. They could just say there are about 200 but we don't want to give you the breakdown of what they were doing. That would be something and at least then I would understand the part where they don't want to tell us something. It's like okay you don't want to tell us how many people are embedded because that would maybe alarm those groups. I get that. But not telling us any number, even a generality, no that's proof of guilt. Now again doesn't mean they're guilty but it should be considered proof the same way that we can convict somebody, an individual for a crime. If you convict somebody of a crime and you say they're guilty you understand that doesn't mean they did the crime, right? That just means that the process found them guilty. That's different from whether they actually did it. Likewise I am prosecuting the FBI right now by saying your failure to give us this information I consider proof of guilt. Does that mean they're guilty 100%? Nope. Nope. Could be some weird thing that we don't know about. But you have to treat it like they're guilty the same way if somebody is convicted even if they're not guilty in reality they're still going to put him in jail and treat him that way because you have a working assumption. That's the only way you can go through life. Well I don't know for sure but my working assumption is this. So it bothers me no end when we treat January 6 like a maybe it's a maybe because we don't know. But we shouldn't treat it that way. You should treat it like a confirmed guilt by government hiding information that you have no reason to know why it should be hidden.

All right. Doesn't the mil