We'll get to the truth eventually. Whether it will be in time to do any good? And what will be done about it when we do? That's anyone's guess.

Onward and upward,
airforce

We already know the truth. It is a set up to disqualify Trump, vilify patriots, and to destroy the US with an illegal alien alien invasion. Damn the corrupt government. Joe Biden is a senile puppet who should be placed in a nursing home. Biden is controlled by Barry Soetoro aka Barrack Obama a communist Muslim born in Kenya.

See: https://rootforamerica.com/the-obama-curse

Alert! Col. Macgregor Warns Dems Plan To Turn Guns On US Citizens Once Military Recruits Illegals
https://www.infowars.com/posts/aler...citizens-once-military-recruits-illegals

January 6 political prisoners claim they are being tortured in DC jail with 'ear-piercing noise'

by: Pat Droney 2024-03-06 Source: Law Enforcement Today Opinion



WASHINGTON, DC- The United States Constitution bans explicitly “cruel and unusual punishment.” That provision is outlined in the Bill of Rights under the Eighth Amendment:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”

Someone may want to inform those running the Washington, D.C. gulag, otherwise known as the Washington DC Correctional Treatment Facility. The Gateway Pundit was contacted by January 6 prisoners detained at that facility who told the outlet that “an ear-shattering, harrowing sharp noise” has been blasted throughout the prison for weeks in the cell block where January 6 political prisoners are being held.

It has previously been reported by several outlets, including Law Enforcement Today, The Gateway Pundit, and others, about the harsh treatment January 6 detainees have experienced in the DC facility. Detainees have reported episodes of brutality and torture after complaints about the Bureau of Prisons System and the Department of Justice were made to the media.

Remember…this isn’t a Turkish prison we are talking about. This is a prison in the United States, where our Constitution is supposed to protect those who are locked up. We hear often enough, primarily from so-called “progressives,” about the harsh conditions inside our jails and prisons.

Yet you hear nothing but crickets from them concerning those locked up for January 6, some only being held or convicted for offenses such as parading or trespassing. These are not hardened criminals, by and large.

In February, The Gateway Pundit reports, “two political prisoners were ripped from their cells, abducted, and transferred to the country’s most hostile anti-Trump correctional facilities” while also being barred from any type of communication. It is unknown where the two inmates, Ryan Samsel and Jake Lang, were transferred.

Samsel believes the government is “trying to kill” him. He is suffering from a severe medical condition involving blood clots and was only recently given blood thinners to help prevent throwing a clot, which could be fatal.

‘As soon as I was recommended outside [medical] treatment, I get [transferred]. This is what always happens,” Samsel said. “Every single time I am referred to outside treatment, I get [transferred]. Stopping my meds will make me extremely sick.”

Another political prisoner, Matthew Krol, currently wears a pacemaker and said he died of a heart attack while he was incarcerated and was revived while he awaits heart surgery. Krol is also in a legal battle with the DC jail over medical deprivation. Krol reached out to The Gateway Pundit about the overbearing noise.

“We have another situation here in C3A. For weeks now, throughout the day and many nights, there [are] sounds of construction going on,” Krol said, telling TGP it has been going on for a couple of weeks. “The supervisors say there is no construction at night, yet the noise continues.

“And there have been C/O’s [correctional officers] that have said there [is] no construction going on in the pod above us. It is 10:23 PM, and our current ℅ has been in my cell listening twice tonight to the noise. Inmates in the USA are supposed to get 8-½ hours of [un]interrupted sleep a day, that does not happen here.”

The outlet visited the jail last week with an undercover camera and found a scaffold erected on the exterior of the building, alongside shattered glass on the grounds and possible dried puddles of blood on the ground.

When TGP’s reporter walked into the jail lobby, the “deafening noise Krol claimed the inmates have endured living with for weeks was persistently blaring off the cinderblock walls of the jail,” the outlet reported.

“Can we get our supporters to contact the jail, the Marshals, and their Congressmen? Other inmates here will verify what I’m saying. Thank you,” Krol wrote in a text message to TGP.

When the outlet returned to the jail last Friday, “the same ear-piercing noise was blaring throughout the building,” they reported.

The use of sound is a form of torture that the military has used at Gitmo, where Muslim prisoners tied to terrorism have been held. Some members of Congress and the United Nations have widely condemned that practice. Yet when it comes to January 6 detainees, nothing.

Policy at the prison requires all visitors to be escorted to a private room by guards, “where they are subject to invasive patdowns.” Among those invasive patdowns, female visitors must remove their shoes, bend over, lift their bras and undergarments, open their mouths, and lift their tongues to ensure no illegal substances are present, and then be allowed to conduct their visit.

By and large and with few exceptions, members of Congress, including Republicans, have stayed away from the jail, apparently uninterested in the horrifying conditions described by the political prisoners. By way of location, the facility is located just a few short miles from the US Capitol. Yet nobody, Republicans included, can take the time to see what American citizens are being subjected to.

Secret Service Agent Blocked Trump From Going To Capitol On Jan. 6: Driver

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When then-President Donald Trump finished his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, he wanted to go to the U.S. Capitol.
Surrounded by campaign staff and members of the U.S. Secret Service, former U.S. President Donald Trump (C) waves to supporters as he visits the Iowa Pork Producers Tent at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, on Aug. 12, 2023. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

But a Secret Service agent blocked him from going, according to a newly disclosed account.

“The president wanted to go to the Capitol,” the Secret Service agent who was driving the vehicle, told a U.S. House of Representatives panel.

President Trump and Robert Engel, his lead Secret Service agent, entered the SUV around 1:10 p.m. after President Trump concluded his speech, which was delivered on the Ellipse.

“He asked Bob Engel if we could go to the Capitol and why couldn’t we go to the Capitol and was insistent on going to the Capitol,” the driver testified, adding later that the president “was pushing pretty hard to go.”

