reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I was interested in January 6th from the start, especially since my child was nearby during the events. I oppose all violence and was appalled by the actions that day. The immediate narrative labeled it a racist insurrection, which I found misleading. Many believed the election was stolen, and there was no effort to reassure them about the integrity of the voting process. Over time, it became clear that significant claims about January 6th were false. For instance, the treatment of individuals like Jacob Chansley, who was escorted by police, raises questions about the narrative. I believe it was a chaotic reaction, not an insurrection, and the media's handling of the situation has been troubling.

Why are you supporting these people? You're messing with our existence, and what happened on January 6th was wrong. People died. You're supporting the violence. I was in DC on January 6th, but I didn't go inside the Capitol. Political violence is always bad. You thought I was one of those people, but I stood outside the building non-violently and the FBI raided me and threw me in jail. Are you okay with that? You're aggressive, and you want attention. You're mad because of the attention, money, everything. I don't like what you represent. How do you feel about the Black Lives Matter riots? They murdered people, destroyed federal buildings. People broke windows at the Capitol, but why aren't you upset about the federal buildings that BLM burned? It was like watching 9/11 all over again.

Speaker 1 describes their experience at the Capitol, stating that they were not violent and did not support the actions of those who were. They emphasize that they were there to make a symbolic statement and show their frustration with the current state of the country. Speaker 1 mentions that some individuals associated with Antifa were causing trouble and being aggressive towards the police. They also mention helping someone who had an epileptic seizure. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 is credible and mentions that Speaker 1 believes Antifa breached the gates, leading to others following suit.

The speaker believes the events at the Capitol on January 6th were a setup, pointing to men dressed as Trump supporters inside the building before doors were opened. They question if there were confidential human sources involved. The speaker emphasizes the need for transparency and denies having such sources present. Additionally, they mention police officers seen changing attire from uniform to Trump supporter clothing.

We had full cooperation from the Capitol Police and the speaker's office, but we couldn't show that FBI agents were present in the crowd, which the FBI has admitted. Ray Epps was not a civilian; he encouraged violence, yet the January 6th committee defended him. There were clear signs of federal involvement, like individuals with earpieces breaking things and then fleeing. I didn't want to wrongly label anyone as an agent without proof. The recent Proud Boys trial revealed an FBI agent lied and hid evidence. We need crowdsourcing for the footage, which should be public. The narrative around January 6th has been misrepresented; it was a violent political demonstration, not a deadly insurrection. Intelligence about the event was withheld from Capitol Police, suggesting a deliberate attempt to create chaos for political gain.

The speaker expresses frustration at not being allowed to testify at a Senate hearing and believes that if intelligence had been reported correctly, the events of January 6th could have been prevented. They question whether there was a deliberate attempt to hide intelligence and suggest that it may have been part of a larger plan. The speaker also discusses how the events have benefited the Democratic Party but believes it is a violation of the constitution. They emphasize the importance of a fair legal system and express concern that it is no longer perceived as such.

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.

We had full cooperation from the Capitol Police and the speaker's office, but we couldn't show that FBI agents were in the crowd, which they admitted. Ray Epps was not just a civilian; he encouraged violence and was defended by the January 6th committee. There were clear signs of federal involvement, but I didn't want to wrongly accuse anyone without proof. Recent trials revealed FBI misconduct, including hiding evidence. We need to crowdsource the footage from January 6th, as it belongs to the public. The narrative of a violent insurrection is misleading; it was a political demonstration among many that year. Intelligence about the event was withheld from Capitol Police, suggesting a motive to create a politically damaging situation.

We failed to act responsibly on January 6th. The lack of National Guard presence was a mistake. The former president and his supporters are trying to rewrite history, but we must not let them distort the truth of that day.

John Strand, who was at the Capitol on January 6, provides an account of his actions that day. He states that his intention was to protect a scheduled speaker and denies any criminal intent. He explains that he never had the intention to break the law or act inappropriately. He describes how he and his client attempted to reach an elevated vantage point to give a speech outside the Capitol, but ended up being pushed towards the Columbus store entrance. He emphasizes that going inside the building was never part of their plan. He mentions that the doors were opened from the inside and denies the prosecutor's claim that he was an aggressive member of a mob. He recounts being stuck in a dense crowd and witnessing an officer falling, but denies any assault. He explains that they followed the crowd into the Capitol and were unable to find an exit. He describes his client attempting to give her speech while they waited and eventually being directed towards the east entrance. He expresses gratitude towards law enforcement and denies the prosecutor's misrepresentations of his actions. He concludes by stating that his sole intention was to protect his client and that the evidence on the government's own video proves his innocence.

The speaker met with Mr. Martin, who seems like a good man. The speaker's concerns related to January 6th. Mr. Martin built a compelling case regarding some prosecutions that were heat-of-the-moment bad decisions. The speaker believes anyone who reached the perimeter on January 6th should have been imprisoned for some period of time and has no tolerance for anyone who entered the building. Mr. Martin explained how some people got caught up in it, making a stupid decision to enter a breached building. The speaker's issue isn't whether they should be charged, but by how much. The speaker believes what happened on January 6th was wrong, not prompted by others, and those involved disgraced the United States. Mr. Martin explained that some people were over-prosecuted, and the speaker agreed that some should not have been pardoned. The speaker would support Mr. Martin as a US attorney for any district except the one where January 6th happened and has indicated to the White House that they wouldn't support his nomination.

Let's discuss January 6th. There’s no evidence it was an inside job; that’s a fringe theory. However, the released video footage raises questions about the number of federal agents present that day. It shows Capitol Police allowing people in, some of whom are now facing severe consequences, including suicide. This could be seen as entrapment, where authorities provoke individuals into actions they wouldn't normally take, then arrest them. Many were convicted before this evidence emerged. If law enforcement hadn't used forceful measures like concussion grenades and pepper spray, the situation may have remained peaceful.

