What We Know Now, Three Years Later

We just passed the third anniversary of what we are told was the worst attack on our country since Pearl Harbor, maybe since the Civil War. You know, that time hundreds of thousands of Americans attended a peaceful rally at the Capitol, and a few got out of hand, but they killed no one. Except, there was an unarmed young woman shot by Capitol police. And another woman was apparently beaten to death, but they blamed it on drugs to cover the facts. And zero officers or anyone else was killed by the protesters, but an officer who died the next day of unrelated natural causes was spun as a beating death by protesters. You remember that one? That really big lie?

Patriots gathered on January 6, 2021
screenshot from here

There were some things we knew within days, or at least a short time after that J6 2021 event. I wrote a piece on January 14, 2021, which I think stands up fairly well. Estimates of a million attendees have been reduced. I don’t know how many there really were, but at least several hundred thousand. The officer said to have died by being beaten was not. Officer Sicknick was fine all that day; he died the following day of a heart attack, which medically seems unrelated. There was an additional death of a woman in the crowd, Rosanne Boyland, that was not a medical event, but more likely a beating by some officers (other officers and crowd members tried to rescue her). But I wrote this conclusion to that piece, and I think it’s basically still proving true:

Based on what I’ve pieced together, I have what I think happened. I think the President called patriots to Washington to encourage the legislature to protest the electoral votes in the states known to have voting results that should not have been certified before the evidence was considered. I think a million people showed up to support him in doing that very thing. I think bad actors saw this as an opportunity to do damage to Trump and to his supporters. These include agent provocateurs, possibly Antifa and BLM, and also Pelosi and/or others who left the Capitol vulnerable, possibly by coordinating with those APs.

Several news outlets—the independent conservative ones—put out pieces this week, on or near the anniversary. They corroborate my assumptions from three years ago. And they add more evidence, and show how the regime has used this event as a weapon against their political enemies (We the People).

It Was a Trap

Tucker Carlson did an interview with Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana. You might remember Higgins from a year ago when he questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray about whether there were FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol building before the doors were opened to the public on January 6, 2021. It was a direct yes-or-no question. Director Wray obfuscated. Higgins said, “It should be no.” But the Director continued to claim he wasn’t allowed to divulge anything about how or when the FBI uses assets (informants, undercover agents).

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-Louisiana, asking questions of 
FBI Director Wray a year ago,
screenshot from here

Higgins didn’t ask that question in ignorance. He knew they had assets inside the Capitol before doors were opened—so they could guide the crowds to the areas where it would look like they had the most nefarious intent, such as the House Chamber or the Speaker’s office.

Here’s some of what Rep. Higgins told Tucker:

I’d seen evidence, even at that time, that the FBI had embedded themselves into various groups online, across the country, of Americans who were essentially voicing their concerns and airing their grievances with each other about COVID oppression. Those Americans were targeted by the FBI—almost universally Republicans and largely Trump supporters. But the FBI worked undercover to infiltrate those conversations and become a significant part of those individual Americans’ communications.

And when you dig into the evidence that we’ve had revealed through some criminal cases that I’ve followed, and worked with the families of J6 political detainees and Americans that have been persecuted for their involvement in the Capitol that day, some of that evidence shockingly reveals that the FBI agents that were operating undercover within the online groups across the country were the first ones to plant the seeds of suggestions of a more radical occupation of the Capitol. And they were sort of testing the waters of who amongst that group would begin acknowledging that, “You know, maybe we should do that. Maybe we should plan for an occupation like that.” But if you look at the origins of those conversations, they were started by the FBI undercover guy that was operating inside the group….

So Americans gathered at their own Capitol to appropriately air grievances and protest at their Capitol. But embedded amongst their number was an FBI asset that had been working from within their group online for many months. So this was the level of manipulative effort that the FBI invested into American citizenry and our assembly online to exercise our rights under the First Amendment, to talk to each other about whatever we want to talk about, including the insidious oppressions of COVID that we were suffering across the country.

Tucker pointed out that this is entrapment. Indeed. Later Tucker asked how many FBI assets are we talking about: 10? 20?

Rep. Higgins says no, and gives a much higher number:

No. Based upon some very conservative but, like, hard investigative effort—evaluation of the numbers, from putting together eyewitnesses, and videos and affidavit statements, and whistleblower statements, and court records that have been revealed through individual criminal cases where J6 defendants have been prosecuted and smart attorneys have forced admissions by the DOJ and the FBI. But those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by protective order, by the judge, so that I can’t share them, but I’ve seen them. So, real hard objective and conservative estimates would put the number of FBI assets in the crowd outside and working inside at well over 200.

Rep. Clay Higgins talks with Tucker Carlson,
screenshot from here

In that huge crowd, there was violence. And I don’t mean in any way to minimize that. But violence was the goal of the instigators. And yet, after all the persecutions and prosecutions, they’ve come up with almost no cases of violence—and zero cases of insurrection, as of last March. Robert Gouveia had gone through court records and put together a list. There may still be more cases coming, as persecutions will continue “until morale improves.”

Even among those listed cases, most would be thrown out if they were held anywhere but in a DC court, where impartial juries are about as common as unicorns. But, if I understand Gouveia's March 2023 numbers, there were a total number of 950 people (in fact, I think they hit the 1,000 mark recently) charged with a total of 1774 crimes, 90% of which are “entering the Capitol,” regardless of being invited in by police, so there was no intent to do wrong, and misdemeanor trespass is the most you could charge. Only two categories are violent, both of which could also apply to not-actually-violent or not-seriously-violent offenses (flag poles and even water bottles were considered weapons; no guns or knives were found). But we’ll count them. There are a total of 383 of these. That’s 21.6% of the total charges filed.

If we use Rep. Higgins conservative 200 figure (he believes it’s much higher), FBI assets' numbers were 21% of those 950 people charged. Not that they charged, of course. But comparing numbers, it took almost a ratio of one FBI asset for every five people they were able to urge into the Capitol or appear to do something wrong.

