Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigation of the Capitol Hill Riot found no undercover FBI agents attended. Still, over two dozen confidential human sources (DHS) were at the event.

However, the FBI only assigned three of the sources to attend on January 6:

The IG could not find evidence that the FBI authorized the CHSs to "enter the Capitol or restricted area, or to otherwise break the law." The materials also did not show that the FBI had told them "to encourage others to commit illegal acts."

The three CHSs found 23 other CHSs in DC "in connection with the events planned for January 6."

The IG also did not find evidence that the FBI told them to break the law, enter the Hill or restricted areas, or push others to break the law.

But the IG discovered:

Many of the 26 CHSs handed over information about the electoral certification before January 6. Several of the CHSs gave information after January 6.

The FBI even received information from CHSs who did not attend the riot. A few examples:

"None of this reporting concerned specific plans to attack the Capitol building in connection with the January 6 proceedings," wrote the IG. "However, it is intelligence information that, if properly shared or acted upon, would have provided WFO [FBI Washington Field Office] with additional information in advance of the January 6 Electoral Certification."

For example, on January 4, 2021, a CHS in Field Office 2 told the handling agent that a person "on a communications platform claimed to be the leader" of the Oath Leaders said they "had 500 people willing to storm the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. on January 6th."

The next day, the same CHS told the handling agent "that 10 militia members from various militias had announced in a group chat on the communications platform that they would be participating in protests in DC starting January 5, 2021, through the Inauguration."

Therefore, the IG concluded the FBI did not do enough despite CHSs from different field offices alerting their handling agents of plans to storm the Capitol:

We also found that DTOS [Domestic Terrorism Operations Section] did not issue an informal canvass to all FBI field offices requesting information from all sources, including CHSs, about threats in connection with the January 6 Electoral Certification. We determined that the DTOS Program Manager's December 30 email was not an affirmative canvass or data call for information and was not a direction to the field offices to seek information from their CHSs. The testimony of the Program Manager and of the WFO CTD [Counterterrorism Division] SSA [Supervisory Special Agent] who served as supervisor to WFO's DT squad about the reason for that email (i.e., to improve any reporting that field offices may want to send), and the plain language of the email show that the Program Manager's December 30 email was not intended to direct the field to canvass its CHSs. As indicated in the subject line in the original emails between the two, the December 30 email was about "[I]mproving threat reporting" that field offices were sending on their own initiative, and the email itself includes no request or requirement to canvass CHSs for information. While some field offices read the email more broadly, that is not what generally occurred.

"Indeed, we believe the post-January 6 emphasis that the FBI placed on having done a pre-January 6 CHS canvass, when in fact it had not, reinforces our concerns about the importance of the FBI ensuring that, in connection with future major events, it assesses whether a canvass is necessary and appropriate under FBI policy," concluded the IG.

Jonathan Turley brings up a great point. Did the defense of those prosecuted over J6 know about all of the CHSs?