FBI under mounting pressure from Senate why FBI agent was present at Garland free speech but did nothing to stop jihad attack

Remember: at our free speech event, Geert Wilders, the leader of Holland’s second largest political party, was there. He has for years been targeted for assassination. Imagine if they had been successful. My colleague Robert Spencer and I have received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached? While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with, because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility, it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of the freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

The FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

Now we find they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to alerting Garland police about Simpson’s jihad plans three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack, one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.The Daily Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting? It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. What other conclusion can be reached

I’ve been trying to get my mind around this thing. What was Obama trying to do? Teach Americans a lesson? Enforce the edict that he enunciated in the wake of the Benghazi jihad slaughter, that “the future must not belong to those to slander the prophet of Islam”?

If people had died at our Garland event, the murders would have had a blood-chilling effect on the freedom of speech in America. That, in my view, appears to have been what the Obama administration wanted — and certainly that’s what the enemedia wanted in the wake of our event, as it gleefully and relentlessly blamed us for violating Sharia blasphemy laws and getting shot at.

“Pressure builds on FBI to explain Garland terrorist attack,” by Todd Shepherd, Washington Examiner, May 6, 2017:

The FBI is under mounting pressure from the Senate to explain the circumstances behind a terrorist attack in Garland, Texas in 2015, although it’s still far from clear whether the FBI intends to explain why an FBI agent was at the scene and did nothing.

In open testimony before the committee on Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey told Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that he would be willing to explain media reports that suggest the FBI may have had advance knowledge of the attack. But he only said he would do that in a classified briefing, and no briefing has been set.

Cruz’s request was just the latest attempt to get to the bottom of the attack. Senator Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has been trying to get information from the FBI and the Justice Department for over a year and a half, and has had little to show for his efforts.

Requests for comment from Cruz and Johnson were not returned about when a briefing might occur.

In May 2015, two radicalized Islamic extremists, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, went to a “Draw Muhammed” event in a car loaded with firearms and ammunition. They opened fire at a security checkpoint at the perimeter of the parking lot, and were quickly shot and killed by a traffic officer on the scene before they could reach the building in which the event was being held. Bruce Joiner, a security guard on the scene, was shot in the leg and survived.

A report by 60 Minutes, however, showed a remarkable level of involvement by the FBI on that day. An undercover agent was in the car immediately behind the two attackers, and was taking pictures of the scene just seconds before Simpson and Soofi opened fire. The undercover FBI agent had been in touch with Simpson for weeks prior to the shooting, and even texted him the message “Tear up Texas” weeks before the attack. And just after the pair began their attack, the undercover agent tried to flee the scene.

When Johnson first queried the Justice Department for information that could help him understand what happened that day, he said the response “contained little specificity and ignored several important questions.”

After the 60 Minutes report in March, Johnson again requested documentation from the FBI, but his deadline came and went, and the FBI sent him nothing.

The FBI press office told the Washington Examiner it is “in contact” with Johnson’s office about the questions he’s raised about the FBI’s involvement in the incident, but had nothing else to say about it.

Still, that acknowledgment is a big leap forward in the bureau’s willingness to make any public admission about the attack, which was the first on American soil for which the Islamic State claimed responsibility.

Toward the end of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, forced Comey to confirm for a second time that he would not only brief Cruz, but also committee staff.

“Assuming they have the clearances for it. I don’t think that’s a problem at all, I’ll do that,” Comey replied.

The attorney for the wounded security guard, Trenton Roberts, previously told the Washington Examiner that he was concerned the FBI may have been more invested in moving an undercover agent up the ranks in a U.S.-based cell of the Islamic State than they were interested in stopping an imminent attack.

“It seems like it had to have been one or the other,” Roberts told the Examiner. “Just a complete botched operation where they [the FBI] don’t want the attack to actually take place, or, it’s something where they need the attack to take place in order for this guy [the agent] to advance in the world of ISIS.”…