We don't have numbers of how many were trying to prevent the provocateurs from stirring things up. It's a safe assumption, I believe, that no violence would have taken place without the FBI’s agent provocateurs.

Fascist Oppression Stories

The Epoch Times put out a Part II of their documentary on The Real Story of January 6; it came live on the anniversary, this past Saturday. [You might want to start with Part I from July, and they have other coverage as well.] Reporter Joseph Hanneman covers a lot of stories. A number of them are what we’d call typical American patriots who are being persecuted by our government, as if we were a fascist regime. 

There’s the Munn family, five of them, parents and teenage daughters, who went to the Capitol that day, from their home in Texas. They had big questions about the nefarious elections (as we all still do) and went there to hear President Trump and voice their grievances. They were not violent. They got caught up in a crowd moving toward and into the Capitol. They were smashed up against a window that had already been taken out. So the dad crawled through and helped the others through, and their plan was to find a safe place to wait out the storm of people, and then get out. They are being labeled domestic terrorists. Their case, at this point, is that they are on probation. They lost their jobs and have had to drive hours away to get employment. They have received death threats. So they are moving to another state, pending permission from probation officers at each end. 

They were raided by a SWAT team in the early morning, and forced out without getting any belongings or even being allowed to dress. They found later that the FBI had planted listening devices in the home, which they discovered by accident, because the devices were interfering with their internet.

This device was discovered by the Munn family in their home. Reporter
Joseph Hanneman had a former-FBI friend identify it.
screenshot from here

Huge resources were diverted from all other focuses of the FBI to the “domestic terrorist threat.” There were whistleblowers, who tried to go through all the proper channels, and were terminated for doing so, but their testimonies nevertheless got to Congress. They have faced loss of their careers, loss of their belongings (one was in the middle of a move, and the government confiscated his stored belongings). They reported that, while there are appropriate times for using a SWAT team, that should never happen with non-violent people, particularly people who are cooperating with investigators. And yet this is what they were being ordered to do.

There was one story of a man who was at the Capitol on J6, Ronald Colt McAbee, now held for two years, before finally getting a trial, which will be appealed. Since he was non-violent and not a flight risk, they expected him to get out on bond, but the judge rejected that request. His wife wasn’t allowed to see him or talk with him, but just recently she was able to visit him for an hour. He was a trained police officer there that day, and did what he could to prevent damage. He was one who tried to help Rosanne Boyland when she was dying. For that he was charged with obstruction or some such “danger” to the country.

J6 prisoner Colt McAbee with his wife,
screenshot from here

These cases aren’t over. By calling them domestic terrorists, the prisoners lose their rights as Americans. That’s why the designation is being used. This was intended for actual terrorists, acting as nonuniformed combatants, a designation intended for war times when enemies infiltrate as spies.

Speaking of misusing intended laws, calling this event an insurrection is a huge lie. Insurrection is making war against the country—essentially instigating civil war, trying to overthrow the government. That is what the 14^th Amendment referred to, to prevent leaders of the Confederacy from shortly afterward trying to become President of the nation they had insurrected against. What happened on January 6^th, despite the instigated violence, was the most pitiful attempt at insurrection in the history of nations. No weapons. No interference with official proceedings, even, which simply concluded later the same evening. No government officials harmed or even endangered. And even what happened seemed to have been staged—and lied about to look worse—by the Deep State.

When Tucker asked Rep. Higgins who was behind it, he said this:

The combination of several of the most extreme liberal, anti-Trump, anti-America-First factions that were in positions of authority within our federal law enforcement organizations and the Democrat party across the country.

It will be a matter of finding these factions and rooting them out. That is the only way to get our country back, because right now we are under their fascist dictatorship. Higgins points out that, even though they can recommend charges in Congress, they depend on the Department of Justice to carry out prosecutions. And the current DOJ is complicit in the whole mess.

Death That Fateful Day

There was another video this week, updating information about Ashli Babbitt. Her estate (I believe her husband and parents) have filed a wrongful death lawsuit. And it has some useful information in discovery. The video is Greg Kelly, for Newsmax, January 5, 2024. Kelly has followed this case for a while, and brings out several details from the lawsuit.

Ashli Babbitt was guided by police to the door where she was eventually killed,
screenshot from here

He showed video of Ashli, peacefully walking to the Capitol after the conclusion of the President’s speech at the ellipse near the White House. Kelly says:

First of all, you saw Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. We’ve showed you this picture before. She’s not an insurrectionist. She went to engage in well-protected First Amendment speech and to see President Trump. She was at that ellipse rally, which is peaceful, which was calm. And then with others. Yeah, she walked over to the Capitol. Walked over. It wasn’t a stampede. It wasn’t a raid. She walked peacefully to the Capitol. 

And this is new. You see, nobody knew actually how she got in there. We still haven’t seen the videotape. But we know this: She didn’t break in. She wasn’t part of a crew that broke windows and stormed in. We know this: two undercover Metropolitan Police Department officers followed close behind Ashli as she climbed the stairs to the West Terrace. Two undercover Metropolitan Police Department officers were there. Why didn’t they stop her? If she were a threat? You know what? She wasn’t a threat. 

And everybody was walking in at one point on January 6th. Ashli entered the Capitol on the Senate side long after others had done so. Once inside, according to the lawsuit, Ashli encountered a female Capitol Police officer who directed her to walk south towards the House side. And you know what? Everything I found in this lawsuit corresponds to other evidence we’ve already seen. Here’s Ashli Babbitt, walking through the rotunda, and you know what? She actually does look just like a tourist. Yeah. Peacefully. Listening to law enforcement. Following their instructions.

