Assessing Tucker Carlson’s “Patriot Purge” (Part 2): (If you read Part 1 summary, I know you’ll want to read my Part 2 assessment!)

Welcome to “Part 2” of my look at Tucker Carlson’s Patriot Purge. In “Part 1,” I described what I felt was the main thesis and four main claims that Carlson made, and then I highlighted what Carlson said regarding the people he highlighted in his documentary. Let’s first recap the four main points:

(1) Looking back at the US response after 9/11, Carlson emphasized that things like the “Patriot Act” gave broad powers to the federal government to fight the “war on terrorism,” and that those powers were often abused. In the end, the US “war on terrorism” probably ended up producing more terrorists. As Carlson says, the “shock and awe” method of fighting the war on terror was ultimately counterproductive.

(2) Carlson then claimed that the government response we saw to the 1/6 riot last January at the Capitol shows that the federal government is using the same mentality and tactics from the post-9/11 “war on terrorism” in its self-proclaimed “new war on domestic terrorism.” Hence, Carlson argues that what we are seeing is the same abuse of power, just on a different front—this time it is directed on American citizens.

(3) Carlson also claimed that there are indications that the 1/6 riot was actually sparked, not by the typical Trump supporters who came for the “Stop the Steal” rally that day, but by either FBI informants or agents. This is, by far, the most controversial claim in the documentary.

(4) Finally, Carlson highlighted the way many politicians and most in the media portrayed the 1/6 riot, as well as Trump supporters as a whole after the 1/6 riot. They portrayed them as domestic terrorists, white nationalists, and a murderous mob, and consequently called for the government to “weed out” and engage of a “de-Baathification” of any of these extremists who might be either in the military or in the government.

I said that points (1) and (4) are pretty obvious, and that points (2) and (3) are the more controversial ones that need to be further evaluated. That is what I’m going to do in this post. I’ll actually give my opinion of Patriot Purge, as well as highlight a few more things from the documentary.

First Off: My Overall Assessment
First off, my overall reaction to Patriot Purge as a whole is that it was clearly sensationalistic and over the top in places, particularly, when Carlson was arguing that the response to 1/6 was similar to the response to 9/11. Now, I’m not talking about the actual argument here. I mean, when you find actual politicians and media types openly saying that we need to turn away from a “war on terrorism” to a “new war on domestic terrorism,” I think it is right and appropriate to say, “Wait a minute, we made some big mistakes in the war on terrorism—do you really think those tactics are a good blueprint to use?”

Rather, when I say Patriot Purge was sensationalistic, I’m referring to the constant barrage of images Carlson threw up on the screen of the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Yes, we know that many of the people arrested after 1/6 have been held in solitary confinement for months on end, yes, Richard Barnett and his lawyer have said that some of the detainees were physically abused and yes, I find that problematic. But even if that is true, I don’t think that rises to the level of waterboarding, hot boxes, and forcing detainees to strip naked and form a human pyramid with military dogs barking at them. Simply put, equating the post-1/6 response to the worst abuses in the post-9/11 war on terror goes too far.

In addition, some of the language used in the documentary is over the top as well, particularly claims like, “The Left is hunting the Right.” Again, quite frankly, I think it is a valid question to ask whether or not the Democrat party is using 1/6 for their own political advantage by trying to broadbrush all Republicans (more specifically anyone who voted for Trump) as “extremists” and “domestic terrorists.” We should all just acknowledge that these days, over-heated and inflammatory rhetoric is pretty much par for the course across the board. Of course, the Democrat Party is trying to use 1/6 for their political advantage. That goes without saying. But to claim “the Left is hunting the Right” goes too far. And, to be fair, I’ve heard plenty of statements like that, both from liberal media pundits and politicians alike, that go in the opposite political direction, and none of it is good or helpful to anyone. Sorry, I don’t believe “the Left is hunting the Right,” and I don’t believe that Trump voters are the equivalent of Al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. We would all be better off if we refrained from that kind of inflammatory language.

That Being Said…
That being said, the underlying warning given in Patriot Purge is not only a valid warning, it is the same warning that traditional liberal groups have been sounding for decades. It is a warning about government overreach and abuse of power. Again, back to that initial point, I don’t know of anyone who looks back at the US post-9/11 reaction with the Patriot Act and thinks everything went swimmingly, with absolutely no abuses or deception at all. Everyone acknowledges that the government certainly “fudged quite a few facts” to justify going into Iraq. People like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange leaked government documents that conclusively showed that the government was abusing its power granted by the Patriot Act to, in fact, spy on American citizens. And, obviously, things like Abu Ghraib prison are a shameful stain on America’s reputation.

