TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The January 6th committee never requested my public testimony as the Capitol Police chief. This raises questions about their intentions, as my testimony could reveal critical details about the events of that day and the days leading up to it, including the involvement of political leaders and their appointees.

The speaker claims that the police commissioner was rude to someone who declined an offer. They accuse the January 6th committee of destroying evidence, although the committee denies this. The speaker questions why Nancy Pelosi was not allowed to testify and mentions offering money for her testimony. The transcript ends abruptly.

Congresswoman Pelosi asks, “Are you at all concerned that the new January 6 committee will find you liable for that day? Right here.” The other participant replies, “I can.” Pelosi then asks, “Are you at all concerned about the new January 6 committee finding you liable for that day? Why did you re refuse the National Guard on January 6?” The respondent retorts, “Shut up. I did not refuse the National Guard. The president didn't send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you're a serious journalist?” Pelosi concludes, “The American people wanna know. We still have questions. Thank you.”

The speaker accuses Speaker Pelosi of blocking investigations into the January 6th incident and discrediting the committee. They claim that the committee is being used to advance the Democratic agenda and cover up the truth. The speaker questions why basic questions about the Capitol security and the events of January 6th are being blocked. They raise concerns about the staffing and equipment of Capitol Police, Pelosi's communication and involvement, the delay in National Guard assistance, and the lack of intelligence regarding potential violence. The speaker also criticizes Pelosi for not addressing rising gas prices and prioritizing theatrics over important issues. They express frustration with the current Congress and its focus.

The January 6th committee's hearings lack cross-examination and anonymity for witnesses, resembling a show trial rather than legitimate hearings. For instance, Cassidy Hutchinson made outrageous claims about Donald Trump attempting to carjack his limo, yet there was no opportunity for cross-examination to challenge her testimony. The Secret Service denied her account, but this information was not presented to the committee or the public. The committee's failure to contact relevant witnesses raises questions about their commitment to uncovering the truth. Instead, the process appears to serve as propaganda, with major news outlets promoting it without scrutiny. This has been an ongoing issue for months.

I was going to discuss the January 6 hostages, but there's a lot of action coming on that front. Today, Joe issued pardons for individuals guilty of serious crimes, and the unselect committee has destroyed much of the evidence, including hearings. They deleted information about Nancy Pelosi rejecting an offer of 10,000 soldiers for security. Even 500 could have made a difference that day, despite the large crowd. There are many great photos from that day that aren't shown, focusing instead on the Capitol. I intended to address this, but was advised to wait until tomorrow. I decided to bring it up now.

We thank you for your service in protecting our country. However, there are questions about what exactly was being protected. Security footage shows that individuals were allowed to enter without resistance, without weapons, almost like a guided tour. It's important to note that the only casualty was Ashley Babbit, who was shot by Capitol Police. So, it raises the question of what exactly was saved that day. The speaker mentions having written a book before going to break.

The speaker is part of a senate bipartisan investigation into an assassination attempt. According to the speaker, the Secret Service and FBI are dragging their feet and not providing requested documents, such as 302s and interview transcriptions. Documents that are provided are heavily redacted and delivered the day of the interview, making them unusable. The speaker believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. They claim releasing the body for cremation before autopsy or toxicology reports further drives suspicion and conspiracy theories.

I, as the former Capitol Police chief, question why the January 6th committee never asked me to testify publicly. They may have been worried that my testimony would reveal what happened on January 6th, the events leading up to it, and the role of political leaders and their appointees.

Town halls are meant for voters, not the press or the moderator. The speaker criticizes Caitlyn for interjecting her own views. They mention spending a significant amount of time discussing January 6th and their involvement in the oversight committee. They state that Donald Trump authorized national guard troops on January 4 and followed up on January 5. They claim that everyone testified in the oversight committee except the Capitol Police, which Nancy Pelosi allegedly prevented.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th remains a pivotal moment. The person responsible for that decision is known, but the reason behind it is still unknown. There has been no answer to that question. Additionally, Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits and her records would not be obtained by the J6 committee. However, she was in charge of the House that day. It is important to uncover the truth and understand what truly happened. Otherwise, it seems absurd, like a scene from a play.

"That was so crazy about that incident is not even that it happened, but that it happened on the Capitol Steps right in front of a Capitol police officer." "And he wasn't even asked to take a step back." "And it just like I really just can't help but think about all of that footage and evidence that we saw the day of all these Capitol Police officers helping and being sympathetic to the insurrectionists on January 6." "But if you raise questions about that or if you don't feel safe, it's construed as you attacking the entire institution of public safety." "And we saw a lot of that show up not just in our politics now but even the State of the Union because now both parties are in a contest of how much money they can shovel in the system without critically holding any of it accountable."

The speaker poses questions regarding the shooting of Ashley Babbitt. They ask if the officer knew Babbitt was unarmed, and if not, what led them to believe she was armed. The speaker questions whether the officer verbally ordered Babbitt to stop using commands like "freeze," "halt," "go back," or "stop." Referencing police guidelines, the speaker asks what imminent deadly threat Babbitt posed, especially since she was unarmed and not within reach of an officer or member of Congress. The speaker inquires if the officer was aware of John Sullivan recording the shooting. Finally, the speaker asks about the officer's political views of President Trump and Trump supporters, and whether negative views influenced the decision to shoot. The speaker believes these questions deserve answers.

Why did the shooter act? Was he alone or connected to others? What motivated him? We sought answers from the DOJ and FBI, but they claim it's an ongoing investigation and can't share information with Congress. This is unacceptable. As a member of the intelligence and armed services committees, I regularly access sensitive information, so it's hard to believe we can't get updates on this investigation. I don't know if they're intentionally withholding information, but stonewalling is common in oversight. Misinformation thrives in the absence of clarity, and our goal is to provide transparency and counter conspiracy theories surrounding these events. So far, I have seen no evidence linking state actors to these assassination attempts.