There’s an oddity Kelly shows video of, at the door to the House chamber, where Ashli was ultimately shot. There are three officers there, standing near the doors, protecting the House chamber from being entered. There’s a big crowd there, seeming agitated. (We’ve seen video of agent provocateurs among them before.) These three officers, “First, Officer Kyle Yetter on the left, Sergeant Timothy Lively in the middle, and Officer Christopher Lanciano on the right.” They have been ordered to guard the door. But then, with the crowd there, the three suddenly, and quite casually, leave. For a coffee break? Why?

Three Capitol Police officers who were guarding the door
left the scene just before the door window was broken.
screenshot from here

As soon as they leave, there is a guy who begins pounding on the window in the door, and breaks it. This is the window Ashli Babbitt is stepping through when she is shot and killed.

She has no weapon. She is not dangerous looking, as a trim, 5’5” female. She’s off balance, working her way through the window, with a backpack on. An officer on the inside (since the officers, who were treating her and the others outside as non-threatening, had left) could have quickly flex cuffed her, held her aside to deal with later, and dealt with anyone else who came through the window—which would have been one unarmed person at a time.

That would have been normal police procedure. But that is not what was done.

Lt. Michael Byrd is shown in video, earlier, weapon drawn while walking through the House Chamber. This is already against protocol. There is no reason at that point to have a gun drawn. The doors are locked. The House members have been evacuated. Who is he drawing his weapon to fire on? The lawsuit quotes Capitol police policy: “Firearms may be withdrawn from their holsters only when officers are preparing for its expected, prudent, and lawful discharge, to protect themselves or others from imminent death or serious physical injury.”

 

Lt. Byrd is shown on video in the House Chamber with gun drawn,
screenshot from here

Ashli Babbitt wasn’t a threat of imminent death to anyone. No one heard Byrd give any warning. No, “Stop or I’ll shoot.” Nothing.

Sometime later he sat down with Lester Holt on a news program, and, as Greg Kelly points out, probably incriminated himself.

Holt: “When you fired, what could you see? Where were you aiming?”

Byrd: You’re taught to aim for center mass. The subject was sideways, and I could not see her full motion of her hand or anything. So I guess her movement, you know, caused the discharge to fall where it did.”

He didn’t see her hands, so there was no mistaking something for a gun; he admits he saw no gun. There had been no reports of guns or weapons used elsewhere that day. There was no expectation that she would have one. And she wasn’t in a position to use one anyway. He wasn’t in imminent danger. He didn’t give warning. He used lethal force at close range, hitting her in the head. And he got praised and promoted for this act of murder.

There’s more. Byrd told investigators that there were 80-90 people he was protecting in the House Chamber; there were only about 6, all officers plus a couple of House members with military experience. So he was either woefully unaware of his surroundings or he lied.

One minute after shooting Ashli Babbitt, at 2:45 PM, according to the lawsuit, Byrd made a radio call saying this: “We got shots fired in the lobby. We got shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber. Shots are being fired at us. And we’re prepared to fire back at them. We have guns drawn. Please don’t leave that end.”

Transcript of the radio call from Lt. Byrd one minute
after shooting Ashli Babbitt,
screenshot from here

This implies that the officers were being fired upon. That is a lie. There was only one shot fired: Byrd shot Ashli Babbitt. This call makes it appear he recognized he had made a bad shoot and was trying to cover it up by claiming it was necessary in a wild shootout.

Byrd has a history of misuse of his firearm—besides once leaving it in a public restroom. Discovery in the lawsuit reveals that he fired while off duty. As Kelly tells it,

Well one day, when he was off duty, his car was stolen. According to the lawsuit, Byrd just started shooting at the car: “Lieutenant Byrd’s police powers also were revoked for a prior off-duty shooting into a stolen moving vehicle in which the occupants were teenagers or juveniles.” The stolen vehicle was Lieutenant Byrd’s car.

That’s not the way you use deadly force. Might be tempting, certainly for— But not for a law enforcement officer. You don’t start shooting at a car that was stolen. Not if you’re a professional law enforcement officer.

And then there’s this: “Lieutenant Byrd fired multiple shots at the fleeing vehicle in a suburban area. Stray bullets from Lieutenant Byrd’s firearm struck the sides of homes nearby. An official investigation found that Lieutenant Byrd’s use of force was not justified.” So we had a record of this. Yet he was still employed by the Capitol Hill police. That’s a problem.

There’s more, certainly, that could be told about J6. And eventually maybe it will be. What we thought happened three years ago, there’s more and mounting evidence for: peaceful Americans were set up to be blamed for violence; when not enough violence happened, the tyrants persecuted the peaceful Americans anyway.

We are in a fascist tyranny. We might be able to recover our country. If so, it will take some brave standing up against the bullies. And it will have to happen this year, while we still have plenty of memory of our freedoms.

"Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes" They Tell You

By now, if you haven’t seen Tucker Carlson’s Monday night report on the video surveillance tapes from the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, then you must only be watching MSM. In which case, how did you end up here?

So you don’t need me to show you that report. But for the sake of my chronicling what’s going on, I’m going to point out what we already knew (early post here) and what was new in Tucker’s report.

Tucker stated quite boldly that the January 6 Select Committee are liars. Yes, he used the “L” word. The video proves it. This was not a violent insurrection—a betrayal of our country. It was hundreds of thousands of people who were there to protest and never did anything else—no violence, no breaking and entering.

There were hundreds, possibly a thousand, who entered the capitol. The overwhelming majority of these entered peacefully, walked around respectfully, did no damage, obeyed police officers who had ushered them in, and then left, still peacefully.

And then there were a small number, maybe 100 or so, who were violent—but unarmed—who fought police officers, broke windows, and did some relatively minor vandalism. Among these were an unknown number of government assets, hired agent provocateurs, who it appears were inciting the crowds and fomenting violence.

What Tucker showed was not, as Chuck Schumer claims, the big lie that there was no violence that day. Clearly there was some violence. It should have been anticipated better, perhaps, because there were permits granted for the large outdoor protest. Extra help was offered, and requested by some Capitol Police, but denied by Nancy Pelosi who oversaw Capitol security as House Speaker, and Muriel Bowser, the mayor of the city surrounding the Capitol. They didn’t want National Guard troops, “because of optics,” they said—until afterwards, when they wanted things to look like martial law, I guess.

Tucker focuses mainly on three examples.

 

Jacob Chansley, The QAnon Shaman

First there is the guy known as the QAnon Shaman, Jacob Chansley. According to Carlson, the video footage shows his entire time within the Capitol building. It shows him—never violent—being escorted to the Senate Chamber by Capitol Police. There were as many as nine officers around him. There was no crowd he was leading; most of the shots show multiple armed police and just him. So the argument that police were simply acquiescing to de-escalate possible mob violence seems impossible to square with what we see. Not one officer tries to stop him. They try various doors for him. Once inside the Senate Chamber, he prays aloud, thanking Heavenly Father for inspiring the Capitol Police to help guide him in. He saw them as his allies.

Jacob Chansley, called the QAnon Shaman, surrounded by Capitol Police,
who guided him into the Senate Chamber on January 6, 2021.
screenshot from here

It must have been very distressing to him, after that peaceful exchange with officers, to suddenly be prosecuted for violent insurrection. And it was his word against the prosecutors—because they would not provide this footage to his defense team. For all he knew, they were going to railroad him into a 20-year prison sentence if he didn’t plead guilty. And isn’t it handy for them, in their other prosecutions, to have this “admission of guilt” from the public face of the so-called insurrection?

Now that we have seen the video, it is obvious he should not have pleaded guilty; he should have been allowed to use the video to prove that he wasn’t guilty. His ongoing imprisonment is a grave injustice that should be rectified immediately. How that can happen is another question.

Robert Gouveia talked about that on his law vlog. He said after a plea deal and sentencing, it is nigh unto impossible to take back the guilty plea and call for a mistrial. But there could be something called post sentencing relief. Chansley’s current lawyer talks about that in this interview. 

Along with the lawyer in that interview is Chansley’s mother, who explains that her son had heard there were people who had gone into the Senate Chamber, and he thought he could de-escalate them, calm them down, and had offered to help the Capitol Police do that, which could plausibly explain the way they are seen escorting him, and there being other people in the Senate Chamber when he enters and offers his prayer.

What we know—and can see—that Chansley did not do was attempt a violent insurrection. He remained calm. He was never violent. He took some selfies in the Chamber, and then left with the others who had gone in there. He harmed no one, and Senate business reconvened and completed that evening.

 

Officers Down

One of the continuing lies is that this “violent insurrection” resulted in the deaths of five police officers at the Capitol that day. That is a bit of an exaggeration; the actual number is zero. The main one mentioned was Officer Brian Sicknick. They said he was bludgeoned to death, with a teargas canister to the head, in the crowd outside the Capitol, dying from his injuries the following day.

We knew very quickly afterward that this wasn’t true. He did indeed die the next day—from a stroke, apparently unrelated to the violence that day. There was no head trauma, according to the medical examiner’s report.

Jan. 6 was no doubt a stressful day. But the new video shows Office Sicknick walking through the capitol building, clearly healthy and vigorous—well after the time he was supposed to have been beaten by the crowd outside. And he is wearing a helmet, belying the head trauma narrative.

Officer Brian Sicknick is seen well and vital, directing traffic
within the Capitol, after supposedly being killed by rioters.
screenshot from here

His death was used for political purposes; it was their “proof” that the “insurrectionists” were violent. They had him lie in state—as a political prop. He didn’t die of violence that day. He wasn’t injured by violence that day. He communicated with family members later in the day, completely fine. And now the surveillance video verifies that long-known story. Yet Biden and others still claim he was violently killed by the angry mob, along with multiple other officers.

There were no other officers that died that day either, nor from injuries in subsequent days. There were a handful who died—of suicide—sometime later, some of them many months later. What we don’t have is a demographic comparison to know whether that number of suicides is a high number for any similar period of time. We also don’t have suicide notes or any other details linking those suicides to Jan. 6.

If all the video surveillance tape were allowed to be viewed on the internet, no doubt there are people who could use AI and face recognition software to follow Brian Sicknick’s movements the entire day. They could do that with a whole lot of people, including those who might have been instigators—agent provocateurs—who just happen to be the only ones known to have done the stirring up of the crowd but not charged.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who gave the exclusive access to Tucker Carlson and team, says he plans for all of the surveillance video to be made public online, so people can see for themselves. Also, he pointed out that there are many more hours of footage than the 14,000 we were told. I have heard 41,000 hours, which switches the numbers around, so I wasn’t sure whether that was just a typo, but McCarthy puts the number at 42,000+ hours, and asserts that this is a lot more than we were originally told.

Also, this video footage does not compromise security at the Capitol. Tucker Carlson’s team ran their clips by the Capitol Police to verify that they weren’t endangering any security. They cooperated fully. The only instance of a change they made was to blur out a particular door. I did notice one blurred door. An officer tries it and then turns to guide Chansley another way. There is a stairway in the background. It looked to me like the location where Ashley Babbitt was killed, although I have no way to verify that. And I don’t know whether this was after that happened. It might have been, because I think she would have been the first to enter. So the blur blocked what would have been broken glass in that door or next to it. If that was the reason, then the location of that camera or any other does not endanger security just by the public seeing it.

 

Agent Provocateurs

This brings us to the third main story from Carlson Monday night: Ray Epps. We know his name. We’ve seen video of him, from the day before, insisting to a crowd that they would need to go into the capitol the next day. People in the crowd, suspicious of him, call out, “Fed! Fed! Fed!”

He had been, for a time, on the FBI’s most wanted list. And then he wasn’t. Investigators had flown to Alaska to interrogate a woman who had been at the rally but never even walked to the capitol (mistaken identity, which she fortunately was able to prove, both by photograph and by phone data). But Ray Epps, known to have been stirring up the crowd, was considered an ally of the Jan. 6 Committee for some reason.

It was known that he had texted a relative, a nephew, boasting that he had orchestrated the crowd that attacked the Capitol that day.

He was so publicly known that the Jan. 6 Committee had to bring him in to testify. They asked him leading questions, to get to the narrative they wanted, which for some reason was that he was harmless and uninvolved, despite evidence to the contrary. In his testimony, he said he never even heard the crowd call “Fed! Fed!” around him. And he claimed he had thought the Capitol would be open for tours, which is why he called for people to go in. He claimed that he never even went into the Capitol on the day of. He left the speech early, to see if he could help with crowd control, and left his companions, whom he claimed he needed to locate. And then he left, inexplicably without them.

But there was that text. He claimed that was nothing, really. Exaggerating his helpfulness in crowd control or something. And that it was after he’d already left the Capitol and gone back to his hotel. Except that video shows him still at the Capitol for a full half hour after sending that inflammatory text.

Yet the Committee defended him, for motives we can only suppose. Why claim he is just an innocent bystander while imprisoning actual innocent bystanders?

And how many actual agent provocateurs were there that day?

Another likely one is John Sullivan, an Antifa member who claimed he was only there to chronicle the day, as a self-styled reporter. (I wrote about him here.) Mr. Reagan podcast reminds us that Sullivan’s original hour-long footage shows Sullivan’s view inside the Capitol. People are walking through respectfully. Sullivan calls for burning and destroying, but people resist and shut him down. No burning. No defacing statues. They prevent any damage, rather than being fomented into it. Despite Sullivan’s efforts to the contrary, the people there respected their government and were not trying to overthrow it, let alone do so violently.

Clip of John Sullivan's footage inside the Capitol on J6
records him urging destruction, but people shut him down.
screenshot from here

 

Mostly Peaceful

Robert Gouveia has done some math and charts to show that this was “mostly peaceful.” Using the conviction records, he’s got this list:

Total Crimes:	950
Violent—Impeding, Resisting, Assaulting:	284	29.89%
Violent—Weapon or Serious Injury:	99	10.42%
Entering the Capitol:	860	90.53%
Entering the Capitol—Weapon:	91	9.58%
Destruction of Government Property:	59	6.21%
Theft of Government Property:	36	3.79%
Corruptly Obstructing:	295	31.05%
Conspiracy:	50	5.26%
Insurrection:	0	0%

 

And he put them into this pie chart for perspective:

Robert Gouveia charts the conviction records of January 6, 2021.
screenshot from here

There’s some explanation that is helpful. Total charges do not equal total number of people charged; people were often charged with more than one supposed crime. 90.53% of all charges were for entering the Capitol, which means the total number of people charged would be very close to 860. This is out of the several hundred thousand, possibly a million, people who attended the rally. And it’s close to the estimate of about 1000 people who entered the Capitol that day. And we now see footage that most of those people did nothing worse than trespass—and most of those at the invitation of Capitol Police.

We know that weapons charges did not include any firearms. Zero. They counted things like flagpoles and water bottles as weapons. It may be that some people, particularly in the melee outside, may have used anything at hand as a weapon, including flagpoles and water bottles. But inside the Capitol—have you seen any footage of anyone using a flagpole as a weapon? Aiming a pointy top at a police officer perhaps? They have had all the footage. They have had facial recognition and any other tools available to them. But they haven’t shown flagpoles being used as weapons. I wonder why.

So, of those 90% who were charged with entering, under 100 were charged with carrying a weapon, whether they used it or not. Under 60 did damage to or stole government property; if they did those things, those are legitimate charges.

Of those who assaulted officers—no more than 284, since that number includes simply impeding or resisting officers’ orders—those would be legitimate charges but not necessarily violent. Many of these altercations happened outside, with police throwing teargas into the crowds, escalating rather than de-escalating the situation.

Conspiracy is rather vague. Was it planning to meet up with friends at the rally? Or was it planning to do damage and harm? Out of the 860 or so people charged, only 50 of them were charged with conspiracy. And we’re not yet privy to the evidence.

For insurrection, zero charges. Of the 860 or so people charged with entering the Capitol, plus possibly something else, zero were charged with insurrection.

It’s hard to claim there was an insurrection when there is no evidence to charge anyone with insurrection. Not one.

The worst attack on our “democracy” since the Civil War seems a bit of an exaggeration, according to the numbers. It appears Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the anti-Trump team tried to stage an insurrection—because that charge carries the weight of preventing running for public office—but the enormous America-loving crowd simply couldn’t be goaded into insurrecting, drat them!

It looks as though footage of actual violence—and there was some—was more cherrypicked than the footage Tucker Carlson showed, which coincides more with the numbers given by the government’s charging documents, which we know in themselves exaggerate what actually happened.

Chuck Schumer, in his fuming response on Tuesday, fails to explain how Carlson selectively edited the video by adding peaceful moments galore, but the Committee did not selectively edit by showing only the violent moments to create a narrative that the evidence does not bear out.

Among liars, when faced with mounting evidence of their falsehoods, most give in and admit to the lie. It’s too hard to keep it up when everyone knows better than to believe you. But there are some liars who double down, fume, blame the messenger, and insist that you believe them rather than your own eyes.

This is the type of liar we are facing. They wield power in our government. They are indeed swamp creatures. We need them gone so we can get our country back. And truth seems to be the best weapon. You can tell by how much they fear it.

 

Worth Viewing

·        Tucker Carlson Tonight, March 6, 2023. 

·        Tucker Carlson Tonight, March 7, 2023. 

·        “Tucker Carlson on Jan. 6 video: ‘I know DECEPTION when I see it’”—Glenn Beck interviews Tucker Carlson, March 8, 2023. 

·        “January 6th Conviction Records DESTROY Fictional Narrative” Robert Gouveia law vlog March 9, 2023. 

