 MSNBC's Nicole Wallace unleashed on Texas Republican Clay Higgins this week after the congressman accused the FBI of being involved in January 6th. Let's watch. See this latest attempt by Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins in which he accuses the FBI of entrapping rioters in the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. Higgins said on a podcast that ghost buses took undercover FBI agents to Washington, D.C. They posed as Trump supporters and then they tricked the mob rioters into carrying out the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol. The fact is that January 6th was a deadly insurrection in which Trump supporters beat cops with flagpoles. Full stop. That's it. You don't need to tell the whole story of January 6th. I don't know who this guy is. I've never heard of him. I've never seen him on social media. He's telling lunatic stories. So this is a familiar beat, obviously, for the MSNBC and CNN crowd to demonize anyone diverting from their narrative on January 6th, being the most solemn and horrific day in our country's long history and that there should be no skepticism of it and no one can try to detract from how horrible it was at all. Look, I obviously think January 6th was very bad and the behaviors of the people who smashed windows and trespassed and defiled desks were unacceptable and I have no problem with them being charged in keeping with the actual crimes, not as part of some vast terrorist plot as they've ended up charging even people who, frankly, weren't there. The proud boys leader getting like 20 years seems a little excessive to me and I would say that I've said that for anti-police protests, for all kinds of protests, libertarian. That said, you know, is it so wild to have questions about exactly who was involved and what was going on there? No, it's not and I think the key tell here is when Nicole Wallace says we don't need the whole story of January 6th. For that to come out of ostensibly a journalist's mouth is, I mean, so beyond what the basic principles of journalism are, which is to approach anything with skepticism, to try to gather as much information about an event before you speak on it publicly, especially before you have an opinion on it, on one of the biggest cable news networks in the country, second biggest behind Fox. I mean, to hear her say that is just stunning and it is, as you said, consistent with the general posture about January 6th, even if we go back to the original January 6th Select Committee that was created in Congress, where Nancy Pelosi had veto power over which Republicans were allowed to sit on that committee. The Republicans didn't have the same subpoena power or investigative powers as the Democratic majority. And now the Republicans have released their own report where they tried to answer some of these questions that they had about January 6th that they weren't allowed to talk about on the Select Committee, which ended up the two Republican seats ended up being filled by Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, who of course have been very critical of their own party. Real diversity of views there. Exactly. So then Barry Loudermalk was the chair of the new investigative January 6th committee and they found all of these interesting things. Like Donald Trump did, in fact, ask for the National Guard to come that day. There were perhaps FBI undercover agents who were in the crowd open question as to whether or not they actually riled people up, as some people have suggested. But I think it's reasonable if you really think that this was the dastardly event that they've been painting it as to want to know the full story of what actually happened and how this transpired. Yeah, the head of the Capitol Police said there were undercover FBI agents. And that's not a conspiracy to think that because there are often law enforcement or assets of law enforcement embedded in patriot movements, right wing militia type movements. The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the governor of Michigan. That plot was at all times known to the FBI and they had actually paid participants in it to proceed to commit enough crime, the broader associates committing enough crimes so that they could actually arrest those people. Like that is a common law enforcement and FBI practice. So it is not crazy at all. There are hundreds, thousands of people there, hundreds or more who went in. It's not at all weird to expect that some of them were known to law enforcement or operating with law enforcement. Now you're right and I don't particularly think I was there covering it as a journalist. And what I saw looked to me like a spontaneous riot based on people who really fired up about what Donald Trump had said. I think that's the kind of Occam's razor explanation for what happened. But why is it wrong to release the whole footage? I would like to see everything that went on in the Capitol. They've tried to not release that and saying, oh, it's going to give away where the secret passages are or something, the emergency exits or it makes it unsafe. They've got to change all that anyway because enough people have been in to know how that kind of stuff works. So those kinds of things seem like lame excuses to me. Yeah, I agree. And there was also several Proud Boys members who have