TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Inspector General Horwitz was questioned about the DOJ's review of the January 6th Capitol events, a review announced in 2021 but paused due to ongoing criminal cases. The review was restarted last year, and a draft report is under review. The report will include the number of confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but Horwitz declined to state the number, citing the draft status and classification review. The report is unlikely to be released before the upcoming election and its release may not occur before the next inauguration. The report will address whether confidential human sources followed DOJ protocols and include information about travel reimbursements. Horwitz stated he couldn't disclose details due to the draft status and classification concerns.

Over the past 3 years, Representative questioned FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland about federal assets at the Capitol on January 6th, but received no answers. The Inspector General announced a review of the DOJ response in 2021, paused it due to ongoing criminal cases, and reinitiated it last year. The report will include information on the number of confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but the exact number is not available yet due to the draft form and classification review. The report's release is not expected before the election, and possibly not before the next inauguration. The report will expose the presence of confidential human sources at the Capitol, and whether DOJ CHS protocols were followed. Representative inquired about the failed FBI investigation of the January 6th pipe bomb, citing lost information, deleted Secret Service texts, and corrupted cell phone data. The FBI allegedly lacks video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The Inspector General couldn't rule out the involvement of confidential human sources in the pipe bomb incident.

It's our constitutional duty to do oversight. "Now in that video, that was your answer to a question to me two years ago. When I said how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5 and January 6 and agitating in the crowd to go into the capital and how many went into the capital. Can you answer that now?" "I don't know the answer to that question." "Oh, last time, you don't know how many there were or there were none?" "I don't know the answer to either of those questions. If there were any, I don't know how many." "You've had don't know whether there are any." "I think you may have just perjured yourself that you don't know that there were any. You want to say that again? That you don't know that there were any?" "In discovery, in the cases that were filed with respect to January 6, The Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking." "With respect to mister Epps, the FBI has said that he was not an employee or informant of of the FBI." "Mister Epps has been charged, and there's a proceeding, I believe, going on today on that subject." "The charge is a joke."

A recent report reveals that 26 confidential human sources were present during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Of these, three were authorized by the FBI to monitor the event due to concerns over domestic terrorism. One of these sources entered the Capitol, while two others accessed restricted areas. The FBI did not authorize any sources to enter the building. Additionally, 23 other sources were present independently but had previously collaborated with the FBI. Notably, none of the sources who entered restricted areas were prosecuted, aligning with the DC US attorney's office's approach of not charging individuals for merely entering restricted grounds. Outgoing FBI director Christopher Wray has faced scrutiny regarding the agency's role on that day, emphasizing that the violence was not orchestrated by FBI sources or agents. Further information is anticipated from Capitol Hill and the White House.

The discussion centers on whether January 6 violence was an FBI operation. Speaker 0 denies that the violence at the Capitol was part of any operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents. Speaker 1 asks if the FBI had an engagement with embedded agents; Speaker 0 repeats denial. Several speakers challenge the lack of answers about how many agents were present, suggesting informants were involved. Speaker 5 says "attorneys for the Proud Boys revealed at least 40 undercover informants were doing surveillance on the defendants that day, including 13 working in the DC Metro Police." Plainclothes MPD officers on Capitol Grounds are referenced. Speaker 6 says he provided high-definition video to lawmakers and accuses the FBI/DOJ of ignoring it; he describes an open window and an operative pulling it. Speaker 7 concludes: "it was the FBI and not Trump supporters who led the insurrection of the Capitol on January 6."

Speaker 0 denies the presence of confidential human sources disguised as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6th. They emphasize the need to be cautious and clarify that they cannot disclose any information. The speaker requests not to interpret their words and states that Director Ray's time has expired.

The speaker mentioned that some people were inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker was personally involved in these conversations and questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources in the videos whose identities needed to be safeguarded. The speaker then mentioned Mr. Allen experiencing retaliation.

I received a call from someone in Great Britain asking about federal agents in the crowd. I denied their presence, assuming I would have been informed. However, later I learned that there were indeed federal agents present. This was confirmed by Jill Sanborn's testimony in 2021, where she mentioned the FBI taking overt action to prevent certain individuals from attending the January 6th event in DC. In February 2023, a GAO report revealed that the FBI was tracking 4 domestic terrorists on January 3rd, which increased to 18 or 19 by January 6th. It's reasonable to have resources and multiple agents for such a situation, but it's concerning that this information wasn't shared in intelligence.

"There's a concern that there were agents of the government or assets of the government present on January 5 and January 6, during the protests." "I'm need afraid I can't see that at all." "Alright. You have you have those images there, and they're captioned. They were from January 5 and January 6." "As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying he'll probably go to jail, he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every but they need to go into the capital the next day, is then the next day directing people to the capital." "And as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything." "One of the norms of the justice department is to not comment on impending investigations and particularly not to comment about, particular scenes or particular individuals." "So I'm not gonna violate this norm of, of of, the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing."

