Vivek Ramaswamy Really, Really Wants You To Know He Thinks January 6 Was an ‘Inside Job’

Published

2 years ago

December 29, 2023

admin

On Wednesday, fourth-place GOP presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy capped off a month of conspiratorial campaigning by asserting, yet again, that the January 6, 2021, riot inside the Capitol building was an “inside job.”

“There is now clear evidence,” the 38-year-old entrepreneur tweeted, “that there was at the very least entrapment of peaceful protestors, similar to the fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot & countless other cases. The FBI won’t admit how many undercover officers were in the field on Jan 6, Capitol police on one hand fired rubber bullets & explosives into a peaceful crowd who they then willingly later allowed to enter the Capitol. That doesn’t add up & the actual evidence turns the prior narrative upside down: if the deep state is willing to manufacture an ‘insurrection’ to take down its political opponents, they can do anything. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.”

The timeline of Ramaswamy’s revelation is certainly curious. Law enforcement use of (a small number of) rubber munitions and flash-bang devices on that day was known in real time, as was the U.S. Capitol Police’s selected removal of barricades in front of some oncoming demonstrators, back when the future presidential candidate was still pinning partial blame for the “disgraceful Capitol riot” on the “downright abhorrent” behavior of former President Donald Trump. The 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer looked “an awful lot like entrapment” by at least January 2022; as of September 2022, Ramaswamy was still decrying the “Grand Old Party of Crybabies” for insisting, despite the “lack of evidence of fraud,” that “the presidential election was stolen.”

The only bit of stated evidence that looks remotely new is an apparent reference to the June 2023 congressional testimony of former FBI Washington Field Office Assistant Director Steven D’Antuono that “a handful” of agency informants were on the scene January 6, and that he wasn’t sure of the overall number. (D’Antuono also testified that the FBI had been instructing its informants to discourage Trump supporters from heading to the Capitol that day, since there were credible fears that his planned “Stop the Steal” rally could turn violent. He also characterized the notion of the feds stoking the protest as being “furthest from the truth.”)

Whatever the import of one or even several handfuls of government agents amid the 884 individuals to date who have been convicted of January 6related crimes, it took a while for Ramaswamy to arrive at “entrapment” as the primary cause. In July 2023, even while beginning to shift blame away from Trump (calling it “unproductive”), the candidate was still pegging as the main culprit “pervasive censorship.” By the end of August, in direct contradiction to his “victimhood mythology” critique of the year before, the candidate was triangulating his January 6 position by saying that had he been in thenVice President Mike Pence’s shoes, he would have somehow made the transfer of presidential power contingent on federal election reforms.

Part of Ramaswamy’s positioning is, in the uncharitable words of National Review Editor in Chief Rich Lowry, “to avoid criticizing Trump at almost all costs.” He has pledged to pardon the 46th president, as well as “all peaceful, nonviolent January 6 protesters who were denied their constitutional due process rights.” He vowed to pull out of the Colorado primary in protest of the state Supreme Court banning Trump from the ballot. He has called Trump an “excellent president,” defended his use of the word vermin, and described his own campaign as “America First 2.0.” When news broke this week that Ramaswamy would not be spending previously planned money on television ads in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “He will, I am sure, Endorse me.”

Whatever the campaign context, Ramaswamy has been on an “inside job” tear this month, beginning with this rapid-fire volley of Trump-friendly conspiratorial assertion at the December 6 GOP debate:

Why am I the only person on the stage at least who can say that January 6 now does look like it was an inside job, that the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11, that the Great Replacement Theory is not some grand right-wing conspiracy theory but a basic statement of the Democratic Party’s platform, that the 2020 election was indeed stolen by Big Tech, that the 2016 election, the one that Trump won for sure, was also one that was stolen from him by the national security establishment that actually put out the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that they knew was false?

