It's also worth pointing out that this pattern is kind of common. As here, these agents are often at the very top. Almost all Organisations of Interest will be compromised at the leadership level.
It's something most grass roots activists don't feel intuitively at all.
They look for spies among their own level but it's almost always going to be the organisers, the helpers, the ones with the van, the one that can print your posters, the one with a bit of spare cash, the dude who can set up your server and the friendly friend with time to help you personally that are the spies.
Logically it makes sense for a spy to be placed as high as possible to get more information, and yet activists look for spies among the rank and file. They look for odd people to label as the spy. They expel the outsider. They suspect the ones that don't fit in. But the spy is going to be a well adjusted normal insider that they already trust, almost always!
I find it so interesting. It happens again and again. It's probably the same pattern for any group that attracts any government attention.
As I mentioned in another comment, one of the most amazing examples of this was the British Army/MI5 mole inside the IRA, Freddie Scappaticci, codenamed Steaknife. He was a leading member of the IRA's internal security team.
It really feels counterintuitive that someone who has got to the top would be the one to turn, but it also makes sense that they would be the one's targetted.
I have no information about this specific case, but generally speaking I think that it would be in their best interests for an intelligence agency to push their asset to the top of the org through any means in order to maximise their impact, so, at least to me, it seems plausible that many of the people at the top are informants.
It would be difficult to turn top leadership in a group because they are probably the most devoted. It's likely easier to start from the bottom. The guy that always has time to attend meetings or participate or throw in some cash (the ideal member) is going to quickly rise in the ranks. The guy with 5 kids at home and is too busy with work is not going to be an given leadership roles. The guy that only needs a fig leaf of a job is going to have plenty of time to "help" the group plan and execute tasks. He's always going to have some connect that can come through to move things forward. A fed isn't going to be the one to suggest crimes but they will certainly be there at every moment to eagerly help move it forward.
They have the most to lose personally. The rank and file can slither away, but once you’re up in the organization it’s hard to pretend that you’re an innocent.
People attracted to this stuff tend to be fairly dysfunctional as well. Even in successful revolutionary movements, the early people always get purged.
If there were such methods, and if these methods were used to compromise-proof an institution, then that institution would see the hammer drop down on them from above like nothing anyone (bystanders, pundits, the world) has ever seen before. Everyone scooped up with black headbags on, rendered to black ops sites.
Because, at that point, the government has exactly one play left... to make everyone so afraid of compromise-proofing that no one bothers. This isn't unprecedented, by the way. Silk Road and Dread Pirate Roberts was a similar situation, and they used illegal NSA surveillance to unmask him and parallel construction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction) to prosecute.
When they have a monopoly on violence and trillion dollar budgets, you're going to lose even if you have superior tactics.
The tactics are quite effective. If you put these rats in say the US Army and pursued such vigorous prosecution you could likely lock away the legit rank and file of both military and militias.
Oh please chime in on how soldiers aren't subject to the same psychological influences of other humans, while charming us on your .mil street cred. I don't need to be a navy seal to understand this, veterans were among those charged in say the Whitmer plot.
No one is denying there are extremists in the military. There are also street gang members in the military. Saying they are a significant portion of the population is a much different argument than saying there is a fringe population where there are standing orders to expel them if found.
And yet instead militias are targeted, while disproportionately sparing say the army. It's not the pursuit of justice and equal 'protection' of law, it's a calculated targeting to induce crime to lock away unwanted people over non criminal disagreements.
It's something most grass roots activists don't feel intuitively at all.
They look for spies among their own level but it's almost always going to be the organisers, the helpers, the ones with the van, the one that can print your posters, the one with a bit of spare cash, the dude who can set up your server and the friendly friend with time to help you personally that are the spies.
Logically it makes sense for a spy to be placed as high as possible to get more information, and yet activists look for spies among the rank and file. They look for odd people to label as the spy. They expel the outsider. They suspect the ones that don't fit in. But the spy is going to be a well adjusted normal insider that they already trust, almost always!
I find it so interesting. It happens again and again. It's probably the same pattern for any group that attracts any government attention.