The speaker asks if the FBI had communication with their agents during the Capitol attack, to which Speaker 1 denies any involvement. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost vehicles," but Speaker 1 is unfamiliar with the term. Speaker 0 claims to have evidence of two buses used by FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters during the attack. There is a brief interruption from Speaker 2, who reminds everyone to stay within their allotted time. Speaker 0 objects to his question being cut off, stating that the buses were nefarious and filled with FBI informants. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 attempting to move on to the next speaker.

It's our constitutional duty to do oversight. He asks, "how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5 and January 6 and agitating in the crowd to go into the capital and how many went into the capital. Can you answer that now?" Speaker 1 replies, "I don't know the answer to that question." The exchange continues: "I don't know the answer to either of those questions. If there were any, I don't know how many." "You've had two years to find out." The discussion mentions Ray Epps: "yesterday, you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence on a misdemeanor?" and says, "you're sending grandmas to prison." It references a video claim: "the guy on video who's saying go into the capital," noting "10 videos, and it's an indictment for a misdemeanor?" In discovery, "the Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking." "With respect to mister Epps, the FBI has said that he was not an employee or informant of the FBI." "Mister Epps has been charged, and there's a proceeding, I believe, going on today on that subject." "The charge is a joke."

During a congressional hearing, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz admitted the FBI had confidential human sources (CHS) embedded in the January 6th Capitol crowd. GOP Rep. Thomas Massie questioned why it's taken almost 4 years to reveal the number of informants involved, but Horowitz declined to provide a specific number, promising a future report. Massie inquired if informants who entered the Capitol would be prosecuted like other J6 participants and if any were compensated for travel. Fox News suggested the presence of FBI informants was a significant development. Stephen Dantuono, former head of the FBI's Washington DC field office, previously stated the field office had CHS embedded in the J6 crowd and that informants from other field offices were also present. Rep. Clay Higgins claimed busloads of FBI moles were sent to DC on January 6th. The J6 pipe bomb suspect may also have been a federal government asset.

There were claims about confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6th. However, the speaker emphasized that there is no evidence to support this. They urged caution and stated that they cannot confirm the presence of such sources. The speaker also mentioned that they are sharing this information officially.

A recent report reveals that on January 6, 2021, there were 26 confidential human sources present at the Capitol. Of these, three were authorized by the FBI to monitor concerns related to domestic terrorism. One source entered the Capitol, while two accessed restricted areas, but the FBI did not authorize these actions. The remaining 23 sources were there independently, having previously collaborated with the FBI but not specifically for the January 6 rally. Notably, none of the sources who entered restricted areas faced prosecution, aligning with the DC US attorney's office's approach of not charging individuals whose only offense was entering restricted grounds. Outgoing FBI director Christopher Wray has consistently denied that the violence was orchestrated by FBI agents or sources.

Speaker 0: Some Republicans argue that Nancy Pelosi staged January 6 and the select committee covered it up. Based on what you know, what are the verifiable events in the lead ups? Speaker 1: I was DoD chief of staff on January 6. We deployed National Guard; in the Oval Office the president, president Trump at the time, authorized pursuant to law up to 10 to 20,000 National Guard. We took that authorization because the law's second part required a request from who? Nancy Pelosi and the Metropolitan Police and the mayor at the time. And what did they say? No. And remember what happened for the next two years? They say, Oh, Kash is lying. Trump’s lying. And what do we find? Letters of their declination of the National Guard refusing to have the National Guard show up. Nancy Pelosi and her team were busy filming a movie on January 6 while this so caused chaos around her was going down. If she had just look at it this way. If she had said yes to the National Guard and we had 10,000 uniformed military officers establish a secure perimeter, do you think January 6 would have gone differently? Speaker 0: It is intriguing that 02/1950 FBI plain clothed agents were inside the Capitol on January 6. Speaker 1: This is a great example of the president's initiative to solve all the answers on January 6, and it's another example of our transparency efforts. Pursuant to the president, we investigated the matter and found out why FBI agents were placed there in the first place. And it turns out, we found documentation and witnesses and whistleblowers that said we were forced to go there to do riot control. Armstrong, do you know what the FBI does not do ever? Riot control. Speaker 0: And you believe them? That's their word, not mine.