This was followed one week later by a live and contentious CNN town hall, in which moderator Abby Phillip pressed him repeatedly to provide evidence for the provocative “inside job” claim. Amid several condescending remarks along the lines of “I know this is very uncomfortable for you,” the candidate mustered the same three tidbits reiterated in this week’s tweet: that “there were federal law enforcement agents in that field,” that some of the Capitol building’s security guards rolled out the proverbial “red carpet” for the trespassers, and that the Whitmer plot proves January 6 intent:

It’s the same issue, and the same FBIsame even part of the FBI. Three people who were in an alleged plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer were acquitted at the end of trial, because it was entrapment. That is, government agents put them up to do something they otherwise wouldn’t have done….FBI agents putting them up to a kidnapping plot that we were told was true, but was entrapment. Same thing with the Capitol Police, people letting them in freely, many of those people then being charged. The government cannot put you up to do something, and then charge you for it. That’s wrong.

The Michigan case, which Reason treated with skepticism from the beginning, has some glaring differences with January 6, and not just that the Capitol Police are not, in fact, the FBI. One was a private, ginned-up conspiracy among a handful of surveilled and infiltrated actors to commit a crime that had zero chance of taking place; the other a planned public event featuring thousands of motivated participants. The centrality of FBI informants to the Whitmer plot was clear from the charging documents onward; but as C.J. Ciaramella pointed out in a feature article posted in September 2022, “no court records in the hundreds of prosecutions of January 6 rioters have mentioned the use of agents provocateurs.”

Could there have been government agents trying to stoke conflict on that chaotic day, only to watch their handiwork spin so horribly out of control that one protester was shot and killed, 114police officers reported injuries, and elected officials were scurried off into safe rooms during what was supposed to be the certification of the presidential election? Absolutely, yes. As Ciaramella wrote, “It’s not an entirely unreasonable suspicion, given the bureau’s history of infiltrating and disrupting political movements.”

But there’s a vast chasm between just asking questions about that day versus making bald factual assertions about a “manufacture[d]” plot to “take down…political opponents.” The latter formulation feeds the very “victimhood mythology,” “sore losing,” and “conservative brand of victimhood” Ramaswamy was decrying just 15 months ago. It contributes to an apocalyptic rhetorical populism for which violence is a logical next step. And it denies agency to the more than 200Trump supporters who, of their own volition, chose to attend the Stop the Steal rally, march to the Capitol, trespass on the grounds (whether by strolling in through a removed barrier or bashing through obstacles), then engage in conduct that led to their criminal conviction of “assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers and/or obstructing officers during a civil disorder.”

You can be suspicious of the FBI, critical of the overly aggressive January 6 prosecutions and sentencing, and of the belief that those convicted of nonviolent crimes from that day shuld not be imprisoned, without embracing an evidence-starved theory of government malfeasance that just so happens to let both Trump and his most violently deluded supporters off the hook. Yet Ramaswamy’s transparent cynicism is arguably a rational (if grotesque) response to political incentives, given that half of Republicans pin blame for January 6 on the left.

“Ramaswamy has sounded as pro-Trump as Trump’s own children, inveighed against an establishment that barely exists, played footsie with conspiracy theories, and courted controversiesboth righteous and stupidto gain the attention of the base of the party,” Lowry wrote. “It’s dispiriting that such a shrewd and self-interested guy thinks this is how you rise within the Republican Party.”

It’s even more dispiriting that he’s probably right.

World

Donald Trump sending ‘top of the line’ weapons to support NATO in Ukraine war

Published

2 hours ago

July 15, 2025

admin

Donald Trump sending 'top of the line' weapons to support NATO in Ukraine war

Donald Trump has agreed to send “top of the line weapons” to NATO to support Ukraine – and threatened Russia with “severe” tariffs if it doesn’t agree to end the war.

Speaking with NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte during a meeting at the White House, the US president said: “We’ve made a deal today where we are going to be sending them weapons, and they’re going to be paying for them.

“This is billions of dollars worth of military equipment which is going to be purchased from the United States, going to NATO, and that’s going to be quickly distributed to the battlefield.”

