Ramaswamy’s “Inside Job” Claim About Jan. 6 Raises Eyebrows During CNN Interview

Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican presidential candidate, raised eyebrows during a recent CNN interview with Dana Bash when he suggested the January 6th Capitol attack was an “inside job.”

The exchange occurred after the fourth Republican presidential primary debate, where Ramaswamy made the same claim during his closing remarks. Bash, visibly surprised, pressed him for clarification, leading to a tense back-and-forth:

Bash: “Eight hundred and fifty people were arrested and convicted. What do you mean by an inside job?” Ramaswamy: “Entrapment, where the police go to people and influence them to do something they wouldn’t have done otherwise and then arrest them. This looks like a case of entrapment.” Bash: “And you don’t think it was the former president who incited the violence?” Ramaswamy: “Let’s look at the evidence. Look at the video footage of Capitol police letting people in who were later prosecuted. Some even committed suicide due to government actions. This is a clear case of entrapment.”

Bash repeatedly challenged Ramaswamy, citing the large number of convictions and the evidence against the rioters. She emphasized the seriousness of the attack, calling it “the most aggressive offensive attack on the U.S. Capitol and democracy itself.”

Ramaswamy, however, remained adamant, citing the release of new video footage as evidence of government involvement. He argued that the government has not been transparent and that the public deserves to know the full story.

The interview ended with Ramaswamy mentioning the Brady rule, a constitutional principle requiring prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. He claimed that exculpatory evidence was withheld from the January 6th defendants, raising further suspicion about the government’s role.

Ramaswamy’s “inside job” claim is likely to draw significant criticism and scrutiny. It contradicts the findings of numerous investigations, including the House Select Committee on January 6th, which concluded that the attack was a coordinated effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

His claims also raise ethical concerns about promoting conspiracy theories and potentially undermining public trust in the justice system. It remains to be seen how this will impact his presidential campaign and the broader political discourse surrounding the January 6th attack.