“Mr. Engel’s response was essentially to tell him that we didn’t have any people at the Capitol, we didn’t have a plan in place, and that we needed to essentially go back to the White House and assess what our options were and wait till we can get a plan in place before we went down there,” the driver added.

President Trump responded by saying he felt it would be fine because he was not concerned about the people at the Capitol, describing them as being his supporters, according to the driver, although the driver could not recall specifically what words the president used.

“Mr. Engel consistently had the same response, that we didn’t have a plan in place, we didn’t have people at the Capitol, and that we needed to go back to the White House and reassess,” the driver said, adding later that whether the crowd at the Capitol was comprised of supporters of President Trump “was immaterial.”

President Trump did not say anything like, “I’m the president, I’ll decide where I get to go or where I’m going,” the driver said, responding to a question from the panel.

The driver took President Trump and Mr. Engel to the White House, which is 1.2 miles from the Ellipse. By 1:25 p.m., President Trump was told about violence at the Capitol, according to a White House employee.

After arriving at the White House, the driver communicated what transpired to other agents and said they should stand by as a decision was made as to whether the president would at some point be taken to the Capitol.

The agents remained with the presidential vehicles until they were told they would not be going to the Capitol, according to the driver. The communication came within 15 minutes after Mr. Engel met with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows or Meadows’s deputy, the driver said. “My understanding was that … a decision came out of that meeting,” he said.

The driver was speaking on Nov. 7, 2022, to a House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021. The transcript was obtained and reviewed by The Epoch Times. The transcript was not released by the committee when it published online a final report and accompanying materials, including many transcripts, as it disbanded in late 2022.

The select committee also interviewed Mr. Engel, who could not be reached, but did not release a transcript of that interview. Portions of the interview, which have still not been disclosed, were quoted in the panel’s report.

The report says that President Trump entered the SUV after the Ellipse speech ended and “forcefully expressed his intention that Bobby Engel, the head of his Secret Service detail, direct the motorcade to the Capitol.” It does not mention who made the decision not to adhere to the request.

“I said … ‘let’s go down to the Capitol and the Secret Service very nicely said, ’Sir, really better for you to go back to the White House, it really is, you know, we’re not prepared to go down there,’” President Trump said on a Just the News podcast this week. “And I understood that and it was no big argument.”

Former White House official Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified in public to the select committee, has claimed that President Trump grew irate after not being taken to the Capitol and lunged at the wheel of the vehicle. Both Mr. Engel, according to the select committee, and the driver, according to the transcript, refuted that claim.

Ms. Hutchinson, whose lawyer has not returned an inquiry, changed her testimony dramatically after testifying to the panel three times, according to a new House Republican report. She did not mention the alleged grabbing incident until her fourth interview. Mr. Engel and Mr. Meadows could not be reached. The Secret Service did not respond to a request for comment.
Word of Possible Trip

President Trump was not scheduled to go to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but some officials received word that he might go there, according to testimony.

Anthony Ornato, a Secret Service agent not on the scene, said in a recently released transcript that he was asked by officials if President Trump could walk to the Capitol after the speech on the Ellipse. He thought the idea was “ridiculous” and referred the officials to Mr. Engel.

An email from an agent to the driver and others on Jan. 5 said that President Trump planned to go to the Ellipse the following day. “There are also unconfirmed rumors of a move to the Capitol following the event on the Ellipse, but that will be an OTR if it happens,” the email stated, according to the select committee.

OTR stands for off-the-record movement, meaning the move would not be placed on the presidential schedule, according to the driver.

He said his superior did not inform him on Jan. 6 of any plans to take President Trump to the Capitol.

According to summaries released by House Republicans of testimony given by four White House employees to the select committee, several White House employees became aware of President Trump possibly going to the Capitol, although one said that both the Secret Service and Mr. Meadows told him such a trip was not happening. The White House employee transcripts were not released by the select committee and have not otherwise been disclosed.

“The committee’s principal concern was that the President actually intended to participate personally in the January 6th efforts at the Capitol, leading the attempt to overturn the election either from inside the House Chamber, from a stage outside the Capitol, or otherwise. The committee regarded those facts as important because they are relevant to President Trump’s intent on January 6th. There is no question from all the evidence assembled that President Trump did have that intent,” according to the summary.

After President Trump arrived back at the White House, the president said “he wanted to physically walk and be a part of the march” to the Capitol, former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told the select committee. Mr. Meadows, according to Ms. Hutchinson, said President Trump was upset Mr. Engel did not arrange a Capitol trip, and that Mr. Meadows did not make plans for a trip official.

President Trump remained at the White House, where he watched events at the Capitol unfold on television. He later released a video showing him standing outside the White House and telling people to “go home.”

“Oh Man, This Is Huge”: Video Revealed By Jan. 6 Defendant Raises Questions About Undercover Agents

Authored by Joseph M. Hanneman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Recently released Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol Police security video shows a suspected FBI special agent clapping and cheering as crowds surged up steps to the Columbus Doors and another meeting with an FBI tactical team just before it entered the Capitol after the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

The videos were first identified by defendant William Pope of Topeka, Kansas, in court filings in his own Jan. 6 criminal case. Exhibits Mr. Pope originally filed under seal have become public since the release of thousands of hours of Jan. 6 security video by the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight.
Former FBI special agent John Guandolo (center) with two possible active FBI special agents at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Illustration by The Epoch Times, U.S. Capitol Police/Graphic by The Epoch Times)

Two possible FBI special agents and a third unknown colleague were with John D. Guandolo, the FBI’s former liaison with U.S. Capitol Police, at the Women for a Great America event on the East Front of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Mr. Pope.

In sworn testimony in a December 2022 Alaska civil court trial and in numerous media appearances, Mr. Guandolo said he was with two FBI special agents and a colleague with whom he traveled to Washington on Jan. 6. Mr. Guandolo has indicated that he was also introduced to other FBI personnel at the Capitol that day.

