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. 

What I Think Happened

The thing I wanted to talk about today is old news, from a week ago. But it got made relevant again by yesterday’s impeachment. So I’d better buckle down and get this written.

Last week I got chastised by a friend for not coming out in opposition to the violence at the capitol on January 6^th. I wasn’t actually writing about that, but I thought I had said enough to show I was clearly against it, especially along with nearly a decade of writing—about how to have civilization. But the day after the event I didn’t have nearly enough information to write on that topic.

But I have, all along, been trying to understand what happened. More comes out daily, but I think I have enough grasp on it now for a post. A long one. Consider it next Monday’s post as well. That will be Martin Luther King Day, celebrating non-violence, which is the ultimate message of today’s post.

 

The Rally

the January 6th rally during President Trump's speech
screenshot from Right Side livestream

The purpose of last Wednesday’s rally at the capitol was to show how much support there was among the American people for counting only legal votes. The suppression of information about the evidence has caused a lot more disunity than hearing out the evidence would have done. My assumption about that is that, allowing the evidence to be heard would have made a Biden presidency untenable.

But the rally was in support of the legislature acting according to the Constitution to challenge the electors from some of the states in question—states whose state legislators had wanted to recall the chosen electors because of the many questions about fraud and anomalies they had been shown, but about which they felt prevented from acting on, because only their governors could call a special session to act on that business. In other words, there is a Constitutional process to deal with election issues that come up at this point in the process.

And it would be, finally, an opportunity for the general public to hear and see at least a portion of the evidence, unfiltered by a media dismissing it as discredited.

President Trump had a goal to get the evidence heard—and so did people supporting him and our Constitution.

There were roughly a million supporters at the capitol. They came to hear speakers—there were several in the morning, including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman of the President’s legal team. And the President was scheduled to speak around noon, the hour prior to the 1:00 joint session of Congress. He arrived late to speak, and then spoke for a little over an hour. He went through some of the evidence he hoped to be presented.

President Donald Trump during his January 6th speech
screenshot from Right Side livestream

You can view his speech here. 

You can read the transcript here. 

I heard it mostly live, pausing the livestream in the middle of the speech for a meeting, and then returning to hear the rest on my drive home. I heard nothing earth-shattering. I heard nothing about taking any action other than walking over to the capitol (from where he was speaking, which was relatively close to the White House, 2.3 miles from the capitol building). People spread out beyond the Washington Monument, which is even further. Some no doubt spread toward the capitol, so they were closer.

 

The Capitol Breach

Twenty minutes before his speech ended, protesters breached the barricades around the capitol building, ostensibly set up to allow preparation for the January 20^th inauguration.

Elijah Schaffer, of The Blaze, was at that forefront, as media, and has video of the attack on those barricades. It looks bad. 

By the time the President finished speaking, the bad guys had breached the outer barricades and were attempting to enter the building.

By the time larger portions of the crowd arrived, the barricades were down, and there was no indicator for the people to stay away from the building.

Among people attempting to enter the building, the crowd was shouting “Antifa! Antifa! They’re not us!” People were trying to prevent them from breaking windows and entering, and were pushing those bad guys toward the police for capture.

Eventually at least one door was opened. One video shows a police officer being squashed against a wall, and it looks dangerous for him. Another video shows a door being opened, police officers standing against a wall and allowing people to enter.  One of those entering jokes that they’ll lock the door behind them, that it’s a trap.

What we’re seeing is a lot of mayhem, a lot of confusion. And a lot of blame.

 

No Incitement

Of the million people there, only a few hundred entered the capitol. Of the few hundred that entered the capitol, most entered only after the doors were opened; they were nonviolent, wandered through almost like tourists, and had nothing to do with breaking in or rioting. There were a few dozen violent offenders arrested. Out of a million.

There were additional speeches planned for the afternoon. They were canceled. The President made a short video telling people that, even though we believe the election was stolen, we need peace, and they need to go home. It was taken down by Twitter for violating community standards. He made another similar video later; it was taken down. Shortly thereafter his Twitter account was permanently deleted.

He had his Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany do a similar announcement, brief, taking no questions.

In the President’s rally speech, he says, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” That is not an incitement to do violence, clearly.

Robert H. Gruler, who does a law vlog,  for the word “fight.” It comes up 23 times in the speech—each time related to political argument. But, taking the paragraph containing the final three, suddenly we’re supposed to assume he meant physical altercation and rioting, when he said,

“And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

About moving toward the capitol, near that part of the speech, he said,

So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue—I love Pennsylvania Avenue—and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give— The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans—the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help—we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

In order to incite a riot, according to 18 USCS § 2102, a person would need to “organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot." Also, as I learned from one post, 

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the US Supreme Court held that only express advocacy specifically directed at inciting imminent lawlessness falls outside First Amendment protections. Ambiguous or abstract speech, even if it can be construed as advocating violence, is protected.

Calling for peaceable assembly, calling for peace, calling for people to go home—and never even, not even once, encouraging violence, but actually insisting on peace—that’s not inciting violence. People who are accusing him of that are lying.

 

Agent Provocateurs

Were there people inciting violence? Clearly. We want to find out who.

