Shadows of Power, Part 5:

The FBI’s Failures Fueled Chaos

Introduction

The Narrative vs. Reality

The dominant narrative surrounding January 6 has been clear from the start: a “coordinated insurrection” orchestrated by so-called “domestic terrorists.” This narrative, amplified by Congress, the media, and key government agencies, painted a picture of a well-organized attack on our republic itself, carried out by groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. For many Americans, it seemed to confirm their worst fears about the rise of extremism in the United States.

But what if that narrative wasn’t the full truth? What if key details were omitted, intelligence was withheld, and the very agencies tasked with protecting the Capitol failed in ways that went far beyond incompetence? Reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and confidential human sources (CHSs) embedded within the crowd on January 6 tell a very different story—one that contradicts much of what we’ve been told.

FBI Intelligence Withholding: The GAO has confirmed that the FBI withheld critical intelligence from both the U.S. Capitol Police and the National Guard. This information could have prepared law enforcement for the events of that day, yet it was never shared.

CHS Observations: Confidential human sources, like the CHS embedded with the Kansas City Proud Boys, reported that the group had no intention of breaching the Capitol or engaging in coordinated violence. In fact, their stated goal was to protect Trump supporters from potential violence by Antifa. These observations directly conflict with the public narrative of a premeditated attack orchestrated by Trump supporters.

These failures and contradictions raise serious questions:

Was the chaos on January 6 the result of negligence, or was it something more deliberate?

How did intelligence failures and misinformation become tools to shape a political agenda?

And most importantly, who should be held accountable?

This article will delve into the truth behind these failures, exposing the systemic issues that allowed January 6 to happen and examining how these failures were weaponized to divide the nation and further erode public trust in our government. The events of that day were not just a tragedy—they were a turning point, one that demands answers and accountability.

It’s time to uncover the truth.

Failures of Coordination—or Orchestrated Complacency?

The failures in coordination leading up to January 6 go far beyond mismanagement—they point to deliberate negligence. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and Confidential Human Source (CHS) observations reveal a pattern of withheld intelligence, ignored warnings, and selective inaction that raises serious questions about the FBI’s role in the chaos that unfolded.

GAO Reports on Intelligence Failures

The GAO’s findings lay bare a critical failure: the FBI withheld actionable intelligence from the very agencies tasked with protecting the Capitol. The U.S. Capitol Police and National Guard were operating with limited information, even as the FBI had embedded Confidential Human Sources (CHSs) within groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

What the FBI Knew: CHSs provided firsthand accounts of the crowd’s intentions, which were communicated to the Bureau before January 6. Despite this, the FBI failed to share this intelligence with Capitol Police, leaving them unprepared for the events that would follow. For example;

Statements from the CHS Report:

---

KCPB Intentions Not to Start Violence:

• Page 1 (KC000292):
  The CHS stated that the Kansas City Proud Boys (KCPB) were specifically instructed “not to start anything”and to maintain a “defensive stance while attending the rally.”

  • This direction came from [Redacted], the leader of KCPB.

• Page 1 (KC000292):
  The CHS reported that the KCPB discussed concerns about Antifa potentially dressing in plain clothes like Trump supporters. The group’s stated intent was “to prevent Antifa from attacking Trump supporters.”

• Page 1 (KC000292):
  The CHS explained that the KCPB’s decision to attend the rally on January 6, 2021, was influenced by their belief that their presence had “helped quell additional violent attacks by Antifa” at a previous rally in Washington, D.C., on December 12, 2020.

No Plans to Breach Barriers or Take Action:

• Page 1 (KC000292):
  The CHS stated, “Nobody discussed breaking barriers or taking any action with respect to the U.S. Capitol.”

KCPB's Approach to Safety and Preparedness:

• Page 1 (KC000292):
  The CHS noted that the group brought general protective gear, including flak jackets and helmets, for “defensive purposes.”

• Page 2 (KC000293):
  The CHS stated the group discussed “not carrying weapons” because it would “be seen as offensive” and would detract from their defensive stance.