Mr. Pope is seeking to compel federal prosecutors to identify them all. He said even if the men were at the Capitol on personal time, their free movement around the grounds shows they did not believe the Capitol was off limits to the public.

Mr. Guandolo, who handled counterterrorism and criminal investigations for nearly 13 years—from 1996 to 2008—as an FBI special agent, has said he was at the Capitol in a personal capacity and went primarily to pray.

He was interviewed by the FBI about his Jan. 6 visit on July 6, 2022. A heavily redacted copy of the FBI 302 interview summary has been made public.
‘This Is Huge’

Security video shows that as the crowd broke through the police line on the East Plaza and surged up the steps to the Columbus Doors, one of Mr. Guandolo’s colleagues clapped enthusiastically.

“Oh, oh, oh man, this is huge,” the man said, heard on Mr. Guandolo’s cell phone video that showed the crowd ascending the east steps.

On Capitol Police security Camera 7231, which looks out at the House Egg on the East Front, Mr. Guandolo was seen filming while standing on a chair just before 2:05 p.m. The clapping man, wearing a grey knit cap and dark coat, is identified in Mr. Pope’s court filing as “the Clapper” and “Colleague 2.”

While Colleague 2 cheered the protesters’ advance on the Capitol, a man on Mr. Guandolo’s left, “Colleague 1,” had his phone raised, presumably capturing his own video of the advancing crowd. He wore a brown knit cap and blue jacket, and carried a backpack, video showed.

Mr. Pope asked U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras to compel the Department of Justice to identify all FBI agents “who were material witnesses at the Capitol.” Mr. Pope wants the FBI “to produce all photographs, videos, and records related to their presence.”

The DOJ has filed opposition to Mr. Pope’s motion, saying it has “no obligation to investigate” who the men in the videos are.

Some of the exhibits in Mr. Pope’s Feb. 12 motion were redacted, but the recent release of thousands of hours of Jan. 6 security video by the Subcommittee on Oversight allows them to be released publicly, Mr. Pope said.

Capitol Police security video shows Mr. Guandolo, Colleague 1, and Colleague 2—often trailed by a third unidentified man, “Colleague 3”—moving about the Capitol grounds.

“For the record, my friend and colleague with me for most of the day on January 6th was not working,“ Mr. Guandolo told The Epoch Times in an April 2 email. ”He was there with his family to experience the event like most of us.”

Subsequently asked to clarify which of the men shown on CCTV he was referring to, Mr. Guandolo did not reply before press time.

“The other FBI guys I saw there I cannot speak about their capacity that day,” Mr. Guandolo added.

Mr. Guandolo said he testified for the defense in the criminal trial of Jan. 6 defendant Rebecca Lavrenz on March 29 and has been “asked to testify in several upcoming cases.”

Mr. Guandolo said his statements about Jan. 6 have been “very public and very clear.”

“There was an insurrection and revolution, and it was not done by the participants of January 6th but by senior government officials of the U.S. government,” he said.
‘Right to Be There’

The video from Mr. Guandolo and security cameras “also indicates that active-duty FBI agents perceived events at the Capitol to not be criminal,” Mr. Pope wrote in his motion. “From the clapping and celebratory expression we can conclude that these FBI agents were in favor of people accessing the building and that they believed the people had a First Amendment right to be there.”

At 2:28 p.m., Camera 7202 captured footage of Colleague 2 walking across the East Plaza and climbing the House steps. He stopped to shoot video or photos just a few feet from a group of Capitol Police officers, the video showed.

He appeared to be filming or photographing a group of five—two young men and three young women or teens—standing about a dozen steps above him. The five then descended the stairs and walked off camera with Colleague 2.

The group of five young adults was also seen walking immediately in front of Mr. Guandolo and his three colleagues on the House Plaza Egress—Camera 0811—at 2:55 p.m. and on Camera 0681 on the Southwest Walk at 2:57 p.m., video shows. One of the young adults carried on a conversation with Colleague 2 during part of the walk.

“Since this FBI Agent has professional law enforcement training, and since he found it permissible to walk up on the steps while three Capitol Police officers looked on nearby … it is reasonable for me to conclude that this FBI agent will provide favorable testimony about the permissive actions of police that is likely to sway a jury away from a determination of guilt,” Mr. Pope wrote.

At 2:32 p.m., an FBI tactical team drove onto the East Plaza in an MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle. After the dark green vehicle was parked, Colleague 1 came from the area of the Women for a Great America event, walked around the front of the vehicle and spoke to someone inside the front passenger door for approximately five minutes, video showed.
Former FBI special agent John Guandolo with suspected FBI agents Colleague 1 and Colleague 2, along with an unidentified man labeled in court filings as Colleague 3, on the Southwest Walk of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. Capitol Police/Graphic by The Epoch Times)

“This could indicate that FBI Colleague 1 was indeed on the clock at the Capitol on January 6, or that the uniformed FBI SWAT team did not consider the events at the Capitol to be a pressing matter and that they had time to shoot the breeze with an off-duty FBI colleague,” Mr. Pope wrote.

Members of the FBI SWAT team were seen on security video entering the South Door of the Capitol just before 2:50 p.m. They immediately turned right down a side hallway and helped Capitol Police carry a mortally wounded Ms. Babbitt, who’d been shot outside the Speaker’s Lobby minutes earlier.

Ms. Babbitt was set on the floor near the south entrance and emergency care was provided by FBI medics and Capitol Police until paramedics from the District of Columbia Fire and EMS Department took over.

At about 2:55 p.m. Camera 0948 on the southeast roof of the Capitol showed Mr. Guandolo and his three colleagues walking away from the east steps. Camera 0811 on the House Plaza Egress sidewalk showed the men walking past just before 2:56 pm. Mr. Guandolo looked to his right and appeared to be speaking to someone just before he disappeared from view, Mr. Pope wrote.
An FBI SWAT team enters the South Door of the U.S. Capitol just after the shooting of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. Capitol Police/Screenshots via The Epoch Times)

A few seconds later, a man known only by the hashtag #FenceCutterBulwark walked into view from the opposite direction. The identity of #FenceCutterBulwark has been a longstanding mystery after he was shown on public video cutting down the green plastic security fencing erected by Capitol Police to keep crowds away from the Capitol.

Mr. Guandolo told The Epoch Times, “I do not know #FenceCutterBulwark.”

While he was carrying out his fence destruction, #FenceCutterBulwark was filmed by Metropolitan Police Department undercover officer Ryan Roe, who said to him, “Appreciate it, brother.”

A man claiming to be #FenceCutterBulwark appeared on the Patriot Punk Network podcast in September 2023, saying he was not a provocateur or a federal informant, and did not know Officer Roe.

“If he said, ‘Thanks, brother,’ then our, I’m assuming our exchange would have been, you know, me just basically saying, ‘Hey, I’m just trying to get this out of the way. It’s a hazard. It’s dangerous, or whatever. I don’t want people getting hurt,’” the man told Patriot Punk host Chase Matheson.

Mr. Pope has petitioned Judge Contreras to order the release of video shot by all members of the Metropolitan Police Department Electronic Surveillance Unit (MPD ESU) who captured video on Jan. 6 using cell phones, camcorders and GoPro cameras.
The mysterious Jan. 6 figure known only by the hashtag #FenceCutterBulwark appears on the Patriot Punk Network on Sept. 27, 2023. (Courtesy of Chase Matheson/Patriot Punk Network)

Nearly 30 ESU officers were assigned for duty on Jan. 6, organized into eight teams. Some of the men used their phones to live stream to the MPD command center, according to court records.

One of the undercover officers allegedly acted as a provocateur in the crowd on the Northwest Steps, according to previous court filings by Mr. Pope.

Officer Nicholas Tomasula confirmed in an interview with defense attorneys in the Proud Boys case that he was heard on Jan. 6 video chanting, “Whose House? Our House!” and “Stop the Steal!”

Mr. Tomasula was identified as “Officer 1” in Mr. Pope’s February 2023 motion seeking to make Officer 1’s undercover video public.

At the foot of the Northwest Steps, as a protester climbed up a makeshift ladder onto the balustrade, Mr. Tomasula shouted: “C’mon, man, let’s go! Leave that [expletive],” his video showed. Mr. Tomasula got help from a protester climbing onto the balustrade, then shouted to protesters moving up the steps, “C’mon, go, go, go!”

Mr. Pope said that Mr. Tomasula was not alone in encouraging protesters on Jan. 6.

“MPD’s internal investigation on Tomasula and my own research has identified that other undercover MPD officers were, in real time, praising protesters who broke windows at the Capitol and thanking persons who removed fencing,” he wrote in a motion on Aug. 21, 2023.

Mr. Guandolo and his three colleagues were seen on two security cameras on the southwest drive, passing by at 2:57 p.m.

“It is significant that there were several agents present. The testimony of these FBI agents who believed it was acceptable to be in this alleged restricted area will weigh favorably on the minds of the jury against any contrary testimony brought by the government,” Mr. Pope wrote.

“For this reason, the court should compel the government to identify all FBI agents who directly witnessed events at the Capitol since the exculpatory testimony of many, many agents will lend strength in numbers to my defense.”

Top Military Official Lied About Jan. 6: Whistleblowers

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The secretary of the Army on Jan. 6, 2021, lied about multiple details regarding what unfolded as the U.S. Capitol was breached, National Guard whistleblowers said during a congressional hearing on April 17.
Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy testifies to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill on Dec. 3, 2019. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy made multiple false claims, including that he spoke to the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard on two separate occasions after officials requested that the Guard be deployed to the Capitol, the whistleblowers said.

After Maj. Gen. William Walker conveyed a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for Guard personnel, Mr. McCarthy called Maj. Gen. Walker at 2:14 p.m. and instructed the Guard to stand by, according to a Guard timeline of Jan. 6, 2021. But that call and others that Mr. McCarthy or one of his top advisers were said to have made later authorizing the Guard for mobilization and deployment did not happen, according to the Guard officials.

“At no time did Gen. Walker take any calls, nor did we ever hear from the secretary on any of the ongoing conference calls or the secure video teleconferencing throughout the day,” Capt. Timothy Nick, who served as Maj. Gen. Walker’s personal assistant on Jan. 6, 2021, said during the hearing. “This I know because I was with the command general the entire time recording the events.”

National Guard Captain Blows Up J6 Narrative, Accuses U.S. Govt of Lying to the American People

“I’m here today to aid the subcommittee in resolving factual errors in the official record of what happened on January 6th, 2021, specifically regarding the alleged District of… pic.twitter.com/1hJAarFgdx

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) April 18, 2024

Capt. Nick has not previously discussed publicly what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021, and neither has Brig. Gen. Aaron Dean, who was the National Guard’s adjutant general on the day that the Capitol was breached.

The Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general report on Jan. 6, 2021, which relied heavily on Mr. McCarthy and other military officials, was rife with “inaccuracies,” Brig. Gen. Dean said. “I believe it is my duty and moral obligation to stand before you today and illuminate the truth,” he told the hearing, which was held by the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

Despite Mr. Walker conveying the request for assistance at about 1:50 p.m., the Guard was not deployed to the Capitol until about 5:10 p.m.

“This was a dereliction of duty by the secretary of the Army,” Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), one of the members of the committee, said.

Mr. McCarthy refused to appear before the panel, Dr. Murphy said.

Christopher Miller, the acting secretary of defense at the time, authorized Guard deployment at 3:11 p.m., but Mr. McCarthy took the order and decided to draw up a plan before ordering the deployment, according to military timelines and testimony from Mr. McCarthy and others.

“You never would employ our personnel, whether it’s on an American street or a foreign street, without putting together a [plan],” Mr. McCarthy told the now-disbanded House Jan. 6 committee.

