TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In this testimony, the speaker raises several concerns regarding the treatment of January 6th protest defendants. They criticize the formation of the House Select Committee, claiming it lacks due process and is one-sided. The committee's hearings are described as scripted and biased, with the media amplifying a false insurrection narrative. The speaker argues that the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights were violated through geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants. They also highlight the unequal treatment of January 6th defendants compared to Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020. The speaker concludes by criticizing the judges' decisions and the disproportionate sentences given to January 6th defendants.

Speaker asserts that the displayed events are not January 6 but include 05/31/2020 in front of the White House, when the president was ushered into a bunker; 07/27 in Portland, described as Antifa rioting; more rioting in Salt Lake City; and 06/01/2020 on the streets of DC. "Where was the hotline?" The speaker argues, "This is what domestic terror looks like." Noting "This is not a school board meeting," they say "There is no hotline for any of these rights, and we are gonna have a hotline that's going to report parents for caring about their children's education." They claim, "the DOJ would rather investigate a thousand more people from January 6 than any single person in these photos. What a shame." Concluding, "This is no longer the department of justice. It is the department of subjective justice."

The Supreme Court ruled that the statute used in the January 6th prosecutions was misinterpreted and not meant for protests. They applied ancient canons of interpretation to reach this decision. The Biden administration misused the statute, but the Court upheld the rule of law. There are concerns about the abuse of power and oversight is needed to understand how this happened. The speaker, a former law professor, criticizes the cynical and biased use of the statute, highlighting the double standards in prosecution. The focus is on the need for fair application of the law.

The speaker believes many January 6th defendants were wrongly charged with 1512, an obstruction charge, and that a bipartisan Supreme Court threw it out. As a US Attorney, the speaker wanted to investigate the use of 1512, which they attribute to Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco, but ultimately to Andrew Weissman. Weissman, connected to the Mueller investigation, allegedly advocated using 1512 to target Trump, even if it meant "making it up." The speaker claims Weissman wanted to charge Trump after first jailing hundreds of people to validate the charge. 1512 was initially created after Enron to prevent the destruction of documents related to an official proceeding. Weissman allegedly planned to expand the definition of "official proceeding" to include the electoral college count. The speaker asserts that this plan involved jailing people, securing guilty pleas, and influencing judges to support the charge before targeting Trump.

The speaker expresses gratitude to Congressman Gates for his support regarding the mistreatment of January 6th defendants. They highlight the mistreatment of the defendants, including being targeted and lied about in the press, as well as leaks from prosecutors. They criticize the select committee for causing damage to the system and denying due process. The speaker mentions their representation of three defendants and their involvement with the Patriot Freedom Project. They discuss issues such as delayed speedy trials, leaking by prosecutors, and the impact on juries and judges. They also mention improper charging and the targeting of American citizens as terrorists. The speaker concludes by highlighting five areas of concern and expresses willingness to provide further details.

There's no cross-examination allowed in this committee, so important questions remain unaddressed. For instance, why did a Capitol Hill police officer with a history of mishandling firearms shoot an unarmed Air Force veteran in the neck? We're also not allowed to inquire about the thousands of hours of surveillance footage or why police were seen letting people into the Capitol on January 6th. These critical issues are off-limits for questioning.

The speaker criticizes the prosecutor's request to exclude evidence suggesting that the January 6th attack could have been prevented. They argue that Nancy Pelosi, the mayor of DC, failed to take the security measures offered, such as providing 10,000 troops. The speaker claims that if these measures were accepted, the attack would not have occurred. They also express frustration that the peaceful and patriotic nature of the event is not acknowledged. The speaker accuses the prosecutor of being dishonest and unattractive, claiming that they don't want the evidence brought up because it was destroyed illegally. They further criticize the prosecutor's track record and label them as a sick puppy.

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.

The speaker makes several points about the treatment of January 6th protester defendants. They criticize the formation of the January 6th committee, claiming it was one-sided and lacked due process. The committee's hearings were described as scripted and cherry-picked. The speaker also accuses the committee of working with media outlets to spread a fake insurrection narrative. They argue that this poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC. The speaker believes that many defendants were unfairly targeted through geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants. They also mention that some protesters were unaware that certain areas were closed, leading to trespassing charges.

The speaker argues that the events of January 6th were a setup. They claim that despite having informants embedded within the groups involved, law enforcement did not anticipate the events. They also mention video footage showing the doors being opened for the protesters. The speaker alleges that the protesters were peaceful until law enforcement used concussive grenades and rubber bullets, which led to violence. They criticize the authorities for using these events to label a large portion of the country as domestic terrorists and to target Donald Trump. The speaker addresses Dana Bash, implying that she is aware of this setup.

- "Do you know who Ray Epps is, and where is he? And, is he sitting behind bars like some of these other, protesters who've been sitting there without bail for so long?" - "And what we need to know is whether or not that cooperation existed on January 5 and January 6 to get people to do things that they might otherwise not do, like enter the capital." - "We already know as a consequence of reporting in revolver.news and in re really, that was confirmed by the New York Times that there were people texting their handlers from the crowd in January 5 and January 6." - "Now we just need to know whether the folks being controlled by the federal government were, in fact, the very people that were doing the worst things on January 6."

