Yesterday, we talked about the need to dig deep into conspiracy theories for which there’s credible evidence, noting that the term “conspiracy theory” itself is neutral until facts emerge that prove or disprove it. The claim that the Capitol Hill security breach was more of a “fed-surrection” than an insurrection is one of those so-called conspiracy theories that deserve to be taken seriously. So let’s take a closer look.

RELATED READINGAnswering a reader about "conspiracy theories"

In a preposterous reach, Sen. Chuck Schumer is using January 6 to try to justify ending the filibuster so the Senate can pass the “election reform” bill that Democrats so desperately want passed, to help them cheat---I mean, preserve democracy. (Pardon my bluntness, but affecting the outcome of elections is undoubtedly what they want to use this for.) Mark Elias is already using the courts for this, but they really need a, shall we say, comprehensive strategy to ensure a win this time.

Laura Ingraham, on FOX News’ Ingraham Angle, showed the clip of Sen. Schumer saying to Joy Reid on MSNBC, “...If we don’t change the [filibuster] rules, the Republicans will block this [election reform], and our democracy could be at risk, and even wither, invariably, in real ways.”

Thanks to Laura for pointing out that in 2005, when Republicans held the majority, Schumer was saying the opposite about the filibuster. Today, he assumes most of us are too stupid to realize that, or to understand that if the Senate ends the filibuster rule and passes the so-called “Voting Rights” bill, we’ll have one-party rule and the whole Democrat agenda will be forced through, regardless of what voters think of it.

But, to get back to my original point, Schumer is using January 6 as a pretext for all of this. As we’ve said, the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill breach plays into the hands of Democrats so incredibly well, we’d naturally suspect that if Republicans hadn’t planned it to happen, the Democrats would’ve MADE it happen. So, did they? That’s a conspiracy theory –- so far neither proven or disproven –- but we’re finding out more all the time that strongly suggests covert federal operatives were urging it on.

Fortunately, even though Congress won’t do its oversight job on this –- does anyone seriously think their “committee” is anything more than a kangaroo court? –- there are other ways to uncover the full story of what happened, and one is through evidence submitted in actual court cases. To cite another example of how this works, recall that Special Counsel John Durham’s “Russia” investigation was helped a great deal by litigation that went on in London in a civil suit brought by Alfa Bank against Christopher Steele of “dossier” fame. Durham learned a LOT from testimony in that case. Likewise, even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “special committee” won’t be turning over the rocks we’d want them to, other litigation regarding January 6 could bring to light key information.

For example, in the government’s case against Kelly Meggs, an Oath Keepers member accused of conspiring to storm the Capitol, his attorney Jon Moseley is calling some very interesting witnesses: Ray Epps (a riot instigator who’s strangely not being prosecuted), Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes (ditto), and “Utah activist” John Sullivan (an apparent leftist agitator).

Mosely told National File that he believes their testimony will prove his client’s innocence and also that the entire prosecution is politically motivated.

National File reports: “FBI sources stold Reuters earlier this year that there was little to zero evidence of any plans to take hostages in the Capitol and stop the count of electoral votes.” Yet this level of interference is what Schumer uses as an excuse to end the filibuster and federalize elections.

National File also cites the Revolver News investigative reports that we’ve been bringing you. What they’ve turned up is highly suggestive that Rhodes was working in some capacity for the federal government while there that day. While defendant Meggs has been held without bail for nearly a year (!), Rhodes, for some reason, was interviewed by the FBI but was not been charged with any crime.

As for Epps, Revolver News exposed him as someone who, on both January 5 and 6, took to a bullhorn and urged conservatives to storm the Capitol during Trump’s rally. He’s on video –- check out Rumble –- “telling people to enter the Capitol and beat up police,” Moseley said. You’d think someone caught on video doing something like that would’ve been at the top of the list for indictment and detention without bail, but for some reason he just wasn’t.

In case you didn’t see this the first time we linked to it, here’s the most recent Revolver News report on Ray Epps. It’s extremely detailed but highly recommended; you might need to come back to it later.

About a month ago, National File reported that they had obtained documentation of an FBI interview with “Person 10,” the Oath Keepers member who planned the security detail for that day, that made it clear: Oath Keepers had had no plans to storm the Capitol on January 6.

But according to Moseley, the indictment against his client alleges there was “a well-plotted Oath Keepers conspiracy to take over the Capitol on January 6.” He describes this allegation as the government “doubling down on things they know were false.” “Person 10,” according to FBI notes, made it clear he had no idea this was going to happen and “could not believe” people went into the Capitol. He, Rhodes and others had dinner at the Olive Garden that night and talked about this and also, incidentally, about “a girl that was shot.” I wonder if they knew then that the girl, Ashli Babbitt, had been unarmed and was shot in cold blood by federal security.

National File reports that “the interview with Person 10 now makes clear that he sought to remove Oath Keepers from any danger at the Capitol, and stop fights between protesters and police officers.” He said he was in charge of what they called their “Quick Detention Force,” which was intended to help provide security if there was an attack by “antifa or others.” It was never activated, he said.

Moseley told National File that they’ve got lots of other things they’re going to do as part of Kelly Meggs’ defense. He says other witnesses have confirmed “Person 10’s” story to the FBI. He suspects prosecutorial misconduct and will be seeking notes from the grand jury to determine this.

In another court case, a 39-year-old mother of four from Minnesota, Victoria White, is claiming that on January 6, she was forced into an entrance, trapped in a crush of people, and repeatedly beaten by police. Surveillance footage reportedly shows the woman, visible in a red MAGA hat, being hit with a baton and fist nearly 40 times in about 4 minutes.

