Mike Sylwester linked an article and a video in a comment. The links pertain to the January 6 Event and, more specifically, to Person One, aka, Stewart Rhodes. The article appears at Revolver:
Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open
Previously Revolver got itself into some trouble by getting involved in some technical legal conclusions, which they were unprepared to support. This time around it looks like they're being more cautious. Instead of conclusions, they're raising questions--and there are plenty of questions about Stewart Rhodes that need answering.
I won't attempt to offer a summary of everything that's now known about Rhodes. Instead I'll offer some conclusions of my own.
I think it's fair to say that Rhodes was not only the "Kingpin" of the Oath Keepers but he's also the Kingpin of the Zhou regime's entire "insurrection" narrative--Mr. Big. The article links to a government motion that, beginning at page 10, cites the words of Rhodes/Person One extensively. The article also quotes Rhodes' public statements from well before January 6 in which Rhodes appears to be clearly engaging in repeated inflammatory rhetoric that includes suggesting violent confrontations that could lead to an "insurrection":
My point in this regard is a very simple one, and it's the one that Revolver raises. In the circumstances of the continuing prosecutions of so many simple people who were even remotely connected to the January 6 Event, it's just about impossible to believe that Rhodes was not acting all along under the control of the FBI, as an operational informant. What I mean is simply this: Given what the government knows about Rhodes' words and actions over a period of two months, and comparing that to what the government knows about the words and actions of people they're actually prosecuting, it's extremely difficult to believe that Rhodes' usefulness as Person One is limited to being a cooperating witness. By comparison with the others, the government appears to totally have the goods on Rhodes. How, then, can it be that he's not in custody and charged for his Kingpin role?
Here's how Revolver frames that issue:
It's pretty hard to argue against that reasoning. Based on what we know, Rhodes should be the main target of the prosecutions, not a cooperating witness.
And so Revolver asks these questions: