TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Investigative reporter Steve Baker has uncovered evidence suggesting that Nancy Pelosi's security chief may have committed perjury in the Oath Keepers trial related to the January 6th Capitol riot. Baker discovered discrepancies between the FBI interviews of a Capitol Police officer and his testimony in court. The officer initially described a positive interaction with the Oath Keepers, but his testimony was later changed to portray a more contentious encounter. Baker also analyzed video footage that contradicted the officer's account of events. This revelation raises questions about the fairness of the trial and the potential manipulation of evidence. The story is part of an ongoing series by Baker and has significant implications for the justice system and the future of the Republic.

David Lazarus, Nancy Pelosi's head of security, is accused of perjury in relation to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The Justice Department has rested its case in the trial against Oath Keepers founder Stuart Rhodes and his associates. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn testified that the Oath Keepers did not protect him, contradicting the defense's argument. Evidence shows that Lazarus, who claimed to have witnessed the encounter, was in a different building at the time. Videos were withheld from the defense, raising concerns about the government's handling of the case. The Capitol Police leadership was more concerned about the story's traction than the agent's false testimony. The investigation aims to uncover who orchestrated this false narrative.

David Lazarus, Nancy Pelosi's head of security, is at the center of a controversial story. The Justice Department has rested its case in the trial against Oathkeepers founder Stuart Rhodes and his associates. Officer Harry Dunn, who was allegedly helped by the Oathkeepers, denied their protection. Lazarus, who testified to witnessing the encounter, was proven to be in a different building at the time. CCTV footage contradicted his claims. The defense argues that the government is withholding evidence and setting up American citizens. Capitol Police leadership expressed concern about the story gaining traction. The investigation aims to uncover who orchestrated this false narrative.

Recently, some police officers testified about their trauma during the January 6th events. One officer described being outnumbered and attacked while protecting the Capitol. However, it turns out he wasn't in uniform or acting as a Capitol Police officer; he was an FBI informant carrying a Confederate flag. This revelation challenges the narrative surrounding the events, suggesting it was not as strong or truthful as presented. There's a call to release FBI files to uncover the real story and identify those truly responsible.

It's clear that the narrative around January 6th has been misleading. Initially, I didn't suspect any involvement from law enforcement or military agencies. However, after interviewing Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who confirmed the presence of federal agents, I began to question the official story. The lies surrounding January 6th are evident, and if someone lies about one thing, it raises doubts about everything else. For instance, Jacob Chansley, known as the Qanon Shaman, was imprisoned despite being escorted by police into the Senate chamber. This situation highlights the misuse of terms like "insurrection" and the unjust treatment of individuals based on misleading narratives. It's infuriating to see people suffer due to these lies without any accountability from those perpetuating them.

David Lazarus, Nancy Pelosi's head of security, is at the center of a controversial story. The Justice Department has rested its case in the trial against Oathkeepers founder Stuart Rhodes and his associates. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn testified that the Oathkeepers did not help him during the January 6th attack. However, Lazarus, who was in a different building at the time, claimed to have witnessed the encounter. CCTV footage contradicts Lazarus' account, showing him in a different location. The defense argues that the government is withholding evidence and setting up American citizens. The Capitol Police leadership was reportedly more concerned about the story's traction than the lie told by their special agent. The investigation continues to uncover the truth behind this incident.

Officer Harry Dunn of the Capitol Police is under scrutiny for allegedly providing false testimony. His book details his experiences on January 6th, including instances of distress and erratic behavior. There are concerns about the accuracy of his accounts and his actions during the events. The Capitol Police's portrayal of Dunn as a hero is contrasted with criticism of his behavior, raising questions about the narrative surrounding January 6th. Dunn's actions and statements are being closely examined for inconsistencies and potential manipulation of information.

Blaze Media contributor Steve Baker accuses Capitol Police Officer David Lazarus of lying during his testimony in the Oath Keepers trial. Blaze Media obtained closed-circuit surveillance footage that supports the claim. Lazarus, who was assigned to be Speaker Pelosi's security detail, testified about an encounter between Officer Harry Dunn and the Oath Keepers. However, the footage shows that Lazarus could not have witnessed the encounter as he claimed. Ken Harrelson, one of the Oath Keepers, described the events accurately, and other witnesses and video evidence corroborate his account. Despite this evidence, Harrelson and his colleagues remain in prison. The footage will be released once security concerns are addressed.

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.

Recently, some police officers spoke about their trauma during the January events. One officer described being outnumbered, beaten, and called a traitor. However, it turns out he was not in uniform and was actually an FBI informant carrying a Confederate flag. This revelation undermines the narrative presented, suggesting it was not based on truth. There's a call to release FBI files to uncover the real culprits behind the events.

The footage reveals that Brian Sicknick was not a victim of violence at the Capitol, contradicting claims made by the January 6th committee. The tape shows him walking normally after the incident, and investigators for the Democratic Party reviewed it but chose not to release it to the public. This decision was made to protect their narrative, as revealing the truth would undermine their political agenda. Their willingness to misrepresent the facts about Sicknick indicates a broader pattern of dishonesty.

A recent Justice Department report revealed that the FBI had 26 confidential informants present during the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Most of these informants engaged in illegal activities, with only three instructed to observe potential domestic terrorists. Vice president-elect JD Vance noted that this information was previously dismissed as a conspiracy theory. There’s frustration over the Democrats' portrayal of Donald Trump as a threat to democracy, especially as new evidence supports his claims about a rigged process. The speaker expresses anger at the hypocrisy of the Democratic party, which accuses the right of corruption while being guilty of similar actions. Overall, there's a sense of disillusionment with the political narrative surrounding the events of January 6.

Clay Higgins, a former law enforcement officer and current congressman, discusses his concerns about the FBI's involvement in the January 6th Capitol attack. He claims that undercover FBI agents were present in the Capitol before the protesters entered and that the FBI infiltrated online groups discussing COVID-related frustrations. Higgins calls for the release of all digital evidence related to January 6th and believes it will reveal the corruption within the FBI and DOJ. He also mentions the need for legal redress for J6 defendants if exculpatory evidence was withheld. Higgins emphasizes the importance of transparency and the right of the American people to know the truth.

The New York Times retracted a story about Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick's death, which was exploited by the Biden administration. Surveillance footage shows Sicknick walking in the Capitol after the alleged attack, contradicting claims of his murder. The January 6th committee knew about this footage but refused to release it, perpetuating a political lie. Sicknick's death should not be used for political gain, and the truth should be revealed to the public.

On January 6th, there were claims of a deadly insurrection at the Capitol, but the video evidence shows otherwise. While some violence occurred, the majority of the chaos was peaceful. The media falsely reported that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by the mob, but surveillance footage shows him walking in the Capitol unharmed. This contradicts the narrative that he was murdered by Trump supporters. The January 6th committee had access to this footage but chose not to release it, as it would undermine their political agenda. The truth about what happened that day is being concealed for political gain.

Private first class Harry Dunn of the Capitol Police is described as acting with courage to defend our institutions and our people. Critics say a Capitol Police officer assigned to Pelosi’s detail appears to have given false testimony, with Missus Percher brought in to corroborate another officer’s testimony. It is imperative that we establish the truth of that day. The officer who testified in the Oath Keepers trial was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Dunn’s book, Standing My Ground, a capital police officer's fight for accountability and good trouble, is described as one of the first accounts from Capitol Police about January 6, and its tour is unique: 'no other, none other of the Capitol Police officers are allowed to tell their stories.' Pelosi says, 'And it's also our duty to establish and preserve the narrative of that day,' while others allege a concerted effort to manipulate information.

David Lazarus, Nancy Pelosi's head of security, claimed to witness an encounter between Officer Dunn and Oath Keepers on January 6th. However, CCTV footage showed Lazarus was in a different building at the time. The defense argued that the government withheld evidence and set up American citizens for long sentences. The Capitol Police leadership was more concerned about the story's traction than the false testimony. The case raises questions about who orchestrated the false narrative presented in court.