Mr. McCarthy could not be reached for comment. The Army declined to comment.

“We stand by our January 6th Report and have no further comment at this time,” a DOD inspector general spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.


The whistleblowers also testified that Army officials Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Gen. Charles Flynn, during a 2:30 p.m. conference call on Jan. 6, 2021, expressed concern about the optics of having the Guard at the Capitol.

“I did hear the word optics. And they did use it. Specifically, Gen. Piatt said ‘optics.’ And his concern was that he did not want soldiers or airmen on Capitol grounds, with the Capitol in the background,” Brig. Gen. Dean said. “They were giving every other reason why we should be around the Capitol, away from the Capitol, and not responding to the Capitol.”

The officials lacked familiarity with the Guard and the Guard’s capabilities, Brig. Gen. Dean said.

Lt. Gen. Piatt has been quoted by Maj. Gen. Walker and others as saying during the call: “I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing a line with the Capitol in the background. I would much rather relieve USCP [U.S. Capitol Police] officers from other posts so they can handle the protestors.”

Lt. Gen. Piatt has told lawmakers that he did not recall using the words optics, visuals, or image during the call or in any other conversations on Jan. 6, 2021. But he later said, “I may have said that,” citing people who took notes during the call.

Gen. Flynn told the House Oversight Committee in 2021 that he “never expressed a concern about the visuals, image, or public perception of sending the D.C. National Guard to the U.S. Capitol.”

Col. Earl Matthews, a lawyer who was with Maj. Gen. Walker on Jan. 6, 2021, and who has challenged the Pentagon Jan. 6 narrative, and District of Columbia National Guard Command Sgt. Michael Brooks, a senior officer with the Guard until he retired in 2022, also testified during the hearing in Washington.

None of the Guard officials who testified were formally interviewed by the House Jan. 6 committee, which was primarily run by Democrats and disbanded at the end of the previous Congress.

The officials said the Guard was ready to act and could have made a difference if not for the delay.

“I know if we were able to deploy immediately when Gen. Walker made the request, the National Guard could have helped end civil disturbance and restore order quickly,” Capt. Nick said.

Report: J6 Committee Delayed Secret Service Driver From Refuting False Limo Story

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Just the News is reporting that the January 6th Committee rebuffed repeated efforts from a Secret Service agent to refute the false story related by Cassidy Hutchinson alleging a violent episode with Trump in the presidential limousine during the Capitol riots. The J6 Committee staff repeatedly delayed the testimony of the agent to disprove the widely reported allegation.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the chairman of the House subcommittee that is investigating the Jan. 6 riot, has obtained a transcript of the driver’s interview that was conducted months after he first offered to testify. However, it turns out that committee staff were asked repeatedly by counsel for the agent to let him present evidence debunking the claim. Despite being reported by virtually every news outlet, the Committee slow walked his appearance as the story went viral.

The transcript of the driver’s testimony contains express objections by the lawyer that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the committee.

The account reaffirms a major criticism of the committee. After Democrats refused to allow the GOP to pick its members (as a long-accepted practice in the House), the Democrats selected two anti-Trump Republicans who did little to push for a full and fair display of witnesses and facts. The Committee was chaired by Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, with Rep. Liz Cheney, as Vice Chairwoman.

Cheney and the committee members clearly knew that Hutchinson’s account was debunked by the very driver who allegedly struggled with Trump. Yet, they allowed the media to report the incident for months while rebuffing the requests of the driver. Loudermilk is quoted as saying “We’re talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail. They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren’t brought in until November.”

The false account was given by Hutchinson in June of that year.

The Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV.

Notably, the transcript shows Cheney trying to explain the delay as due to the need for the Secret Service to produce all documents in the January 6 investigation.

Yet, she had no problem with making the false story public through Hutchinson before such supporting material was supplied. She also did not suggest any countervailing testimony or witnesses on the issue as the media ran with the account. Instead, Cheney publicly teased the claim that they had much more evidence of crimes against Trump, which never materialized. Cheney ended one hearing by calling for more officials to come forward and noting that Trump family members and former officials have now come forward with their own public “confessions.”

Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.

Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence by the Committee was both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.

We previously discussed the highly scripted and entirely one-sided presentation of evidence in the Committee. Indeed, witnesses were primarily used to present what Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to as “the narrative” where their prior videotaped testimony was shown and they were given narrow follow-up questions. They at times seemed more like props than witnesses — called effectively to recite prior statements between well-crafted, impactful video clips. It had the feel of a news package, which may be the result of the decision to bring in a former ABC executive to produce the hearings.

That framing led to glaring omissions. The Committee routinely edited videotapes and crafted presentations to eliminate alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints like repeatedly editing out Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol peacefully.

What is striking was that offering a more balanced account, including allowing the Republicans to appoint their own members (in accordance with long-standing tradition), would not have lessened much of this stunning testimony. Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial. It would have added credibility to the process.

If the Committee had a single member with a dissenting or even skeptical viewpoint, testimony on issues like the fight in the presidential limo could have been challenged before it was thrown before the world.

That was clearly not in the interests of the J6 Committee or the media, which eagerly spread this false account.

Cotton: There’s a ‘Strong Case’ for Many of the January 6 Defendants to Be Pardoned

Jeff Poor16 Jun 2024


During this week’s broadcast of CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) discussed the double standard of justice applied to the January 6, 2021 protesters, noting that some of those who were convicted of misdemeanors had pre-trial incarceration last longer than their sentences.

According to Cotton, the January 6 standard was not applied to Black Lives Matter protesters who engaged in acts of violence against federal property.

He also told CNN’s Jake Tapper there was a case for a presidential pardon for some of the January 6 protesters.

Partial transcript as follows:

COTTON: Well, look, what happened on January 6, 2021, is that there was a protest in Washington that got out of hand, and it became a riot.

And as I have said from the very beginning, anyone who injured a law enforcement officer or committed acts of violence on January 6 at the Capitol should be prosecuted and face severe consequences.