That incident happened on the Capitol Steps in front of a Capitol police officer. He was engaged in sexually threatening aggressive behavior in front on the Capitol Steps, and he wasn't even asked to step back. This officer was just cool with it. There was footage of Capitol Police officers helping and being sympathetic to the insurrectionists on January 6, and everyone decided it was too politically difficult to deal with, brushing it under the rug. To this day, there has never been an investigation into that. Never. As a result, we have no idea which officers are safe around, and whether those with massive weapons were with that crowd or not. If you raise questions about that, it's construed as attacking the entire institution of public safety. Riddle me that. We saw that in the State of the Union too, with both parties shoveling money in without accountability.

As the former chief of the Capitol Police, I find it interesting that the January 6th committee never asked me to publicly testify. I believe they were worried about what I would reveal about the events leading up to that day and the role of political leaders and their appointees.

It's been over six months since January 6, and we still don't know who shot Ashley Babbitt. There's growing frustration over the lack of transparency from the government regarding this incident and the events of that day. Key questions remain unanswered, such as the identity of the officer involved and why Capitol Police allowed protesters inside. Jacob Chansley, known as the "QAnon Shaman," has been held in solitary confinement despite not committing a violent crime. There are concerns about the treatment of peaceful protesters and the lack of accountability for law enforcement actions. The discussion raises issues about political prisoners and the need for Republican leaders to address these concerns.

The January 6th committee, now under Republican control, is unable to review the documents used by the previous committee. The video depositions, which would have been valuable evidence, have been discarded. The staff faced difficulties in gathering necessary information as nothing was indexed or digitized. Surprisingly, there is very little available from the blue team, responsible for investigating security failures at the Capitol. This highlights a lack of government transparency.

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.

I asked colleagues to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate the lack of Secret Service protection for the president. The Secret Service director agreed to brief us, but it hasn't happened yet. I question why the president wasn't given more protection and who is responsible for that decision.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th was a pivotal moment. The person who made that decision has not answered why. Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits to the inquiries of the January 6th committee. However, if we truly want to find out what happened, everyone's records should be examined. The speaker emphasizes that they have been forthright and provided their phone records. They made numerous calls to request approval and called multiple police agencies and officers to help regain control of the Capitol. The speaker's recollection is detailed and precise.

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.

The speaker presents seven core points about the January 6 investigations and related prosecutions. 1) Original sins of government and due process concerns - The lawless formation of the House Select Committee on January 6 led to a one-sided, due process-free process. - The committee was gerrymandered by Speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel for the ranking member, and Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to cover that up. - The committee conducted scripted hearings with prewritten Q&A paths and cherry-picked, highly edited audio and video. 2) Collaboration with mainstream media and narrative shaping - The committee worked with major outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC) to blast a narrative of an insurrection. - The speaker claims secretly recorded video shows Nancy Pelosi, her daughter, and friends admitting no real insurrection occurred. - The combined effect of the committee’s conduct and the media blitz allegedly poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC, and suggested that venue transfers should have been permitted. 3) Fourth Amendment concerns and the dragnet - Many defendants were swept up in a broad dragnet that the speaker believes resembled a general warrant violating the Fourth Amendment. - This involved geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants to telecom providers. - People arriving after the speech and the ellipse allegedly did not see that areas normally open to the public were closed, creating a trespass trap for the unwary. 4) First Amendment rights and unequal treatment - The Department of Justice did not treat First Amendment rights of the protesters with appropriate respect. - The speaker contrasts the January 6 cases with the 2020 Portland protests, where nightly attacks on federal courthouses and antifa/BLM activity were characterized differently. - The speaker asserts that insurrection labeling in Portland was more applicable to those actions than to the largely spontaneous January 6 crowd, implying selective enforcement. 5) Selective prosecution and unequal treatment - The January 6 defendants have not been treated the same as Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020 who damaged property and threatened the White House. - The speaker calls this a flat violation of equal protection of the laws and suggests broad public belief in selective prosecution. 6) Brady violations and exculpatory evidence - Widespread Brady violations are alleged, focusing on two areas: concealed or underreported footage of the Capitol, and the large number of unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts (over 800), with the possibility that exculpatory evidence remains unseen by defendants and their lawyers. - The committee allegedly acted like a star chamber, and there is concern that not all exculpatory material has been made available. 7) Judicial influence and misapplication of obstruction statutes - DC federal judges are said to have been influenced by the January 6 committee’s narrative and the mainstream media. - A statute designed to close an obstruction-of-justice loophole from Arthur Andersen/Enron is claimed to be applied to activity that in many instances is protected by the First Amendment, with unequal sentencing: Antifa and BLM defendants allegedly receiving lighter outcomes or settlements, while January 6 defendants face disproportionate sentences. - The speaker concludes by expressing disagreement with the overall approach and intention to speak on these concerns.

Specific observations indicate police officers and Capitol Police entered rooms in uniform and emerged as Trump supporters and construction workers. This raises questions about why video evidence hasn't been released. Navigating the Capitol's maze-like layout requires extensive familiarity. Trump supporters leading the way inside the Capitol before doors opened likely coordinated with FBI agents and assets embedded in the crowd, possibly for months. The speaker believes the American people deserve to know this truth.

Speaker 0 expressed confusion about the lack of answers regarding two significant events on January 6. Firstly, other federal agencies withheld crucial information from the speaker, who was in charge of security at the Capitol. Secondly, despite the situation escalating for 71 minutes, Speaker Pelosi denied permission to bring in the National Guard. The speaker questioned why there is a lack of investigation into these matters, suggesting a lack of interest in uncovering the truth. The situation is described as worsening beyond these events.