Follow the latest here

It comes as Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had a “very good conversation” with Mr Trump late on Monday. He thanked him for the “willingness to support Ukraine and to continue working together to stop the killings”.

Weapons being sent from to Ukraine include surface-to-air Patriot missile systems and batteries, which the country has asked for to defend itself from Russian air strikes.

Mr Trump also said he was “very unhappy” with Russia, and threatened “severe tariffs” of “about 100%” if there isn’t a deal to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days.

The White House added that the US would put “secondary sanctions” on countries that buy oil from Russia if an agreement was not reached.

Mr Zelenskyy previously criticised Vladimir Putin’s “desire to drag [the war] out”, and said Kyiv was “working on major defence agreements with America”.

It comes after weeks of frustration from Mr Trump over Mr Putin’s refusal to agree to an end to the conflict, with the Russian leader telling the US president he would “not back down” from Moscow’s goals in Ukraine at the start of the month.

During the briefing on Monday, Mr Trump said he had held calls with Mr Putin where he would think “that was a nice phone call”, but then “missiles are launched into Kyiv or some other city, and that happens three or four times”.

“I don’t want to say he’s an assassin, but he’s a tough guy,” he added.

Earlier this year, Mr Trump told Mr Zelenskyy “you’re gambling with World War Three” in a fiery White House meeting, and suggested Ukraine started the war against Russia as he sought to negotiate an end to the conflict.

After Mr Trump’s briefing, Russian senator Konstantin Kosachev said on Telegram: “If this is all that Trump had in mind to say about Ukraine today, then all the steam has gone out.”

Meanwhile, Mr Zelenskyy met with US special envoy Keith Kellogg in Kyiv, where they “discussed the path to peace” by “strengthening Ukraine’s air defence, joint production, and procurement of defence weapons in collaboration with Europe”.

He thanked both the envoy for the visit and Mr Trump “for the important signals of support and the positive decisions for both our countries”.

Environment

How one man with a hacksaw and an e-bike became a Texas flood ‘hero’

Published

3 hours ago

July 15, 2025

admin

How one man with a hacksaw and an e-bike became a Texas flood 'hero'

Locals call him the “Bicycle hero,” but Texas man Evan Wayne says he’s just doing what he can to help his community after it was cut off due to the recent devastating and deadly flooding tragedy.

When the local Sandy Creek flooded following torrential rains in Texas, it destroyed the only bridge into one community. Residents were cut off from access to supplies, including everything from necessities like food, water, and medicine to basic comforts.

Although the bridge was impassable to cars, volunteers who quickly organized to help the stranded residents found that the damaged bridge could still be traversed on foot. Or in the case of Evan Wayne, it could be covered by an electric bike.

Evan joined hundreds of volunteers who answered the call of grassroots organizers by working together without any official capacity. While many started by hand-pulling garden carts of supplies uphill to reach the stricken community, Evan jury-rigged a trailer to an e-bike and took on as much of the load as he could, helping shuttle much-needed food and gear into the community over hundreds of round-trip journeys.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

“This was a dog trailer 48 hours ago. I had a hacksaw, hacked the top off, grabbed some bungee cords, and here we are,” explained Evan in an interview with CBS Austin, while waiting for the next load of gear to be stacked on his trailer.

In the first two days of the operation, he made around 100 round trips each day, shuttling food and water as well as critical rescue supplies. “Right now, I’m waiting on a couple of chainsaws that I’ll bring in for a crew that’s been going at it with handsaws so far.”

In addition to delivering needed supplies, Evan has often found himself moving something even more important: information. “I’ve flagged down medics. I’ve been the guy that goes between Austin EMT and STAR Flight because I’m quicker than cell phones sometimes, people don’t have signal a lot of the time.”

Evan quickly points out that he isn’t the only one helping. “I’ve got an e-bike, but other people are pulling carts. People are walking, people are carrying things. Everyone is doing what they can.” But there’s no doubt that his ability to carry more gear at higher speeds and make hundreds of round-trip journeys so far in and out of the stricken neighborhood has helped impact countless lives.