Again, that’s unlike Democrats, who won’t prosecute violent protesters, for instance, from Democratic street militias outside the homes of Supreme Court justices or defacing statues of veterans right across from the White House.

Anyone who commits acts of violence, in my opinion, should be prosecuted and face severe consequences.

TAPPER: So you disagree when Donald Trump says, as president, he will considering — he will consider pardoning every one of the January 6 rioters convicted in court? He said every one, not — and I understand that others who maybe didn’t participate in violent protests are different than the ones who used violence or assaulted police officers.

But he says every one. He’s considering it.

COTTON: But he didn’t say — he didn’t say he would.

TAPPER: No, he said consider it.

COTTON: He said he would consider it. I think what that means is what he did in his first term. He’d take each case for a pardon request on a case-by-case basis.

And I do think there’s a strong case for many of the defendants to be pardoned, because they didn’t engage in acts of violence. They didn’t damage federal property. In some cases, they were subject to pretrial detention for a longer period than the sentences for the misdemeanor crimes that they faced.

Some of them are probably about to have their convictions or their indictments overturned by a Supreme Court decision, because the Biden administration stretched the law beyond reasonable bounds to go after some of the people who were present, not even in the Capitol, but near the Capitol that day, which is, again, in contrast to the violent pro-Hamas protesters you see outside the White House or Democratic street militias who are marching in violation of federal law outside Supreme Court justices’ homes trying to intimidate them on the way they rule in a particular case.

TAPPER: I will just observe that some critics might say you — it sounds like you have a different standard. You have a tough law and order stance on everything, other than these issues here that have to do with President Trump and his supporters.

You seem to have it — because you have a very hard-line stance on law and order.

COTTON: No.

TAPPER: But, here, you’re talking about, oh, maybe pardoning them if they didn’t engage in violence.

That’s not the language you use when you’re talking about the Black Lives Matter protesters or others.

COTTON: Well, many of the BLM and Antifa riots in 2020 were not so-called peaceful protests, as some on your network said. They were looting and rioting and committing arson and murder.

Again, these same — America techniques that were used for every grandma in a MAGA hat who was within a country mile of the Capitol on January 6 are not being used for the street militias who protested outside Supreme Court justices’ homes or the pro-Hamas lunatics who were defacing statues of veterans or who occupied college campuses last month.

I’m simply calling for the same standards to be used regardless of one’s politics. That’s the essence of the rule of law.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

There's a strong case that ALL of them should be pardoned.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Give us ALL the J6 Committee documents. If they didn't have something to hide, they wouldn't be hiding it.



Onward and upward,
airforce

SCOTUS has rejected a legal interpretation underlying some Jan. 6 charges. And also a couple charges Trump was facing.



Read the whole thing at the link.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The Silent Insurrection: General Milley’s Hand On January 6

Authored by Haley McLean via Deaclassified with Julie Kelly,

In the days and weeks leading up to January 6, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, was moving in lockstep with the political anxieties of top Democratic leaders.

These Democrats grew anxious as over 140 House Republicans planned to contest the election results during the electoral college certification that day. Milley was then deeply engaged with a circle of confidants including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others—all of whom shared a unified disdain for President Donald Trump.

At a House Oversight Committee hearing in April addressing the 3-hour and 19-minute delay in mobilizing the D.C. National Guard on January 6, Colonel Earl Matthews, one of four Department of Defense witnesses, testified about an “irrational” fear among a “clique” of senior military officers concerning the potential misuse of the National Guard by the president. He indicated that these concerns were influenced behind the scenes by Milley, who often made disparaging remarks about the president and regularly referred to his fear of a so-called potential “Reichstag moment.”

In April 2024, Col. Earl Matthews, general counsel for DC National Guard, gave a detailed account as to how Army Sec Ryan McCarthy was unreachable the afternoon of Jan 6 for final authorization to deploy guard.

Matthews also discussed Gen. Milley’s suspicious conduct before J6 pic.twitter.com/tMAW6BjMI9

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 20, 2024

Meanwhile, Milley has insisted he maintained a posture of strict neutrality, vocally distancing his leadership of the military from the political turmoil surrounding the 2020 presidential election. “My job is to stay clean by ensuring that the uniformed military remains out of domestic politics,” Milley stated during his testimony before the January 6 Select Committee. “The United States military has no role in domestic politics, period, full stop.”

Nevertheless, accounts of Milley’s approach to the unfolding situation during the late days of the Trump administration, as detailed in Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker’s I Alone Can Fix It and Susan Glasser and Peter Baker’s August 2022 report in The New Yorker, present a picture of Milley that is much different from the disinterested persona he has disingenuously cultivated.

Some excerpts follow:

Considering resigning in the summer of 2020 during the height of the George Floyd riots, Milley ultimately decided against it. “Fuck that shit,” he told his staff, “I’ll just fight him.” Despite assurances to confidants that he would never openly defy the president—a move he considered illegal—he was “determined to plant flags.” Milley envisioned a scenario involving either a declaration of martial law or a presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act with “Trumpian Brown Shirts fomenting violence.”
Embodying a self-styled narrative of heroic defiance, Milley was prepared to face severe consequences to counter what he perceived as a grave threat. “If they want to court-martial me or put me in prison, have at it,” Milley told his staff, “but I will fight from the inside.”
Milley saw himself as “tasked” with safeguarding “against Trump and his people” from potentially misusing the military, something he confided in a “trusted confidant” to ensure he remained true to this plan. “I have four tasks from now until the twentieth of January,” he affirmed, “and I’m going to accomplish my mission.”

Milley’s Cohort of Confidants

I Alone Can Fix It highlights how Milley, as the joint session approached and more than 140 House Republicans were pledged to contest the election results, shared his anxiety with “senior leaders” in Congress who sought his “comfort” amid fears of “attempted coups.” The New Yorker’s August 2022 report further reveals Milley’s communications with key Democrats, specifically Pelosi and Schumer.