No Plans to Breach Barriers:

• The CHS explicitly stated:
  “Nobody discussed breaking barriers or taking any action with respect to the U.S. Capitol.”

  • This directly refutes the narrative that the KCPB or Proud Boys as a whole planned any organized breach or attack on the Capitol.

Observing Barriers Being Breached:

• The CHS observed the barriers being breached by individuals not associated with the Proud Boys:
  “The CHS stated they were approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of the way back in the line of Proud Boys marching and at the time did not think the Proud Boys had anything to do with taking down the barrier.”

Lack of Leadership to Incite Violence:

• At the Washington Monument, Rufio, a key Proud Boys leader, gave strict instructions:
  “The group was supposed to march in a specific direction, not to get in front of leadership, and not to allow people who are not with the Proud Boys to walk amongst the group.”

  • This shows a level of control aimed at maintaining order, not inciting chaos.

Defensive Focus and No Talk of Taking the Capitol:

• The CHS described the group as “just walking and following the people who seemed to be leading it.”

  • The CHS also noted there was “no talk or rumors of taking the Capitol building” during the march.

No Intent to Provoke Conflict:

• The CHS described discussions within the group about maintaining a defensive posture:
  “The group discussed not carrying weapons because that would be seen as offensive and would detract from their defensive stance and ultimate defense if there were any violent confrontations with Antifa members.”

The Breakdown in Coordination: In an event as significant as the certification of electoral votes, operational coordination between agencies should have been seamless. Yet the GAO reports highlight a glaring failure to communicate threat assessments, even as warnings about potential unrest were mounting months before January 6th.

By withholding intelligence, the FBI didn’t just fail—it allowed chaos to unfold. Whether intentional or negligent, this failure left law enforcement ill-equipped to handle the situation, creating the perfect storm.

CHS Observations vs. the FBI Narrative

The reports from CHSs embedded with groups like the Kansas City Proud Boys paint a starkly different picture from the narrative pushed by the FBI and mainstream media.

Kansas City Proud Boys: CHSs reported that the Kansas City Proud Boys had no plans for violence or breaches on January 6. Their stated intention was defensive, aimed at protecting Trump supporters from potential Antifa violence, which they believed was likely. This directly contradicts claims of a coordinated, premeditated attack by right-wing groups.

The FBI’s own confidential source repeatedly emphasized that the Kansas City Proud Boys were following defensive directives from leadership, and there was no evidence of premeditated violence or Capitol breaches. Yet, this key testimony was ignored in favor of constructing a narrative that implicated the entire group.

Actions taken by individuals like Billy and the Konold girl—who went against leadership’s directives—further underscore the chaotic, uncoordinated nature of the events. This critical distinction, however, was erased to paint all Proud Boys as conspirators in a coordinated attack, a claim unsupported by the evidence.

Selective Reporting on Antifa: Despite widespread fears of Antifa violence leading up to January 6, FBI internal reports downplayed or omitted mentions of Antifa entirely. This selective focus on right-wing groups created a one-sided narrative, ignoring credible threats from other factions.

The question is: why was this intelligence suppressed? The FBI’s failure to communicate the true scope of potential threats, combined with its omission of Antifa’s role, suggests not just negligence but orchestrated complacency.

Key Point: Negligence or Intentional Inaction?

The evidence points to more than just bureaucratic incompetence—it suggests a deliberate decision to let the situation spiral out of control. The FBI’s inaction didn’t just fail to prevent January 6—it set the stage for it.

Whether through selective enforcement, intelligence suppression, or intentional omissions, these failures allowed a chaotic and dangerous narrative to take root. By withholding critical intelligence and focusing disproportionately on one side of the story, the FBI enabled a crisis that could have been avoided.

This was not just a failure of coordination—it was a betrayal of the very principles of accountability, transparency, and justice that federal agencies are sworn to uphold. And the consequences were catastrophic.

Political Weaponization of the FBI: A Betrayal of Duty

The responsibilities of oversight committees, law enforcement leadership, and intelligence agencies are clear: protect the public, prevent chaos, and coordinate efforts to address credible threats. Yet, in the days leading up to January 6, these responsibilities were flagrantly ignored.

