Did he become a conspiracy theorist?
Vivek Ramaswamy, a prominent figure in the Republican presidential debate, made startling claims without substantial evidence, asserting the Jan. 6 Capitol attack might have been an “inside job.” He’s amplified these theories, extending them to events like the 9/11 attacks, the thwarted kidnapping of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and even suggesting a plan within the Democratic Party to replace President Joe Biden.
Despite inquiries about Alan Hostetter, a Jan. 6 riot participant, and former California police chief who praised Ramaswamy’s statements during sentencing, Ramaswamy evaded directly addressing Hostetter’s support. Instead, he broadly criticized the prosecutions related to Jan. 6, citing unjust treatment of some protesters.
Ramaswamy’s narrative evolved over time, once dismissing theories of Jan. 6 as fringe and now suggesting potential government involvement. He paralleled this shift to previous instances where seemingly implausible claims, like the origin of COVID-19 or allegations around Hunter Biden’s laptop, were later proven true.
His assertions include questioning the involvement of federal agents in the Jan. 6 riot and even casting doubt on the events of 9/11, despite no evidence supporting these claims. Despite being challenged, he remained steadfast in his views, even when confronted with contradictory evidence or clarifications of his statements.
Moreover, he extended these suspicions to the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, implying entrapment by federal informants, despite a significant portion of the accused being convicted. He continued these speculations by suggesting a Democratic plan to sideline Biden, alleging the House Republicans’ inquiry into Biden’s impeachment as part of a broader strategy to replace him.
Ramaswamy’s assertions, although strongly voiced, lack substantive evidence and often veer into the realm of unsubstantiated conspiracies. While he insists on their legitimacy, his claims remain largely unsupported and have been met with skepticism due to the absence of concrete proof.
