I think there's a motive. If I were the FBI I wouldn't be too concerned about actual violent outcomes, so long as they were lone wolf attacks or the product of tiny cells of radicals. It's like a controlled burn in a forest. You get the fire out of the way before it reaches a critical mass. "Voting doesn't work, burn down a government building" is a real hard sell to someone with a stable job, but the people it does sell to might one day be the types of people to organize and lead a meaningful opposition. So you flush them out early and fast. Some people might die, but Director Patel told me to catch leftists, not to prevent violence. As an added bonus, each violent act turns liberals more and more against what they perceive as an inherently violent ideology. "These are terrible times, and maybe if it prevents another bombing mass surveillance is acceptable even if I don't like it," they might think. You don't have to go back too far to see that mindset in action. In the aftermath of 9/11 Americans saw an unprecedented erosion of their civil liberties. Terror is good for an autocratic regime.

That being said, I will grant that there's no evidence of this. But then again there wasn't evidence of COINTELPRO until the FBI field office in Media PA got broken into by a group of concerned citizens. Not that I'm condoning B&E. I also don't think it would be productive to point fingers even if there were evidence the FBI was doing COINTELPRO 2. "So and so is a fed" is actually one of the tactics used in COINTELPRO to sow discord in infiltrated groups. Just, maybe we should keep in mind that we're bound to see some discourse here that is trying to get us to play a useful idiot.