·        “January 6th Tapes DESTROY Insurrection Narratives and Politicians FREAK” Robert Gouveia law vlog March 7, 2023. 

·        “Tucker: The government hid this from you about Jan 6”—Tucker Carlson interviews Martha Chansley and her son’s attorney, Fox News, March 9, 2023. 

·        “New Jan. 6 Footage Shows Falsehoods in Mainstream Narrative; Trump Proposes Freedom Cities”—Joshua Philipp on Crossroads for EpochTV, March 7, 2023. 

·        “The Real Story of January 6 Documentary” EpochTV, premiering (again) March 10, 2023. 

·        “As the January 6 'Insurrection' Narrative COLLAPSES, Media & Politicians DOUBLE DOWN!” Viva Frei vlog, March 8, 2023. 

·        “The Stuff Tucker Can't Talk About” Mr. Reagan podcast, March 10, 2023. 

·        “BREAKING : Previously Unseen January 6thFootage” @StevenVoiceOver, March 7, 2023. This is satire, for your entertainment. 

So Many Things They Know That Aren’t So

image found here

That Reagan quote is our theme today. We're applying it to Friday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court and Thursday's anniversary of the January 6, 2021, difference of opinions.

 

SCOTUS on Mandates

This past Friday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the vaccine mandate cases, both for OSHA and for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding. The first took two hours; the second, more tailored case, was an hour and a half. You’re welcome to listen to all of it. But I’ll go over some of the highlights, and the commentary on those highlights.

Notable is the way the nine justices appear. Three do not wear masks; six do. Note that all are triple-vaxxed (two vaccine doses plus booster). Everyone had to have a clear COVID test to enter. Therefore, theoretically, there was no reason to wear a mask in a sparsely populated, well-ventilated room—unless you assume the vaccines and tests do not work and a person with no symptoms can spread the disease.

The three who don’t wear masks—Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—ask questions about constitutional authority. Where does the government have power to do what it’s doing?

The three Democrat appointees all wear masks—and Sotomayor was additionally tuned in remotely. I couldn’t see this; I’m using a description from Robert Barnes from the Viva & Barnes Sunday night livestream. So I’m further confounded that someone might think she could get the disease over the internet. Is this an old person misunderstanding about computer viruses?

Crankshaft comic of January 8, 2022, found in the Houston Chronicle

Anyway, these three do not seem interested in the law, or the Constitution, or authority. They simply put forward the notion that the government can do whatever it deems necessary, because—crisis! Extraordinary times; extraordinary measures.

The remaining three middling justices, with masks, asked questions that made it seem, according to Barnes, they were all focused on, “Isn’t this a little too much?”

So mask wearing—or at least lack of it—might be an indicator of constitutional understanding, just as it seems to be out in the general population.

The description of mask wearing, by the way, was different, according to Amy Howe on SCOTUS Blog, where she says all of the eight present wore masks except Gorsuch. And she noted that two of the lawyers also participated remotely. So I don’t know whether the mask is the true indicator. But the division of three segments of justices seems apt.

Politifact tweet, January 7, 2022
image found here

Sotomayor was the most embarrassing to the Court. Even Politifact rated her exaggerations as “very false.” She tried claiming:

We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators!!!!!

Exclamations points are my addition. The fact is, there have only been 83,000 children hospitalized with COVID since the pandemic began. And Fauci last week noted that we still do not differentiate between hospitalized for COVID and hospitalized with COVID. Everyone admitted to a hospital for any reason these days is given a COVID test. If they test positive (and false positives are still common), then they are listed as a COVID case, even when asymptomatic. So a child with a broken leg could be considered a COVID case. Many children, particularly during the Delta and Omicron phases, have had COVID, but most are mild and may not even be tested. So, yes, there are cases. But an illness that is milder for children that the flu ought not to cause a justice of the Supreme Court to clutch her pearls in a panic.

According to federal data, under 5,000 children with a positive COVID test were in hospitals in this country. Again, that’s “with,” not necessarily hospitalized “because of” COVID. The CDC said Friday that 4 in 100,000 children admitted to hospitals are infected with COVID—maybe that’s the factoid she twisted. The CDC’s Dr. Rochelle Walensky added, “We have not yet seen a signal that there is any increased severity in this age demographic.” She also noted that similar worries about the Delta variant had proved to be unfounded.

There was more need of fact-checking. Sotomayor also claimed, “Omicron is as deadly as Delta." Not so. South Africa got through their entire wave with possibly zero deaths from the variant, as of mid-December. Cases skyrocketed and then dropped.

Southern Africa has been improving for weeks, meaning
its peak has passed. Data from here, January 9, 2022.

Other countries are now going through the precipitous rise in cases. In our area, so many people have been coming down with it that we closed church on Sunday. I’ve known many who have had it lately—many more lately than I’ve known during the rest of the whole pandemic. But I know no one needing hospitalization. During earlier variants I did know of several hospitalized cases. So I think we’re in the Omicron wave now. But death from COVID tends to appear late—after weeks of treatment. So current deaths could still be from the Delta variant. That data is extrapolated from spot testing; not everyone knows what variant they have. But the milder symptoms and quick spread right now mean it’s probably Omicron.

Omicron is at least as easy to deal with through early treatment as earlier variants. And that information doesn’t even appear in the SCOTUS hearings.

There’s another detail I’m wondering about: if the wave lasted about four weeks in South Africa, and is already well underway here, then getting vaccinated now would still leave you vulnerable during the coming few weeks. Getting a shot might even make you more vulnerable. So why the continued push for vaccination?

Anecdote for our times: I’m familiar with someone trying to bring his fiancée over from Ukraine. She had COVID a month or so ago. In Ukraine they seem to be aware that, while your natural antibodies are very high from just having had the disease, you shouldn’t get a vaccine; that’s not helpful and possibly dangerous. So she has to keep going back for tests until her antibodies go down (and, by the way, they go down in the current active state but remain in memory cells, so she’ll still have immunity), because the US won’t allow her in without being fully vaccinated.

