Where is the DOJ IG Report on January 6?

Every government agency has filed a public report with findings of an internal investigation into the events of January 6--except the Department of Justice. What's the holdup?

With the four-year anniversary of January 6 fast approaching, every government agency is now on record with the results of an internal investigation about their role in the events of that day.

Every agency, that is, except the Department of Justice.

Despite announcing on January 15, 2021 that he would conduct an inquiry into the Capitol protest, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has not issued a public report on his findings. On the IG’s website, the “Review Examining the Role and Activity of DOJ and its Components in Preparing for and Responding to the Events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021” is listed as “ongoing work.”

The inquiry undoubtedly is complex and wide-ranging. The DOJ was, by many accounts, the lead agency in charge of intelligence and security for January 6. Further, one can only imagine the stonewalling Horowitz is encountering from DOJ brass particularly at the FBI. 

During congressional hearings, FBI Director Christopher Wray consistently refuses to discuss the number of FBI informants involved before and on January 6. Wray, in fact, becomes visibly agitated when he is asked a January 6-related question by a member of Congress.

In a heated exchange in July with Representative Victoria Spartz (R-Ind), Wray again declined to answer questions about the use of confidential human sources, commonly referred to as informants, on January 6:

Wray then noted that Horowitz is working on a report that “addresses some of these kinds of topics.”

But the FBI director’s indignation over suspicions that his agency was somehow involved in orchestrating the events of January 6 does not erase the fact that the FBI had numerous informants involved in the events of January 6. 

The official record speaks for itself. 

Prosecutors admitted in the case against the Proud Boys that at least eight FBI informants including the driver for Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys leader at the time, were embedded in the group prior to January 6. Testimony at trial indicated the actual number was at least twice that. After the government was forced to admit during the 2023 trial that yet another Proud Boy associate had also worked as an informant, one of the defense attorneys complained to the judge that the DOJ had more informants than defendants in the case.

At least five FBI informants were embedded in the Oath Keepers; the 2022 trial of some of the Oath Keepers’ top leaders revealed that the group’s vice president who worked directly under Stewart Rhodes was an FBI informant.

Which is why Wray’s self-righteousness is nothing more than an act to avoid answering what is arguably the biggest unanswered question about January 6: How many FBI operatives participated that day and did they instigate any violence?

The question does not represent a “conspiracy theory,” as Wray and others insist. After all, just a few months before January 6, Wray’s FBI successfully executed the entrapment operation known as the Whitmer fednapping hoax.

From Michigan to Washington—A Trail of Informants

At least a dozen FBI informants working with numerous FBI handlers out of several FBI field offices framed a loose group of men to make it look like “militia” members loyal to Donald Trump plotted to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. Elements of the scheme—storming the Michigan Capitol building, discussing the use of explosives, calling for the “hanging” of Whitmer—mirror aspects of January 6. (Half the men who stood trial on kidnapping charges were acquitted amid an entrapment defense.)

And let’s not forget who headed the Detroit FBI field office when the entrapment scheme in Michigan went down: Steven D’Antuono. Wray promoted D’Antuono to head of the Washington FBI field office shortly after the arrests were made in the Whitmer fednapping in October 2020. D’Antuono then led the bureau’s overall investigation into January 6.

During a 2023 interview with the House Judiciary Committee, D’Antuono admitted that “there were [FBI] CHSes onsite” at the Capitol on January 6. As to the exact number, D’Antuono couldn’t--or wouldn’t--say. He said upon learning about the presence of FBI informants, he “asked headquarters to do a poll or put out something to people saying was any CHSes involved. And I think that's when we started getting responses back.”

Those responses are not public.

Nonetheless, D’Antuono insisted any CHS involvement was legit. “[Like] I explained in the last session, there was no nefarious or malicious -- in my opinion, no nefarious or maliciousness to having a CHS in the crowd, possibly going to the protest. That's, you know, what we have CHSes for all the time.”

Hmmm.

But surveillance video in at least one instance contradicts D’Antuono’s claims. As I reported here last year, FBI informant Michael Jones, who was embedded in the Proud Boys, appears to have committed several crimes on January 6 including violently entering the building. He was never charged.

Time for Answers

So now Horowitz is on the hot seat; he is scheduled to testify before the House Weaponization subcommittee on Wednesday. While the topic of the hearing is related to the FBI’s punishment of whistleblowers, it is imperative that Republicans press Horowitz to explain the delay in his J6 report.

Where is his report? Why is it taking so long? Is he investigating the number of FBI informants who participated in the Capitol protest? 

Is the FBI cooperating? Is he delaying release of his report until after the election? Did he conduct any oversight into the failed investigation of the J6 “pipe bomber?”

Is he getting stonewalled, just as the DHS IG reported related to his investigation into January 6, by higher-ups in the Biden regime.

Were any of the FBI informants involved in the Whitmer fednapping hoax also involved in January 6?

Horowitz previously documented deep concerns about the FBI CHS program. In 2019, he issued a scathing report that blasted the FBI’s lack of oversight of the $42 million per year CHS program. (Informants are paid in cash.) “We found that the FBI's vetting process for CHSs…did not comply with the Attorney General Guidelines. We also found deficiencies in the FBl's long-term CHS validation reports which are relied upon by FBI and Department of Justice officials in determining the continued use of a CHS. Further, the FBI inadequately staffed and trained personnel conducting long-term validations and lacked an automated process to monitor its long-term CHSs,” Horowitz concluded.

Will Horowitz follow up on those concerns in his J6 report or act as a defender of the department he is tasked to scrutinize?

Only House Republicans can—or at least try—to find out now.