Additionally, the New Yorker report describes Milley’s continued outreach to “Democrats close to Biden,” which included “regular” interactions with Susan Rice, former Obama national security advisor. Known for her role in helping to orchestrate the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, Rice’s expertise in activities aimed at undermining the former president raises this question: What was it about her that made Milley want to seek her guidance in the days leading up to January 6?

The report also references Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense during both the Obama and Bush administrations, as another key figure in Milley’s circle of confidants. Gates reportedly advised Milley to remain in the Pentagon as long as possible, citing President Trump’s “increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior.” I Alone Can Fix It also depicts Gates as a mentor to Milley, urging him not to resign during the final months of the Trump administration. He’s quoted advising Milley, “Don’t quit. Steel your back. It’s not going to be easy, but you’re the right guy in the right place and at the right time.”
Liz Cheney and Milley’s “Nightmare Scenarios”

During Trump’s final months in office, the New Yorker report notes that Milley had two “nightmare scenarios” running through his mind: One was that Trump might spark an external crisis, such as a war with Iran, to divert attention or to create a pretext for a power grab at home, and the other was that Trump would manufacture a domestic crisis to justify ordering the military into the streets to prevent the transfer of power.

On December 26, 2020, the two “nightmare scenarios” then preoccupying Milley transitioned from his personal concerns to the public domain in a column by Washington Post reporter David Ignatius—a journalist with close ties to both (you guessed it) the Obama and Bush administrations.

Ignatius’s extensive connections within these administrations are detailed in a March 2012 Politico report, which highlights his significant access to senior White House and Pentagon officials, including being tapped by the Obama White House for exclusive access to the Bin Laden documents in 2012. Additionally, former Vice President Dick Cheney mentioned Ignatius in his 2011 memoir, In My Time, co-authored with his daughter, former House Republican Liz Cheney. In the memoir, Cheney recounts concerns about leaks to the press during the Bush administration and reveals that a source had spoken to Ignatius at the president’s instruction.

Coincidentally, in her 2023 memoir, Oath and Honor, Liz Cheney also references Ignatius’s December 26, 2020, Washington Post column that unveiled the “nightmare scenarios” Milley had envisioned. That evening, she notes, the column “caught my attention” as Ignatius, “a longtime journalist well-sourced at the Pentagon, reported that senior government officials feared Trump was ‘threatening to overstep the constitutional limits of his power.’” Cheney cites her discovery of Milley’s concerns in this article as the catalyst to her mobilization of all 10 living former Secretaries of Defense to sign a letter warning the current Defense Department leadership and President Trump to stay within bounds. Additionally, she reveals that when Robert Gates, a mentor to Milley, was approached to join this effort, he responded, “If Cheney’s on, I’m on.”

I Alone Can Fix It reports that on the evening of January 2, 2021, Milley was “tipped off” by a “former defense secretary” about an impending Washington Post opinion piece authored by those same 10 living former defense secretaries Liz Cheney mobilized for the purpose on the basis of Milley’s “nightmare scenario” fears. The book also notes that on January 7, 2021—the day after the chaotic events of January 6—Cheney called Milley to check in. “How are you doing?” he asked her. “That fucking guy Jim Jordan. That son of a bitch,” Cheney responded. What more might we learn about Milley’s interactions with Cheney in the days leading up to January 6? Surely, this was not their first conversation about the events that would ultimately unfold that day.
The January 6 Committee’s “Investigation”

In the months following January 6, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who previously had received assurances from Milley that he would not use the military for domestic purposes politically favorable to Trump, established the Select Committee on January 6 to “investigate” the day’s events. Remarkably, Liz Cheney was appointed vice chair of the panel, a position typically reserved for a member of the majority party.

According to a November 2022 Washington Post report, Cheney exerted a “remarkable level” of control over much of the committee’s work. Staffers, frustrated with Cheney’s insistence on centering the final report on President Trump, expressed concerns that important findings unrelated to Trump would be withheld from the public.

Consistent with Cheney’s objectives for the committee’s investigation, General Milley offered his own criticisms of President Trump. “You know, you’re the Commander-in-Chief,” he told the committee, “you’ve got an assault going on at the Capitol of the United States of America, and there’s nothing? No call? Nothing? Zero?”
Milley and McCarthy’s January 5 Memo

During his interview with the January 6 Committee, Milley explained that in preparation for January 6, the role of the D.C. National Guard was defined in a memorandum he described as “very strict on the use of the military.” Milley detailed how the memorandum prohibited the use of any riot control agents, stating, “We’re not doing it … and not only not doing it, you’re not going to have it. You’re not going to have the opportunity to use it.” Additionally, he mentioned that while such measures might be authorized under different circumstances on another day, they were explicitly forbidden “at that time, on this day.”

This directive was ultimately issued by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to Major General William Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, on January 5, 2021. Milley disclosed to the committee that he was actively involved in advising McCarthy on the memorandum, “line by line going through this, lining it out, editing, and stuff like that, resulting in this memo.”

The January 5 memo, carefully crafted by Milley and McCarthy, authorized 340 D.C. National Guard personnel to assist law enforcement with traffic control points and metro station support, and stationed 40 personnel at Joint Base Andrews to serve as the Guard’s Quick Reaction Force (QRF) in case of an emergency. However, this memo restricted General Walker from employing the QRF without explicit personal approval from Army Secretary McCarthy—a condition previously not imposed.

In March 2021, General Walker testified before the Senate Rules and Homeland Security Committee, stating that he had the authority to employ the Guard’s QRF before January 6 and described the new restrictions as “unusual.”

He also testified to the January 6 Committee about his inability to reach Secretary McCarthy on January 6, revealing that it was the first time he found the phone number he had for McCarthy to be out of service. Additionally, General Walker noted that Colonel Earl Matthews, who had McCarthy’s private number due to their social acquaintance, was also unable to reach him.

