That is a complete distortion. Read what I have said. I have never said or even indicated in any way, shape, or form that one must have any kind of certainty before they can suspect someone of being a gatekeeper. I have absolutely no problem with people suspecting Fuentes of this or that, but I have simply countered people who try to claim certain things about Fuentes as being factual. When they are claiming thing to be factual, I simply ask them to present their best credible evidence to back up or prove what they are saying is factual.
You say you do not demand certainty before suspecting a gatekeeper. Fine. I do not demand certainty either. I am offering a cuмulative, evidence based case that meets normal standards used by journalists and investigators to label someone a likely asset or controlled actor.
If you want to treat “controlled op” as an extraordinary legal finding that only a declassified directive will prove, say so and we will stop arguing about words. If not, here are three concrete, verifiable facts that form the core of my claim and that any reasonable analyst must reckon with:
1. Fuentes was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6th Select Committee yet, unlike many lesser figures, he was not arrested or prosecuted for January 6 activities. That anomalous outcome deserves explanation. (House Jan. 6th Committee public record)
2. At least one inner associate has been publicly tied to FBI monitoring and reporting, which shows federal eyes inside his circle. (reports collated by SPLC Hatewatch)
3. He received a large flagged Bitcoin transfer in December 2020,13.5 BTC, part of movements linked to people involved with the Capitol events. That is a significant, traceable financial anomaly. (Chainalysis reporting)
Those are not impressions. They are factual, timestamped items you can verify in minutes. Pattern + protection + financial oddities is exactly how credible investigators build a case that someone is being managed or tolerated for a strategic purpose.
So which standard will you accept as “credible evidence”? Sworn financial records, internal communications, declassified directives, or a cuмulative public dossier with screenshots and archived links? If you refuse to name any standard and only demand a smoking gun that will never be public, that is not a debate.