A judge in the case has ordered that three hours of video from that day be released. So once again, it’s through court cases related to January 6 --- NOT the government’s sham “investigation” --- that will tell us more of what we need to know about that day.

This letter came in response to our commentary on Mark Elias’ 2022 election strategy of aggressively using litigation to decide who gets seated in Congress. That story is not from the realm of “conspiracy theory” but of fact, as Elias has tweeted to the world that he's planning to do this.

From Barry B:

Mike, I am an ardent fan of yours, but I am also frustrated by the lack of willingness on the part of you and others to "wander down the path of conspiracy theories." That is precisely why people like Elias get away with their conspiracies. If you were to wander down that path, the farther you went, the more filth and corruption you would find. Are you implying that there is [not] and has never been a conspiracy? If not, how is a conspiracy defined?

If people like you won't dare to look, who will?

Blessings to you and your family for the New Year!

From the Gov:

Thanks for writing, Barry. I bring up Elias precisely because I DON’T want him to get away with what he’s doing. If you think we don’t see the filth and corruption or that we meant to imply there “is not and has never been a conspiracy,” I can only surmise you're new to this newsletter. We don’t wander aimlessly, but facts often lead us down a particular road.

To call something a conspiracy theory is not to say it’s true or untrue, because some turn out to be true or very largely true and others are ridiculous hoaxes. To explain, the term “conspiracy theory” is neutral, kind of like “unidentified flying object.” A conspiracy theory hasn’t been proved, so it remains a theory. Similarly, a UFO hasn’t been identified, so it remains...unidentified. The answer in both of these situations is (pardon the pun) up in the air, until there’s proof one way or the other.

Every single so-called conspiracy theory we’ve reported on as worthy of being taken seriously has either been proven true or is currently gathering more and more evidence in its favor. For example, regarding the theory that links Hillary's campaign and certain government insiders with the “dossier” and the whole media-driven “Russia!” hoax, we eagerly look forward to every development in John Durham’s special counsel investigation and seeing it connect another dot.

On the other hand, the Russia hoax itself is an example of a conspiracy theory that did not deserve to be taken seriously. Nothing in the “dossier” was verified. Yet it obsessed most of the media and leftist bureaucrats throughout Trump’s presidency, long after the “dossier” had been debunked and Devin Nunes’ House Intelligence Committee had determined Hillary’s campaign had paid for it.

At the same time, there really is evidence to support investigation into other so-called conspiracy theories. For example, though we condemned the Capitol Hill breach from the first, we’ve made it clear that there is considerable reason to demand an investigation of the FBI’s involvement and also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s curious refusal of National Guard troops to provide security. Merrick Garland’s “Justice” Department is too shamefully politicized to do this, but the next Republican-led Congress will no doubt open one of their own.

That can’t happen for another year –- and then only if Republicans take back the House, but at least that does seem likely. Meanwhile, Republicans in the minority --- including those Pelosi refused for her hand-picked “Special Committee” --- will have to ferret out what they can on their own, minus subpoena power. Thankfully, the fine reporting of such organizations as Revolver News will continue, and we'll keep bringing that and our commentary to you.

Another example: the stories from battleground states about coordinated election fraud constitute another conspiracy theory that must be thoroughly investigated. Over half the country has essentially no faith in the 2020 election; this cannot stand. We can’t say definitively that the election was stolen through, say, hacked machines, but there's enough question about this and other serious problems to warrant a full investigation of all the forces at play. Any time skeptics face draconian censorship or a lack of transparency regarding evidence, that’s a red flag saying, “Here’s a conspiracy theory that might very well pan out. Better dig into this!”

It’s easy to tell that the Democrats tailor their approach to facts to suit their immediate purposes, because they'll turn on a dime. For example, starting with George W. Bush’s win over Al Gore in 2000, the Democrats decided it was their patriotic duty to cry “Stolen!” and question every election they lost. That changed when Biden was declared the winner; suddenly it was “domestic terrorism” to question the outcome, even with ample reason to suspect fraud.

We do have to have some factual basis for taking conspiracy theories seriously. If we didn’t, we’d just be a right-leaning version of CNN or the DNC (same thing). You can trust us never to be like the news/opinion writers on the left who screamed “Russia Russia Russia!!” for years even after that conspiracy theory was revealed as hogwash. Look at how some reporters who spread false information about the “dossier” are STILL resisting putting out retractions.

Unless there’s been an update, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News and David Corn of Mother Jones, who wrote a book together on the “dossier” called ‘RUSSIAN ROULETTE: The Inside Story of Putin’s War On America and the Election of Donald Trump,” have failed to retract significant mistakes, specifically about an alleged “dossier” source (who really wasn’t one) named Sergei Millian. They cited Millian, who supports Trump, as the source for that unsavory made-up story about Trump in a Moscow hotel, supposedly on video with Russian prostitutes. Durham’s indictment of Igor Danchenko suggests that the real source of the so-called “pee tape” story was former Hillary campaign adviser Charles Dolan.

What these two “journalists” were doing was furthering a conspiracy theory that is untrue. And still it seems they won’t give it up, though it’s been debunked so thoroughly it doesn't even qualify as a theory. Only a hoax.

We have confidence in our sources, and I would never, for example, discuss members of the Clinton-allied Brookings Institution being involved with the creation and spread of the “dossier” unless there were ample reason to suspect this. By reason, I don’t mean the kind of proof you’d need to make an airtight case in court, but simply enough evidence to warrant digging deeper.

You know the story of the boy who cried “Wolf!” He wasn't taken seriously when it really counted, so it would defeat our purpose to be like him. But rest assured we'll continue digging carefully into so-called conspiracy theories --- the ones that pass the smell test --- just as we always have done.

For example, in case you missed the latest on Hillary over the holidays, Durham is taking aim...