“This is all volunteers here. They’re just taking it upon themselves to get people where they need to go. I think there’s an umbrella company coming in, taking over tomorrow, but until they get here, people are just taking care of people, which is what you’ve got to do.”

E-bikes proving their worth in emergencies

While many people consider electric bicycles just another form of recreation, they’ve proven to be potent transportation alternatives after natural disasters worldwide.

Not only do their small and efficient batteries make performing hundreds of rescue trips like Evans’ possible, but recharging can be done simply and easily with a solar panel when electricity is out after a disaster. And when gas stations are out of fuel (or simply can’t pump it with the power grid down), e-bikes can keep running while gasoline-powered motorcycles or ATVs run dry.

Electric bicycle batteries have also proven to be a handy source of emergency power after hurricanes and other disasters, often helping owners keep their phones charged up for days to remain in contact with family or rescue services.

While most hope to never need theirs for emergency purposes, electric bicycles have proven their worth in countless disaster scenarios, adding benefits far beyond just alternative transportation, recreation, or fitness riding.

E-bikes can be kept running nearly indefinitely after natural disasters with access to solar recharging equipment

Image credits: CBS Austin (screenshots), used under fair use

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Business

New electric car grants of up to £3,750 aims to drive sales

Published

4 hours ago

July 15, 2025

admin

New electric car grants of up to £3,750 aims to drive sales

The taxpayer is to help drive the switch to non-polluting vehicles through a new grant of up to £3,750, but some of the cheapest electric cars are to be excluded.

The Department for Transport (DfT) said a £650m fund was being made available for the Electric Car Grant, which is due to get into gear from Wednesday.

Users of the scheme – the first of its kind since the last Conservative government scrapped grants for new electric vehicles three years ago – will be able to secure discounts based on the “sustainability” of the car.

Money latest: easyJet bereavement policy faces refund question

It will apply only to vehicles with a list price of £37,000 or below – with only the greenest models eligible for the highest grant.

Buyers of so-called ‘Band two’ vehicles can receive up to £1,500.

The qualification criteria includes a recognition of a vehicle’s carbon footprint from manufacture to showroom so UK-produced EVs, costing less than £37,000, would be expected to qualify for the top grant.

It is understood that Chinese-produced EVs – often the cheapest in the market – would not.

DfT said 33 new electric car models were currently available for less than £30,000.

The government has been encouraged to act as sales of new electric vehicles are struggling to keep pace with what is needed to meet emissions targets.

Challenges include the high prices for electric cars when compared to conventionally powered models.

At the same time, consumer and business budgets have been squeezed since the 2022 cost of living crisis – and households and businesses are continuing to feel the pinch to this day.

Another key concern is the state of the public charging network.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: “This EV grant will not only allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money – it’ll help our automotive sector seize one of the biggest opportunities of the 21st century.

“And with over 82,000 public charge points now available across the UK, we’ve built the infrastructure families need to make the switch with confidence.”

The Government has pledged to ban the sale of new fully petrol or diesel cars and vans from 2030 but has allowed non-plug in hybrid sales to continue until 2025.

It is hoped the grants will enable the industry to meet and even exceed the current zero emission vehicle mandate.

Under the rules, at least 28% of new cars sold by each manufacturer in the UK this year must be zero emission.

The figure stood at 21.6% during the first half of the year.

The car industry has long complained that it has had to foot a multi-billion pound bill to woo buyers for electric cars through “unsustainable” discounting.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said the grants sent a “clear signal to consumers that now is the time to switch”.

He went on: “Rapid deployment and availability of this grant over the next few years will help provide the momentum that is essential to take the EV market from just one in four today, to four in five by the end of the decade.”

But the Conservatives questioned whether taxpayers should be footing the bill.

Shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon said: “Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility made clear the transition to EVs comes at a cost, and this scheme only adds to it.

“Make no mistake: more tax rises are coming in the autumn.”