Requests for enhanced security measures, including the deployment of the National Guard, were either delayed or outright denied. At the same time, congressional leaders openly labeled Trump supporters as "domestic terrorists" while failing to act on their own rhetoric. If they genuinely believed such threats existed, why didn’t they respond appropriately?

This failure wasn’t just negligence—it was calculated. Intelligence failures and a lack of preparedness weren’t incidental—they became tools for political weaponization, a way to shape the narrative and demonize political opponents.

Intelligence Failures as a Tool

The FBI and congressional oversight committees had access to substantial intelligence that warned of potential unrest on January 6. The police chief of the Capitol reportedly requested National Guard support days prior, citing concerns over insufficient manpower to protect the Capitol during such a high-profile event. Yet those requests were ignored or delayed.

If Congress truly believed their own rhetoric about an impending insurrection or “domestic terrorism” by Trump supporters, why didn’t they act decisively to secure the Capitol? Instead of proactively addressing the situation, they allowed it to unfold, amplifying the chaos and paving the way for a politically useful narrative.

The FBI’s Role:

• With CHSs embedded in groups like the Proud Boys and intelligence outlining the potential for unrest, the FBI could have shared actionable intelligence with the Capitol Police or National Guard. But they didn’t.

• By withholding critical information, the FBI’s inaction exacerbated the situation, enabling the very chaos they would later use as justification for painting Trump supporters as “domestic terrorists.”

This selective negligence transformed an intelligence failure into a political weapon.

Selective Prosecution

The fallout from January 6 revealed a troubling pattern: selective prosecution. Right-wing groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were relentlessly pursued, while leftist organizations, such as Antifa, faced little to no accountability for their own acts of violence in the years leading up to January 6.

• Proud Boys and Oath Keepers:
  CHS reports, as we’ve already established, indicated that groups like the Kansas City Proud Boys did not plan violence. Their intentions were defensive, not offensive. Yet the FBI treated the entire organization as part of a premeditated insurrection.

• Antifa and Leftist Groups:
  Despite well-documented instances of planned and coordinated violence and property destruction during the riots of 2020, these groups were largely ignored by federal law enforcement. This disparity underscores the politicization of justice, where accountability is enforced selectively based on ideological alignment.

Key Question:
Why did the FBI and DOJ choose to focus so heavily on right-wing groups while leaving leftist organizations untouched? This selective enforcement isn’t just a violation of justice—it’s an assault on the rule of law.

Congressional Demonization

Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi and others wasted no time labeling participants as “insurrectionists” and “domestic terrorists.” These statements weren’t based on evidence—they were based on political expediency.

• Statements Without Evidence:

  • Pelosi and others painted broad strokes, implicating all Trump supporters who attended the rally as violent extremists.

  • This rhetoric ignored CHS reports and evidence that contradicted claims of widespread coordination among Trump supporters.

• Media Amplification:

  • These statements were amplified by a willing media, creating a one-sided narrative that cast anyone associated with January 6 in the worst possible light.

  • This narrative silenced dissent and further polarized the nation, while obscuring the true failures of coordination and intelligence-sharing that allowed the chaos to unfold.

If members of Congress truly believed their claims, why didn’t they act? Why did they allow National Guard requests to be delayed? Why was the Capitol left so vulnerable? Their actions—or lack thereof—speak louder than their words.

Key Point: The Weaponization of Failure

The FBI’s failures—whether through negligence or deliberate inaction—didn’t just allow January 6 to happen; they were weaponized to further political agendas. By selectively enforcing laws, withholding intelligence, and amplifying divisive rhetoric, federal agencies and congressional leaders turned a day of chaos into a narrative tool, eroding public trust in the process.

When accountability is replaced by political convenience, the consequences are devastating—not just for those targeted, but for the nation as a whole. It’s not just justice that suffers—it’s our republic itself. In part 6 we I’ll detail the obviously planned failure points of the FBI and the U.S. Capital Building oversight committee.