previously been confirmed to be FBI informant. Enrique Tario, the leader of the Proud Boys, had previously provided intelligence. Right. So it's just silly, as you said, to think that there wouldn't be even just within these movements, perhaps undercover officers, and then perhaps there were more in addition to that because they had some inkling that something was going to go down that day. But I was on the ellipse that day too in my journalistic capacity. We just want to clarify. Yeah, I did not sit on Nancy Pelosi's desk. I did not go into the Capitol just in case someone tries to bring me in. Like, what is that young lady's name? Isabella DeLuca or whatever. But I mean, point being, there was no indication to me that there was a plan to walk to the Capitol to break into the Capitol and stop the official proceedings of counting these electoral votes or certifying these electoral votes. Not a single person around me was talking about it. No one specifically heard Trump say fight, which is a standard use of political language as an indication that they should go and hit police officers with flag poles. And Nicole Wallace's lack of curiosity, again, is just telling on herself for the fact that they are trying to present a very specific narrative about what happened. And the point, of course, is to tie it back to the former president and use it as a potential way to prevent him from getting into office a second time. I mean, I have no problem like blaming Trump morally for what happened. I don't think in a legal sense that he's culpable. But I think if I gave a really fiery and impassioned speech and said a bunch of things that were probably not true and then like my followers rioted and broke into a building, I think people would blame me and it would be fair. And I also think Republicans who, you know, can go way too far with this and leaning into the like, you know, saying not just there might have been some FBI informants or agents among the crowd. And isn't it fine to investigate that? Well, yes, I agree with that. Then immediately jumping without more evidence that, oh, the whole thing we can, there's no responsibility for anyone on the right or Trump because this was clearly organized by the FBI itself. Like, okay, you got to, that's a pretty bold claim. You got to put up or shut up there. I mean, you got to present evidence of that. Like that Ray Epps person that they keep pointing to who, yes, did. You can see in video footage saying, you know, we're going to go into the Capitol the day before. And actually the people around him saying, no, you're a Fed. The person directing, libertarians know this. The person directing you to commit a crime is often a federal agent. So I like, I totally buy that, but they haven't put forth any evidence to suggest this person actually was law enforcement. There's no evidence. So you can't make unfounded claims. Yeah, I think the larger problem too is the way that this is being used to advance sort of the American spy state, right? Because you have people who simply traveled to D.C. on that day being investigated by the feds, perhaps being spied on through FISA. Right, they're going on right now. Which the Republicans, it looks like, just blocked that from moving forward in the House despite Speaker Johnson's wishes. But you know, people who were engaging in legitimate political protests that day did face criminalization for their actions unfairly and unjustly. And to see the vast difference in how they were treated versus people who were actually rioting in the summer of 2020 or in subsequent years. We just had a bunch of people arrested in the Capitol for trying to shut down like the cafeteria or something over Gaza. There's such an obvious double standard there that I think that is sort of the underpinning of a lot of Republican complaints about exactly how this entire event has been talked about, how it's moved through the court systems the way that the people who have been charged with crimes have been treated. I mean, that's a huge part of it. And I'm glad to see some of the, I guess, Trumpier factions or members of the Republican base are now alarmed about FISA abuse. Right, the reauthorization looks like it's going down to defeat Republican Thomas Massey, someone of kind of civil libertarian conviction, pointing out that this reauthorization has like, it protects members of Congress. Only they, if the government wants to spy on a member of Congress, it has to get a warrant to do it. But in no other circumstance, for the average regular Americans, they can still go through this totally Orwellian nebulous process that denies people right. So it's, and this is a good example of, I think, you know, of course mainstream media, of course people like the, like Nicole Wallace and who are criticizing, you know, love to demonize the fringe often, you know, what they call the fringe right and frankly also the fringe left. But it is the establishment center supported by President Biden, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who are most eager to authorize, reauthorize spy tools for the American government. The crazy fringes are maybe saying, eh, is that the best idea? Yeah, seems like the crazy fringes end up being right more often than not. Every now and then, I think so. All right, stick with us. We'll be back right after this.