I am deeply troubled by your responses today. You need to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You avoided answering that question when asked by Senator Durbin. Additionally, you should clearly state that those involved in the January 6th insurrection who committed violence should not be pardoned. I don’t have to say what you want me to say. I speak the truth and won’t say anything just to gain confirmation. I will answer questions to the best of my ability.

The speaker learned about the Capitol riot on January 6th and was disgusted and afraid. They were afraid of what the rioters might do and that they would not face consequences. The speaker is proud to have joined the effort to hold them accountable. The Justice Department charged over 1,500 people with crimes and obtained convictions against almost 1,300. The speaker states that this ensured the rioters would face accountability and created a public record of the crimes committed that day.

Time will remember January 6 differently because the media needs content and people involved will lose their jobs. There was no plan for January 6. If there was an interaction, those involved were supposed to be in line marching. In the military, you call the officers, sit down with your soldiers, and go over the plan. There was none of that. It's the scariest insurrection in the 21st century ever. No guns, and a guy is smoking pot.

I was appalled by the violence and destruction in the Capitol. It was criminal behavior, domestic terrorism. They were not protesters, but a riotous mob. President Trump entertained conspiracy theories and only after hours of violence did he tell them to leave. We need to trust this committee's work and get the facts out. Officer Brian Sicknick died defending the capital, but there is surveillance footage of him walking inside after he was supposedly killed. Some in the crowd were racist and attacked people. These are Trump terrorists, and the Democrats, along with Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, lied about what happened. They are liars.

The speaker, who was recently released from prison, clarifies that they pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding, not violent entry. They entered the Capitol through open doors and felt the need to protect the chamber and its occupants. They claim to have stopped theft, vandalism, and violence, and even tried to prevent others from breaking in. The speaker believes that January 6th was a setup to vilify Donald Trump and his supporters. They agree with Joe Rogan's comments that people who shouldn't go to jail are being prosecuted. The speaker also criticizes federal agencies and praises Joe Rogan's insight. However, the assistant later jokes about Joe Rogan's vaccination status.

I gave a speech outside the Capitol, assuming the building was mostly inactive due to the rally. I never considered entering, as the crowd couldn't force open the heavy doors. However, closed-circuit footage revealed the doors were opened from the inside. During my trial, the prosecutor misled the jury by showing a clip of a hand waving towards the door, claiming it was mine and portraying me as an aggressive mob member. This was deceptive, as I had worn black gloves all day, which the prosecutor was aware of.

Regarding January 6th, there's a lot of potential for a non-biased discussion. Evidence has been deleted and destroyed, which many acknowledge. Dismissing this issue is problematic. If I were in a similar situation, I would accept responsibility. What has occurred is illegal.

John Strand, who was at the Capitol on January 6, provides an account of his actions that day. He states that his intention was to protect a scheduled speaker and denies any criminal intent. He explains that he never had the intention to break the law or act inappropriately. He describes how he and his client attempted to reach an elevated vantage point to give a speech outside the Capitol, but ended up being pushed towards the Columbus store entrance. He emphasizes that going inside the building was never part of their plan. He mentions that the doors were opened from the inside and denies any involvement in assaulting an officer. He states that they followed the crowd inside the building, looking for an exit, and eventually ended up in a vestibule outside the House chamber. They were instructed by police to return in the direction they came from. He describes how his client attempted to give her speech while they waited for an exit and eventually made their way out through the east entrance. He expresses gratitude towards law enforcement and denies the prosecutor's claims of aggression or hostility. He concludes by stating that his sole intention that day was to protect his client and that the evidence on the government's own video proves his innocence.

On January 6th, I was in the House chamber when Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed by Lieutenant Byrd. She was seen as a threat, but it's unclear what her intentions were. Byrd yelled for her to stop, but she didn't listen. If this had happened during the 2020 riots, Byrd would have been indicted quickly. The events of January 6th were driven by lies.

The speaker contends that a show has been created and that it has affected millions of Americans. They argue that those involved are trying to tarnish the memory of certain people and that this aligns with what the government does. The speaker asserts that those people were aware that the January 6 event in Washington, DC involved far more than a few thousand people and claims it involved millions. They state that the majority of the individuals now in jail were defending bodies and Americans who were murdered, and that those people believed the story would be twisted and that the American people would accept it. The speaker asks why this is being done and suggests there is a manipulation or programming at work, implying that people have been conditioned to want to kill each other. They conclude that this is something that must stop.

Many people entered the Capitol building without permission, which is a federal crime. Our focus is on prosecuting those who entered the building or engaged in violent or corrupt behavior on Capitol grounds. However, it's important to note that even those who entered the restricted area without authorization committed a federal crime. Thousands of people occupied an area where they were not allowed to be in the first place.

When questioning the events of January 6th, it became clear that there were lies being told. The speaker believes the media should be ashamed for covering up these lies. They argue that the actions of certain individuals, like Jacob Chansley, were not insurrectionist and should not have resulted in imprisonment. The speaker expresses anger at the lack of remorse shown by those responsible for the false narrative surrounding January 6th.

January 6th was a complex event shrouded in deception. Initially, I sensed something was wrong with the official narrative. The surveillance footage reveals that those at the Capitol were not insurrectionists but rather sightseers who believed the election was stolen. Some individuals, like Ray Epps, encouraged the crowd but faced no charges, raising questions about their roles. Epps lied to investigators about his actions that day. Additionally, Speaker Pelosi inaccurately claimed she hadn’t spoken to the Capitol Police chief during the incident, despite multiple calls. Many politicians, regardless of party, have shown a willingness to mislead the public about January 6th, selectively presenting evidence to support their narratives.