Given that, it shouldn’t be considered out of the realm of possibility that a government that engages in those sorts of things in the “war on terrorism,” might be capable of doing the same sorts of things in a “new war on domestic terrorism.” Whether or not Carlson is right in his claim that the government is, in fact, using this “new war on domestic terrorism” to justify going after Trump supporters, I don’t see how anyone could not think a government as powerful as the US government is capable of doing something like that. What’s the old adage? Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. For that reason, it did surprise me to see, even before Patriot Purge came out, certain politicians and media types immediately howl in indignation over it, as if Carlson was suggesting something completely outrageous—that the government could ever abuse its power. Seriously? For the past two decades—even more—that has been the constant criticism coming from traditional liberal groups of the US government. And, like I said, that criticism, particularly in regard to our post-9/11 response, has been largely validated.

Further Assessment…the Political Climate
Ultimately, I can’t say that I completely agree with Carlson’s fundamental thesis—or at least the way in which he is clearly implying his thesis is true. What I mean by that is that I don’t think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer got in some kind of star chamber with the head of the FBI, Mark Zuckerberg, and Joy Reid, and they all said, “Okay, FBI, use government power to round up and hunt down Trump supporters, and you in the media, be our new Pravda, because we want power! Muah ha ha ha!” I don’t think that kind of intentional, purposely deceitful sort of thing is going on. And, quite frankly, even though Carlson doesn’t say that exactly, that is certainly what seems to be implied. That is my biggest criticism of Patriot Purge.

But I will say Carlson is on to something very real that we all should take seriously, and not so quickly dismiss. I don’t think the US post-9/11 reaction was intentionally bad. I don’t think George W. Bush said, “Hey, 9/11 gives me the opportunity to invade Iraq and torture Iraqis!” When 9/11 happened, the government realized just how dangerous a threat Islamic terrorism had become, and it realized it had to do something. But in that “figuring out what to do,” some of the decisions were made, not out of some dastardly desire for more power, but rather out of fear. And over time, some of those policies put in place out of fear were later abused, often from that same place of fear. And when you have the largest, most powerful bureaucracy in human history establish certain policies that subsequently get used from a place of fear, that bureaucratic machine takes on a life of its own and easily becomes a bureaucratic beast that must feed to survive. Simply put, government power driven by fear is a very bad thing.

We all know that the US government has CIA and FBI operatives who infiltrate hostile regimes to try to ultimately undermine those regimes because they are viewed as a threat to the United States. It is how the government deals with perceived threats. Many times, these things are needed and warranted, but many times they are not—and oftentimes, there are unintended consequences that happen.

Given all that, I think we need to reassess, not only what happened on 1/6, but also what has happened in America over the past 5-6 years, ever since the 2016 election and the Trump presidency. Without getting into all the minutiae, when it gets right down to it, the Trump candidacy ultimately was an attack on the traditional political establishment of both parties. He criticized, in the most offensive way possible, the foreign and domestic policies that both parties had long held and promoted. He clearly was a threat to the political establishment. Whether one loves or hates him, that fact is obvious—everyone agrees he was.

Everyone also should agree that Trump and his supporters have been accused, both by primarily Democrats and many in the media, of being a whole laundry list of things: white supremacist nationalists, racists, domestic terrorists, traitors, etc. etc. Again, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the accusations, everyone will agree those accusations have been made. Throw into the mix the Russia collusion investigation, the impeachment over the Ukrainian phone call, the conflict over the immigration issue, the Covid pandemic, and the riots after George Floyd’s murder throughout the summer of 2020—there was a lot of fear to go around.

The result of all that was an even further toxic political divide. Democrats were convinced Trump was a white supremacist traitor who cheated and colluded with Russia, and was thus a threat to democracy itself, while Republicans and Trump supporters were convinced the Russia collusion story was a liberal hoax to undermine a legitimate election, and that Democrats and the media fueling racial divisions by downplaying the riots, insisting they were only peaceful protests ($3 billion in property damage and 24 people killed during the riots), and accusing Republicans who called them riots of being racist. Again, a lot of fear and suspicion to go around.

Then Trump lost the 2020 election and immediately claimed the election was stolen—pretty much the same thing Democrats accused Trump of doing in 2016. His insistence of voter fraud led hundreds of thousands of his most loyal supporters to attend the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6^th. On a personal note, even though I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, I became convinced over those four years of his presidency that many of the accusations leveled at him were preposterous and stoked a lot of fear and paranoia. So, even though I thought the “Stop the Steal” rally was stupid and that there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove that, ultimately, I think the people who attended were reacting to the way they felt Trump had been mistreated throughout his presidency. And I’ll say it—I think he was. He was offensive and inflammatory, but he wasn’t a traitor.