Here’s what the Democrat-appointed justices seem to believe:

·         COVID-19 is as dangerous and likely to cause death as smallpox or Ebola.

·         It is just as dangerous to children as adults and elderly.

·         Nothing works against this dangerous pathogen except vaccines—and three shots are much better than two—or more if deemed necessary later.

·         The vaccines guarantee immunity and spreading. Except from the unvaccinated; you can still get it from them.

·         The unvaccinated spew the pathogen wherever they roam, killing off people in their wake, whether they have the disease or not.

·         If the justices are personally fearful of a pathogen, then certainly that is reason enough to favor granting any and all power to the federal government to take whatever measures the elite bureaucrats deem necessary.   

Of course COVID-19 has never been dangerous to most of the population. Most deaths have occurred in people over 80 with co-morbidities. Some deaths have occurred in younger people with serious co-morbidities, so it has been concerning. But this is the first time we’ve tried quarantining the healthy who are not at risk.

About 98% of the vulnerable population are vaccinated at this point. But there have been treatments available—and most effective are early treatments—at least since April 2020. The vaccines should never have gotten emergency use authorization status, because other effective treatments were available. The treatments were censored and derided—so that vaccines could be pushed. Whoever did this was content to have hundreds of thousands of people die unnecessarily so they could push a vaccine.

And the vaccine they pushed wasn’t a traditional vaccine that gives immunity; it was merely something that might somewhat increase a person’s antibodies for a time. It doesn’t prevent getting the virus, so they started saying the vax is necessary to have a milder case. But a vaccinated person can still get the virus and spread it. A person with natural immunity cannot get it or spread it (except, all bets are off with Omicron, which might be a step toward being a new virus, such as we have with other common cold coronaviruses). And yet people with natural immunity are as likely to be shunned for not also getting vaccinated as are those who have managed to stay well two years into this without contracting it (because their Vitamin D levels are high enough?) and do not want to be forced to take an emergency use vaccine.

Regardless of what those three justices think, vaccines have never been mandated without exemptions for religious or health reasons. Vaccines that are experimental have never been mandated—and should not be; it is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. And these vaccines neither prevent getting ill nor spreading the disease.

If it’s this easy for me to get all this information, why are these justices so ignorant?

Viva Frei is Canadian, so not fully aware of which judges were appointed by which party, etc. He put it this way:

But the questions and the hyperbole coming from the judges was what you would expect to hear from a bad lawyer, not from the highest decision-makers in the world, in the country. And it’s hyperbolic. And it’s grotesquely ignorant. And it’s the highest, allegedly, supposed to be the most informed, most educated people in the land, who are going to be making these decisions for the rest of the country.

Later in the livestream, Viva and Barnes were looking at a bit of Supreme Court history, treading carefully not to make the wild Nazi comparison, and then came back to the vaccine mandate discussion. Robert Barnes added this scathing assessment:

Frankly, this started in Britain and the US. The ideas for eugenics and social Darwinism were British and American ideas. The Nazis always cited British and American authorities. Particularly, like, I’m waiting for somebody in one of these vaccine mandate cases that gets to SCOTUS to just go after them on this issue. To say, “The last time you got high and mighty on when you thought public health authorities should be completely deferred to was when you said three generations of imbeciles was enough in order to force sterilizations that became the law of the land for 50 years, that led to forced sterilizations of poor women all across the country. So maybe you should be a little bit more careful, before you get up on your high horse about what you think medicine is, before you take off that black robe and put on that white lab coat and pretend that your professional class compadres are the ones who should dictate and direct public health policy in America. Because you have a long history of being atrocious at it. Abominable at it.” The ideas for eugenics came from America. The Nazis copied American laws and American policies and American principles—and their number one source of authority was the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here are some other sources related to the oral arguments:

·       “Left-leaning fact-checker nails Justice Sotomayor over wildly false claim about children, COVID-19” Chris Enloe for The Blaze, January 9, 2022. 

·       “’Many on Ventilators’—Justice Sotomayor Falsely Claims Over 100,000 Children in Serious Condition Because of Covid” Jeff Rizzone for The DC Weekly, January 7, 2022. 

·       “Live Q&A: Judge Refuses FDA Request, Gives 8 Months for Pfizer Data; Trump Social Network Nears” Joshua Philipp on Crossroad Highlights, January 9, 2022. 

·       “30 States Oppose Biden Vaccine Mandate, Via SCOTUS Brief of Family Councils” by Joseph Menslage for Katy Christian Magazine, January 4, 2022. 

·     

 

January 6^th Anniversary

That was enough for a full post. But the other example of ridiculous beliefs from last week was the January 6^th anniversary, which deserves a mention. Alas, my resolution to write shorter posts fails already. Anyway, first enjoy this celebration from The Babylon Bee:

·         “10 Fun Ways to Celebrate January 6 This Year” The Babylon Bee, January 5 2022. 

The most unlikable politician in history, VP Kamala Harris, gave the speech of lies: 

Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them—where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. December 7th, 1941. September 11th, 2001. And January 6th, 2021.

Let’s do a chart:

Event	Deaths	Those Who Caused Deaths
Pearl Harbor bombing	2,335 military personnel killed 1,143 wounded	Japanese declaring war against us
9/11/2001 attacks at World Trade Center and Pentagon	2,977 people were killed 6,000+ injured	Islamist terrorists continuing a war they declared against us
1/6/2021	1 protestor killed, 4 rally participants died of natural causes*	Capitol Police

 

Here’s what they seem to believe, or want us to believe:

·       All Trump supporters are insurrectionists, trying to overthrow the country.

·       Anyone who attended the Trump rally on January 6th participated in insurrection.