Michael Horowitz, the DOJ's inspector general, testified on Capitol Hill regarding January 6th. He was asked about the presence of confidential human sources, or CHS, on the Capitol grounds that day. Horowitz stated that the forthcoming report would include information on this matter. When asked if there were more than 100 CHS present, he declined to answer due to the draft status and classification review. He also said he didn't recall how many CHS were reimbursed for travel. This response implied that there were indeed confidential human sources involved on January 6th. Questions remain about their level of involvement and whether they induced anyone to commit crimes.

Speaker 0: "What I'm saying is a reasonable suspicion is that there were agents. There's a video showing a guy with an earpiece pulling people into the building. Alright? Mhmm. You combine that with the evidence of Ray Epps, and it looks like you have a preponderance of evidence suggesting there may have been federal law enforcement involved in making that thing happen." Speaker 1: "I'll get you beyond a reasonable doubt. Two pieces of information. Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list one day, and the next day, he was off of the FBI's most wanted list. There are only two ways that happens. You die or your informant." Speaker 1: "Put that aside. Under congressional testimony, Jill Sanborn, who I used to work with, the head of the FBI counterintelligence division in charge of all these investigations, testified under oath when senator Cruz asked her, flat out, were there federal agents involved with January 6? And she said, quote, senator, I can't answer that at this time." Speaker 1: "The reason she said I can't answer that is because of the same stonewalling they gave us during Russergate with Christopher Steelehauper and everybody else. It's the same narrative, and and I'm telling you they were there." Speaker 0: "You're so you're saying that she said I can't answer that because the answer is yes Yeah. And that would compromise whatever their operation was. Exactly."

Can you clarify the presence of federal agents or assets on January 5th and 6th? Specifically, how many were there, did they encourage people to enter the Capitol, and did any actually go inside? I can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Two years ago, you were asked the same question. Can you provide an answer now? I don't know the answer. So you don’t know how many were present or if there were any at all? I have no knowledge of that. You’ve had two years to find out.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if the FBI had any involvement with the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. Speaker 1 emphatically denies that the violence was orchestrated by FBI sources or agents. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost buses," which are vehicles used for secret purposes in law enforcement. Speaker 1 is not familiar with the term. Speaker 0 claims that two buses that arrived at Union Station on January 6th were wiped clean and filled with FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters. Speaker 2 interrupts with a point of order, and the conversation becomes heated. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 expressing objection to his question being closed.

During a hearing, a congressman questions Director Rick about the FBI's involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6th. The congressman asks if the FBI had confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6th, but Director Rick avoids giving a direct answer. The congressman also mentions evidence suggesting FBI informants attended the Stop the Steal rally on January 6th. Director Rick denies that the violence on January 6th was orchestrated by FBI sources or agents. The congressman then brings up two white buses that arrived at Union Station on January 6th, suggesting they were filled with FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters. The chairman interrupts the congressman's questioning, and the congressman objects to his question being closed. The congressman concludes by saying that their day is coming.

The speaker mentioned that there were individuals inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources whose identities needed protection. The speaker then mentioned that Mr. Allen faced retaliation.

Speaker 0 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

Inspector General Horwitz was questioned about the DOJ's review of the January 6th Capitol events, a review announced in 2021 but paused due to ongoing criminal cases. The review was reinitiated last year, and a draft report is under review. The report will include the number of confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but Horwitz declined to state the number, citing the draft status and classification review. The report's release is hoped for in the next couple of months, but likely after the upcoming election. Horwitz confirmed the report will address whether confidential human sources followed DOJ protocols and include information about travel reimbursements. He stated he couldn't disclose details due to the draft status, pending responses from the DOJ and FBI, and classification concerns.

The speaker questions witnesses about the presence and activities of federal agents or assets during the January 6th Capitol riot. One witness states they do not know if any federal agents or assets were present on January 5th or 6th, whether they agitated the crowd, or whether any entered the Capitol. The speaker suggests this may be perjury, noting the witness has had two years to find out. The speaker also asks about confidential human sources and the erection of gallows, claiming FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland have stonewalled inquiries. Another witness confirms their report will include information about confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but cannot provide a number. The report is in draft form and requires classification review, making its release before the upcoming election unlikely. The report will address whether confidential human sources followed DOJ protocols and include information about travel reimbursements. The speaker expresses frustration with the delay and lack of transparency.

Concerns about federal agents' presence on January 6 were raised, but there were no definitive answers regarding their involvement. One individual stated they had no personal knowledge of any agents present or their actions. Questions about confidential human sources from the FBI at the Capitol remain unanswered, with an upcoming report expected to provide some clarity. However, the report is still in draft form and undergoing classification review, making it uncertain if it will be released before the upcoming election. There is a suggestion that if any agents were present and broke the law, they should have followed established protocols, but details about reimbursements and specific actions remain unclear. Frustration was expressed over the lack of transparency and timely information from the FBI and DOJ.