This breakdown in communication occurred just one day after McCarthy had issued the memorandum requiring General Walker to obtain explicit approval from him for employing the Guard’s QRF. What could possibly account for McCarthy’s unavailability during those critical hours? Did McCarthy somehow overlook the crucial role he had defined for himself with the new restrictions imposed just a day earlier?
Where’s McCarthy?

On January 6, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller approved the deployment of the D.C. National Guard by 3:04 p.m. The protocol then required Army Secretary McCarthy to convey this authorization to General Walker to enable the deployment of the D.C. National Guard. However, McCarthy never conveyed this authorization, resulting in the more than 3 hour delay.

The January 6 Committee’s final report states that after Defense Secretary Miller authorized the deployment at 3:04 p.m., Secretary McCarthy called General Walker, instructing him to “mobilize the entire Guard.” However, General Walker “categorically denies” receiving such a call. “Here’s the bottom line,” he said, “The Secretary was unavailable to me, and he never called me.”

It appears, however, that McCarthy changed his story after initially telling the committee that he had called General Walker. The committee’s final report addresses this inconsistency by detailing McCarthy’s actions and whereabouts on January 6 to explain the delay. It explains that starting around 3:00 p.m. on January 6—shortly after Defense Secretary Miller approved the Guard’s deployment at 3:04 p.m.—“25 minutes of Army Secretary McCarthy’s time was spent reassuring members of Congress that the Guard was indeed coming,” even though he had not yet conveyed the order to General Walker. The report continues, stating that by 3:45 p.m., McCarthy had completed his calls—none of which were to General Walker—and after picking up some items from his office, he headed to the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) headquarters to draft a concept of operations, a process that took an additional 20 minutes.

However, when Brigadier General Aaron Dean, another Defense Department witness who testified before the House Oversight Committee, was asked whether he ever saw the plan McCarthy claims to have prepared, he responded, “Not only did I not see the plan, but he was also at the wrong agency.” He elaborated that the lead federal agency for this particular event was the United States Capitol Police, and questioned why McCarthy was at MPD headquarters instead of coordinating with Capitol Police, who were responsible for the security of the Capitol.

The January 6 Committee report also touches on this oversight, noting that no plan from Army leaders ever made it to the troops. “If they came up with a plan, they never shared it with us,” General Walker said, “I never saw a plan from the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army.”

The committee’s report further states that by 4:35 p.m., McCarthy was ready to authorize the deployment of the Guard, but “miscommunication” led to yet another half-hour delay. McCarthy told the committee that he tried to issue the “go” order through his subordinate, General LaNeve—a claim General Walker disputes, insisting the call never occurred. McCarthy rationalized not communicating directly by stating he was at the time drafting his talking points for a planned press conference with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, explaining, “I wanted to get my thoughts collected.”

Authorization finally came at 5:09 p.m. during an ongoing video teleconference that had started at 2:30 p.m.. Defense Department witnesses present with General Walker on January 6 testified to the House Oversight Committee that General James McConville, Chief of Staff of the Army, mentioned during the conference that they had received authorization. Colonel Earl Matthews, who was present in the conference room next to General Walker, clarified that, “General McConville is not in the chain of command, so it wasn’t his order to give.” He added that General McConville was merely conveying that they were authorized to deploy. Matthews further specified that the actual authorization did not come from Secretary McCarthy but instead from Secretary Miller.
Who’s To Blame?

While the January 6 Committee admits that the delay in mobilizing the D.C. National Guard “seems unnecessary and unacceptable,” it attempts to rationalize and excuse McCarthy’s actions. The report suggests his preoccupation with making phone calls to members of Congress, gathering items from his office, crafting a supposed concept of operations that never reached the troops, and preparing remarks for a televised press conference as mitigating factors, justifying his absence from the day’s critical chain of command communications.

This communication breakdown, stemming from McCarthy, unfolded just one day after he, with General Milley’s input, issued the memorandum requiring General Walker to receive personal authorization from McCarthy to deploy the Guard. Despite these circumstances, the January 6 Committee concluded that the military’s processes that day were merely “imperfect” and found “no evidence that the delay was intentional.”

The January 6 Committee attributes the delay to “military processes, institutional caution, and a revised deployment approval process”—specifically, a process meticulously designed by Milley and McCarthy. Yet, the committee pins the blame on “Trump’s eagerness” to engage the U.S. military, alleging it compelled senior military leaders to take extreme “precautions” for the joint session. “Trump’s eagerness” must also have led McCarthy to remain completely unavailable to General Walker just one day after imposing restrictions that effectively stripped Walker of the authority to deploy the Guard without McCarthy’s explicit approval, thereby cementing the hours-long delay.

Never mind Milley’s explicitly stated mission to “fight” against the president “from the inside” and his intent to “plant flags”—intentions that appear to have materialized in the January 5 memo he meticulously outlined with McCarthy, directly undermining the D.C. National Guard’s ability to restore order that day.
Milley’s Insurrection

Milley’s perception of President Trump as a classic authoritarian leader, his willingness to entertain the possibility of Trump engaging in a “Reichstag moment,” and his fears of supposed “Trumpian Brown Shirts fomenting violence,” seems to have influenced his command decisions in the days and weeks leading up to the joint session. While Milley is entitled to his personal political prejudices, it raises the question of whether he lost sight of the fact these were, after all, just his own politically inspired opinions about the president. Did he believe his convictions were so righteous that they justified overstepping legal boundaries and authorizing actions that could be seen as undermining the president’s authority?

The chaotic events of January 6, exacerbated and prolonged by the National Guard’s delayed response, evidently served no benefit to Trump or his allies and instead significantly bolstered the objectives of his adversaries. It’s no wonder the January 6 Committee, which appears solely focused on preventing Trump from ever taking office again, shows little interest in highlighting that Milley, who swore an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States, embarked on a mission to defy the former Commander-in-Chief, and ultimately seems to have sabotaged President Trump on that day.