·       The reason people were at the capitol was to stop the official proceedings being carried out by Congress

·       They wanted to overturn a free and fair election of the people by staging a coup.

·       Trump instigated the insurrection and signaled people to attack the capitol.

·       Lawmakers barely escaped with their lives.

Except, of course, that’s not true. Any of it.

The hundreds of thousands of rally goers went to express their support for Trump and to express their dismay at the rampant voter fraud; it was called the Stop the Steal Rally. They were encouraging lawmakers to accept alternate slates of electors from several states. This is a constitutionally provided procedure—which Democrats often avail themselves of for no rational reason beyond partisanship.

Only a small percentage of people entered the capitol. Most of those who entered did so at the invitation of Capitol Police, where they were allowed to walk around and take photos.

A much smaller percentage caused violence. None of those causing violence was armed. No one at the Capitol that day was armed except the police. No lawmakers’ lives were threatened; they were all evacuated at the first sign of a breach of the building.

There was indeed some violence. Instigators have not been charged, oddly. As more evidence comes out, it appears this was an FBI-instigated entrapment operation. They were hoping to goad Trump supporters into violence, so they could blame Trump and his supporters. The people who were charged are being held on trespass charges and a few for vandalism. There are no insurrection charges, because there is no evidence of insurrection happening that day. None.

Recently information has come out about two of the “natural causes” deaths. One is a woman said to have overdosed on a prescription medication. There is surveillance footage of her being beaten by Capitol Police and dragged back into the building. This calls the coroner’s report into question as part of a political coverup. Story here:

·       “Videos Shed Light on Death of Rosanne Boyland at US Capitol on Jan. 6” by Joseph M. Hanneman for The Epoch Times, January 7 (updated January 8), 2022. 

·       “Live Q&A: Judge Refuses FDA Request, Gives 8 Months for Pfizer Data; Trump Social Network Nears” Joshua Philipp for Crossroads Highlights, January 9, 2022.  This is the same video as above; here it is linked to come up at the place of this story.

Another “natural causes” death that may also have been caused or contributed to by Capitol Police is believed to be Kevin Greeson, 55, of Alabama. He had a history of high blood pressure and reportedly died of a heart attack. But there is an eyewitness account and video showing that there was a sudden attack on a peaceful crowd by Capitol Police, with less-than-lethal tear gas, concussion grenades, rubber bullets and pepperballs. The eyewitness report is from comedian Tyler Baggins of Wisconsin, who was recording the crowd that day. His video shows the crowd singing the Lee Greenwood song “I’m Proud to Be an American” and then cuts to footage of CPR being done on Greeson.

Lauren Witzke was a reporter on scene that day for National File, reporting this:

By the time I got to the Capitol, people had already made their way up to the steps. Trump supporters were waving flags and trying to talk to the Capitol Police. Every rally-goer at that point was extremely peaceful. I then saw Capitol Police Officers with rifles appear on the balcony looking down on us. Almost immediately, the Capitol Police on the ground started throwing flash grenades into the crowds, teargassing us all.

I moved about 40 feet away from the steps, and just stood there, yet the tear gas and flash grenades continued. After being flash bombed and tear-gassed for the third time, I looked down beside me to see that a middle-aged man—Kevin Greeson—on the ground, blue in the face.

My friend Kimberley immediately began CPR and continued until her lips were bleeding. But she couldn’t get him breathing again. Men were yelling “Help we need an EMT, get this man an ambulance,” etc. We begged the Capitol police officers for help. But they ignored us, and continued macing old men who got anywhere near them.

Trump supporters were able to make a makeshift gurney out of the fencing and carry him out of there. Capitol Police continued to flash bomb and tear gas us, macing in the face anyone who came near them.

She reported that there had been absolutely no violence in the crowd prior to the assault from Capitol Police. Emergency personnel did not rush to help, as previously reported. People in the crowd carried the man to get medical help, which took about half an hour, at which time he was pronounced dead. There is some speculation that any eventual violence that happened was in response to his death and the unwarranted and unwarned assault by Capitol Police.

This information comes from a source I am not familiar with, so use your discernment. However, in other places it coincides with news I’ve heard elsewhere, such as the Ricochet report, which I wrote about and linked to here. Here's the story:

·       “VIDEOS: Jan 6 Violence Sparked by Innocent Man's Death, Police Grenade Assault on Peaceful Crowd” by A. J. Cooke for National File, January 6, 2022. 

Robert Barnes also tied these two issues together, which kind of summarizes today’s post:

Well, it’s kind of parallel to the vaccine mandate hearings at the Supreme Court. You have the reality of the way things are actually shaping up, if you look at the facts on the ground, versus the narrative, the myth, that’s being propagated by the press. And just as Sotomayor had this myth of everybody’s dying, and the kids are dying, and all the rest, the mythical narrative of January 6th is still the insurrection that almost happened, that has to be remedied. We should look at it like the second coming of the Civil War and 9/11.

And the reality is, it’s none of those things. Nobody’s been charged with insurrection. There’s more people filing frivolous lawsuits against everybody. More evidence that, in fact, capitol police—some of the other people that died that day may not have been from natural causes; it may have been the capitol police killed them. And they covered it up. And thanks to the good work of Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch, they’ve used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover more evidence. Because there’s 14,000 hours of video evidence the government’s trying to hide from the world, including from the defendants themselves.

And it appears the reason for that is not only a lot of informants being part of the process, but the Capitol Police behaved in a very illicit manner, and was just violently bringing people in and beating the daylights out of them for kicks and giggles. Including women, older women, like that.

Now we’re starting to find out why they hid and covered a lot of this up. That the only really violent people that day were actually the capitol police, not the people who are accused of being the insurrectionists.

This is not the America we know and love. God help us. Here’s a New Year’s wish: May all their crimes be shouted from the rooftops; may all the corruption be rooted out of our government; may we return to the thriving civilization that happens when a free and good people are allowed to live their lives without tyranny.