Let’s Land This Plane
All that said, what you had on 1/6 was two sides of the political aisle truly convinced that the other side was truly subverting democracy. The key thing (and this gets to the heart of Carlson’s most controversial claim) is that the FBI had already been at the center of the Russia Investigation against Trump—and those accusations of colluding with Russia tarnished Trump’s presidency, literally from day one. We’ll have to wait and see the results of John Durham’s investigation, but it already is apparent that there were some key problems with all that.

Carlson claims that there were FBI operatives and/or informants at 1/6 who instigated the riot in order to justify going after Trump supporters. He points to the fact that just months before, regarding the foiled plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer of Michigan, that 12 of the 18 conspirators were either FBI informants or agents. He also points out that the head of the Detroit FBI field office who oversaw that FBI operation was then promoted to a position in the Washington DC field off and is now overseeing the investigation into 1/6.

He also shows throughout the documentary a certain man at 1/6 rally and riot (his name is Ray Epps) who was shouting and encouraging the crowd the night before to “go inside the Capitol,” and who was shouted down by most in the crowd as “working for the Feds.” That same man is seen on video at the front barricade to the Capitol the next day, near the left-wing agitator John Sullivan, whispering something into another man’s ear, literally only seconds before that man, and others with him, tore down the barricade and rushed toward the Capitol. Of all the people who were arrested for what happened on 1/6, Epps seemingly wasn’t, despite the video evidence of his actions. There is no evidence he was ever actually in the Capitol, but there is evidence that shows he was encouraging people to go in. And it seems odd that he isn’t being charged with anything, while those other people mentioned in Part 1, some of whom never went into the Capitol, are being charged.

Does any of that actually prove Carlson’s claim that there were undercover FBI agents/informants goading people to go into the Capitol? I can’t say that—but I also can’t give a knee-jerk dismissal of the possibility. Sure, it’s possible. I’ll add another thing that Carlson didn’t mention that always bothered me concerning officer Brian Sicknick, the man whom the media claimed was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher by the “murderous mob.” Well, he wasn’t. He had a stroke later that night at home and died because of the stroke. Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi had his remains lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda and she, Chuck Schumer, and President Biden hailed him as a hero who gave his life “fighting the insurrection.” Well, he didn’t. And surely by that time, Pelosi and everyone else must have known he had died of a stroke and wasn’t beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. And yet, they gave him an honor given to only four other private citizens in US history. That can’t be seen as anything else that a purposeful deception.

In the end, my reaction to Patriot Purge can be summed up as follows:
1. Yes, sensationalist at times and some over the top, inflammatory rhetoric.
2. The assessment of the US post-9/11 response and media coverage of 1/6 is correct.
3. The claim that there were FBI agents who helped instigate the attack on the Capitol—well, it’s possible. I wouldn’t put it past our government to do something like that—we all know the FBI infiltrates groups they find potentially dangerous. Still, unless it is actually proven, caution is called for.
4. Regardless, I don’t think it was some plot devised in a star chamber by Democrats who want to hunt down Republicans. Rather, if true, I think it is evidence of what fear and an all-powerful bureaucracy can bring about. In the fear and paranoia, things take a life of their own.
5. Bottom line, even though I think the hundreds of thousands of people at the “Stop the Steal” rally were ultimately delusional to think the election was stolen, 99.9% of them aren’t extremists or terrorists, and I do think that accusation that has been pushed by many in the media and by some politicians is wrong.
6. Sorry, I’m not calling 1/6 an insurrection. It was a chaotic riot. Thus far, no one who has been arrested has been charged with insurrection. If there are no charges of insurrection, it’s hard to call it an insurrection.

One Final Thought
One other thing should be made clear. Despite the accusations that Carlson’s documentary was trying to justify the “insurrectionists” and stoke further violence, I didn’t see that. Sure, he is too demonstrative in his claim that 1/6 definitely was a “false flag,” and he is at times sensationalistic in his overall presentation, but at no time was he stoking further violence. Quite the contrary. He ends Patriot Purge with two things. First, he again reiterates that the post-9/11 war on terrorism ended up causing more of it, and that we should be worried about the effect of this new “war on domestic terrorism.” Then, he ends by saying, “They’re pushing you toward violence—don’t fall for it. Just tell the truth, rebuild the country, love your family and each other. Be the light—that’s how it gets better.”

Whether or not one is convinced 1/6 was a “false flag,” I think we should all be able to agree with that last sentiment. Don’t fall for those pushing for violence. Focus on truth, rebuilding, love, and trying to be light.