It's clear that there were significant lies surrounding January 6th. Initially, I didn't suspect any involvement from law enforcement or military agencies. However, after interviewing Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who confirmed the presence of federal agents, my perspective changed. The narrative around January 6th has been misleading, particularly regarding individuals like Jacob Chansley, who was imprisoned despite being escorted by police. This raises serious questions about the labeling of the event as an insurrection. It was a moment of anger, not an armed coup. The treatment of Chansley and others is unjust, and the media's complicity in these lies is troubling. It's unacceptable to imprison someone for actions that were misrepresented, and the lack of accountability for those who lied is infuriating.

The Justice Department released a report revealing the FBI had 26 confidential human sources in DC on January 6th, with four entering the Capitol and 13 entering the restricted area. Questions arose regarding the discrepancy between this information and previous testimonies given under oath by FBI Director Ray. Concerns were raised about whether these sources instigated events, similar to the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. The media is accused of downplaying the report's significance, while Republicans claim the events were an inside job. The report's implications for January 6th defendants are discussed, particularly regarding potential pardons and whether confidential human sources are exempt from prosecution. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley questioned why the confidential human sources who entered the capital were not charged. Trump may pardon January 6th defendants. Tulsi Ganford may become the next DNI.

On January 6th, a mob breached the Capitol building, resulting in the deaths of five police officers. The Democratic Party and the national news media quickly labeled it a deadly insurrection, a phrase that carried emotional weight. However, surveillance footage from inside the Capitol showed mostly chaotic but peaceful scenes. The media also falsely claimed that Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered with a fire extinguisher, which was later retracted. The video evidence disproves this claim, as Sicknick can be seen walking in the Capitol after the alleged attack. The January 6th committee, aware of this footage, chose not to release it to the public, revealing their dishonesty.

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.

We checked with the Capitol police before airing this video and made minor changes, mainly blurring a single interior door. The video doesn't answer all questions about January 6th, but it does prove that Democrats in Congress, along with Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, lied about what happened. This makes them liars and should discredit them from being taken seriously again.

The speaker describes a shift in perspective about January 6, recounting that he did not initially suspect U.S. law enforcement or military involvement or a false flag. He notes an interview with Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund, who he says stated that “that guy was filled with federal agents,” a claim Sund would know from being in charge of security. He observes that, two and a half years later, core claims about January 6 appear to be lies, arguing that when someone is caught lying about one thing, it prompts questions about what else they are lying about. The speaker emphasizes he is not a conspiracist and grew up in a country with low belief in obvious conspiracies, but he asserts that “the amount of lying around January 6” is distressing and that anyone covering for those lies should be ashamed, including portions of the American media and Fox News. He acknowledges Fox News allowed him to air material, for which he expresses gratitude, but notes that some people there were angry at him for doing so and challenges critics to point out cherry-picking or miscontextualization. He clarifies that he did not claim the events were entirely peaceful; police officers were injured, recognizing that injuries occurred in other protests as well. He emphasizes that his point is to ask obvious questions and scrutinize the narrative. He discusses Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, noting that surveillance footage had been hidden until he aired it, showing Capitol Police attempting doors and escorting Chansley into the Senate chamber, where he wandered and offered a prayer thanking the Capitol Police, before leaving. He argues there are many conclusions one could draw from this footage, but asserts that Chansley cannot be called an insurrectionist, labeling that designation a lie. He defines insurrection as a very specific meaning and remains pedantic about words, insisting the incident was not an insurrection, not armed, and not intended to overthrow the government but a “spasm of rage” that Trump helped inspire. Regarding the election, he states he does not support leaders inciting anger, but asserts the event was not an insurrection. He condemns the prosecution of Chansley, a Navy veteran and American citizen, who was imprisoned for years after being let into the Senate chamber by uniformed Capitol Police, and he rejects the portrayal of Chansley as an insurrectionist. He condemns the lack of remorse in those who cover up or excuse what he views as lies, and quotes anger at the idea of imprisoning someone for something he believes was misrepresented.

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.