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.

The speaker discusses the selective evidence and rigged cases surrounding the January 6th incident at the Capitol. They argue that the prosecutors, DOJ, and FBI have created a two-tier system of justice by hiding certain evidence and distributing others to maintain a false narrative of an insurrection. They also mention the attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot and highlight the connections between the law firm representing the group pushing for his removal and individuals like Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, and Gina Haspel. The speaker questions the logic behind accusing Trump of insurrection when he did not order the deployment of the National Guard.

Nancy Pelosi's daughter and her friends admit that there was no real insurrection on January 6th. The media's biased narrative and the January 6th Committee's unfair actions poisoned the jury pool in Washington DC. The defendants' rights were violated through the use of invasive surveillance techniques and the trapping of protesters. The Justice Department also failed to respect the protesters' First Amendment rights.

I have a friend who participated in the January 6th events and has been in jail for hundreds of days without trial. This seems unjust, as due process is expected. Watching the footage, it appeared that some officers were allowing people in, and there were even agents inciting the crowd. The narrative around police deaths that day is misleading; one officer died of a stroke, not due to protesters. Many people were involved in the chaos, but the lack of weapons suggests it wasn't a true insurrection. There were government agents encouraging the actions, raising questions about their intentions. It’s crucial to speak out against these issues, especially when it comes to the treatment of those still imprisoned without trial.

Speaker 0 accuses the Democrat Washington DC establishment and mainstream media of gaslighting Americans and lying to them. He says Christopher Wray appeared at congressional testimony claiming ignorance about undercover FBI agents, and alleges that people were left in solitary confinement in the DC Jail for eighteen months without family visits, shaves, or haircuts. He claims the FBI and others orchestrated events to paint Donald Trump as a domestic terrorist and to portray Trump supporters as wild extremists, while agents within the crowd agitated and destroyed a peaceful protest, turning it into chaos in which people felt they were fighting for their lives. Speaker 0 asserts that four unarmed Americans were killed that day: Ashley Babbitt, Roseanne Boylan, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Phillips, and says the FBI set up their murders with no accountability. He mentions that President Trump posted about the alleged lying to Congress and predicts an impending federal indictment for Wray, and he says “Read the messages I left you in the DC jail walls. You deserve it. Sleep well on that metal mattress.” Speaker 1 responds with “That’s right,” then asks about plans for legal action, noting a $25,000,000 lawsuit and asking whether it has been filed. Speaker 0 explains they filed a form 95, an official notice to the FBI and DOJ seeking recompense and reconciliation, stating they are coming for recompense and the American people deserve redress for families of January 6 detainees and others whose lives were affected, including people whose careers were destroyed. He says they will be filing an official federal court lawsuit that week. Speaker 0 contends the DOJ and FBI are complicit in a cover-up intended to overthrow the government and describes a plan from January 6 to create a false insurrection narrative to use a constitutional amendment to block Trump from running for president, labeling this a coup d'etat amounting to subversion of the will of the American people. He asserts due process violations by Christopher Wray, including Brady material violations (exculpatory evidence withheld), and claims such evidence was hidden from them. Speaker 1 asks how long Speaker 0 was held, and Speaker 0 states he was held for four years and one thousand four hundred sixty-seven days without a trial, noting he has no criminal record and repeatedly asking why federal agents, DHS agents, and confidential human sources were not disclosed, asserting these omissions violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment without fair due process. He reiterates the duration: four years and 1,467 days in custody without trial.

Representative Cheney's statement about investigating or letting the issue go uninvestigated is criticized as ridiculous. The FBI has been investigating the issue since it happened, and over 600 people have been charged. The January 6th committee's actions are seen as an assault on Americans' liberty, with multiple batches of subpoenas issued. The committee has even sent letters to tech companies asking them to preserve communications of hundreds of Americans without informing them. The speaker argues that the committee is targeting individuals who exercised their First Amendment right to assemble and petition the government. The speaker also highlights other pressing issues, such as border security, energy independence, and rising crime rates, which they believe the committee is avoiding. They hope Republicans and some Democrats will vote against the committee's actions.

January 6 was a complex event shrouded in deception. Many instinctively felt that the mainstream media's narrative was false. The extensive surveillance footage from that day contradicts claims of an insurrection, showing people behaving like tourists rather than rioters. Some individuals, like Ray Epps, who encouraged the crowd to enter the Capitol, have not faced charges, raising questions about their roles. The January 6 committee's handling of evidence has been criticized, particularly regarding Epps' testimony. Additionally, discrepancies in communication between Capitol officials and Speaker Pelosi highlight failures in leadership during the crisis. Critics argue that the portrayal of January 6 has been selectively edited to fit a narrative, while the truth remains more nuanced.

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.

The January 6 committee was unlawfully formed by Speaker Pelosi and acted without due process, using cherry-picked and doctored video. The committee worked with regime media to blast the fake narrative of an insurrection. Secretly recorded video reveals Nancy Pelosi's documentary admitting no insurrection occurred. The shameful proceedings and media blitz poisoned the jury pool in DC. Many defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet violating the Fourth Amendment via geofencing and cellphone data warrants. The Justice Department didn't respect the protesters' First Amendment rights, unlike the kid gloves treatment of Antifa and BLM agitators in Portland. January 6 defendants haven't been dealt with in the same fashion as Antifa and BLM protesters, violating equal protection. Widespread Brady violations exist, including concealed footage around the Capitol and 800+ unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts potentially containing exculpatory evidence. Judges in DC seem to have come under the spell of the January 6 committee's original sin, allowing the mainstream media narrative to influence their decisions. A statute designed to close an obstruction of justice loophole is being misapplied. Antifa and BLM revolutionaries largely got off scot-free, while January 6 defendants' sentences are wildly disproportionate.

The speaker outlines seven points regarding the treatment of January 6 defendants. First, the House Select Committee was lawlessly formed and acted in a one-sided way. Second, the committee worked with regime media to blast the narrative that an insurrection occurred. Nancy Pelosi's documentary allegedly admits no real insurrection occurred. Third, many defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet violating the fourth amendment via geofencing and cell phone data warrants. Fourth, the Justice Department didn't respect the protesters' first amendment rights, unlike how they treated Antifa. Fifth, January 6 defendants haven't been dealt with in the same fashion as Antifa and BLM protesters, violating equal protection. Sixth, there are widespread Brady violations, including concealed footage and unreleased deposition transcripts. Seventh, DC judges are under the spell of the January 6 committee and are misapplying a statute, leading to disproportionate sentences compared to Antifa and BLM, who largely got off scot-free.

Speaker 1 argues that Jack Smith’s request to prevent evidence about security or intelligence failures before January 6 is unacceptable, claiming it would excuse Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC for failures. He asserts Pelosi was responsible for January 6 because she did not accept the security help offered, stating that 10,000 troops or National Guard were available if needed before the event, and that the event would have been different if 500 or 200 people had been used; he emphasizes that he offered 10,000 troops and that January 6 would not have happened with a larger deployment. He notes that he personally attended and gave a speech, and claims the audience included the largest number he has spoken to, contrasting with the smaller group that he says went down to the Capitol. Speaker 1 contends that the party should be allowed to introduce evidence showing that there were security and intelligence shortcomings, including the assertion that Pelosi “did not take the security that we offered her,” with the offer of 10,000 troops and the fact that “you had far fewer people than that.” He mentions that the unselect committee did not discuss or include references to “peacefully and patriotically” behaving crowds and says this group was not highlighted by the committee or in their words. He criticizes the prosecutor, calling Jack Smith a “deranged human being, unattractive both inside and out,” and accuses Smith of wanting to suppress testimony because the committee “illegally destroyed everything” and deleted evidence related to Pelosi’s decisions about troop deployment. He asserts that much evidence indicated Pelosi did not want the troops and that a letter from the mayor contradicted Pelosi’s stance. Speaker 0 acknowledges the point but keeps the dialogue focused; Speaker 0 reminds that Capitol Police Chief Steve Sun said January 6 was a preventable event if the intelligence and resources requested had been provided, noting that Speaker 0 sees this as an amazing point and confirms that the offer of troops was in writing. Speaker 1 reiterates that he offered 10,000 troops for January 6 and emphasizes that this fact is in writing, arguing that the prosecution is attempting to suppress relevant evidence. He maintains that Pelosi’s leadership and decisions about security are central to the discussion, and he reiterates the claim that the offer of security was not acted upon. The conversation pivots back to the assertion that the Capitol Police Chief’s past statements support the claim that January 6 was preventable with proper intelligence and resources.

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.

We're diving into the January 6th select committee, which has not been truthful with the American people. The events of January 6th were indeed bad, with assaults on law enforcement being unacceptable. However, the narrative pushed by Democrats over the past four years is false and exaggerated. We aim to clarify what really happened and investigate why President Biden pardoned members of the committee. Since they are pardoned, they must testify, especially those no longer in office. Expect subpoenas to be issued soon.

We were federal prosecutors on the Justice Department's Capitol attack investigation until the Trump administration fired us on January 31st. Why were we fired? Because we did our job. We followed the facts and the law. What we did was justice for 140 police officers wounded on January 6th, 2021. We were hired to prosecute cases from the riot, and none of our defendants were acquitted, which shows the evidence was overwhelming. But last month, the president pardoned even the most violent convicts, calling them "hostages." Letters of termination hit the Justice Department, calling the prosecution itself a grave national injustice. Anyone who has watched videos of January 6th knows that prosecuting the rioters was not the injustice. The injustice has been the Department of Justice turning its back on law enforcement officers, members of Congress, and all the victims affected.