There was suspicion of Antifa and BLM from the beginning. The fact that video and photos show individuals who have been active at Antifa and BLM events leads credence to that.

One report from a local person, our State Senate District chair, James Buntrock, a pastor, includes this:

We came together to support our president and to let him know he is not alone. We came to show that election integrity matters. My sincere hope was that legislators would see our immense crowds and feel emboldened to do the right thing: to delay certifying electors until fraud investigation is complete. Throughout the event, you could feel the love for our country. It was awe inspiring.

That aligns with the stated and understood goals of the event. All was peaceful during the entire rally—not even profanity. Then they walked to the capitol building, and he witnessed this:

We stood on the lawn of the Capitol in protest, continuing to pray, sing, chant and wave our signs and flags. I witnessed one individual on the Capitol steps beckoning others to join him. I saw a dozen or so people wearing dark clothing and light body armor advance in military fashion through the crowd inciting people to join them in “storming the Capitol”. These were likely some of the Antifa infiltrators that we had heard would be there, as the night before, we heard of busses of Antifa receiving police escorts into town.

I don’t know how to verify that Antifa were escorted into town. There are additional reports of people witnessing buses of Antifa arriving the night before. I expect there is video, but I haven’t seen it.

I don’t think we can entirely blame agent provocateurs; you also have to blame those who allow themselves to be provoked. But those are an estimated .01%, or 1 in 10,000. Painting all rally participants as rioters or insurrectionists is a blatant lie.

Robert Barnes, in the Sunday night Viva/Barnes livestream, suggests that it is the QAnon group, thinking somehow they’re helping. I’m not convinced. I’m not fully aware of Q stuff, but I have heard occasional periphery. Always it was about a military operation, all planned and underway. The only thing the public was ever asked to do was to spread the word and wait and watch what happens—not participate. Are there some wackos out there with some sort of hero delusion? It’s a big country, so probably.

Robert Gruler talks about the arrest and detainment of a man named Cleveland Grover Meredith, Jr. The media portrayed him as having a semiautomatic weapon and high capacity magazines, caught during the protest, attempting to assassinate Nancy Pelosi and others. But that is not actually what he’s charged with. He was traveling from Colorado the day of January 6^th. His phone records show he was in touch with people at the capitol (among agitators? quite possibly). Multiple times he said he was still 3 ½ hours away. He arrived in the evening—the legislators were back in session, because calm had already long been restored to the capitol building—and went straight to his hotel. The next day, January 7^th, he is charged with getting out of his vehicle, assaulting someone, without weapons, and then getting back in his vehicle and leaving. He has a history of marijuana use (legal in Colorado) and mental illness. I’m wondering if the mental illness is related to the marijuana use, because there is evidence it increases likelihood of schizophrenia. Anyway, the guy wasn’t at the capitol during the riots. He’s the only one I’m aware of named with having a weapon. It was with him, not used. And he wasn’t involved in the riots, but on a charge that on any other day would not make the news. He is being held without bond. Could he be considered a QAnon activist? Maybe. His friends he was in contact with who were there? Maybe. Maybe they are just more susceptible to agent provocateurs than the general patriotic protester.

There was evidence of pipe bombs, or IEDs. One was found at each of the Republican and Democrat Party headquarters, within blocks of the capitol. None was detonated. I hope the police are able to trace them to the perpetrators and hold them fully accountable.

I want to get back to agent provocateurs, or APs. There are two interesting interviews Joshua Philipp did with expert observers, which I saw Monday. Philipp himself was at the rally, but took a while moving from the rally to the capitol, walking and interviewing people in the crowd. He never saw any violence. Not even any mayhem—teargas, pepper spray, etc.—around the perimeter of the capitol. Incidentally, The Epoch Times did a number of interviews during their day-long livestream, which I wanted to review, but YouTube took it down, possibly because of length, so those interviews, if they are to be recovered for history, will have to be pieced together later. Anyway, people who had entered the House chambers, but claimed not to have been among the violent, told what they thought. Their language was profane. (I don’t understand loving America but calling it “f-ing America.”) They seemed proud of what they had done. They thought they had shown something to the powers threatening freedom. They seemed to be regular public, and Trump supporters, although about as different from me as I can imagine. I now think these were the people subject to the APs.

Back to Philipp’s interviews. The first is with a young woman named Masako Ganaha. She has taken footage from social media, showing video from the event, and looking at it from many angles. For the interview she is mostly focused on the Ashli Babbit incident—the unarmed woman, a veteran, shot by security. We see mainly three men breaking door windows to the room they’re trying to enter, the Speaker’s office lobby. One has a bat or stick to beat the glass. Another is pounding and shoving. Then the third one, wearing a bright yellow scarf, hands the middle one a helmet. This guy takes off his heavy winter cap and places it inside the helmet, cushioning his hand, using that to bash the window, which finally breaks. Ganaha notes that there seems to be coordination, communication, between the two. They are working together and seem to know each other.

It is after they break through that Ashli Babbit goes to step through the broken door window, and then she is shot, at close range, in the neck. There is no warning to her, no “Stop! Or I’ll shoot.” There is enough mayhem, I’m uncertain how we could have expected such a command. I’m not even sure where the shot came from. Inside? The doors appeared to be barricaded with chairs from the inside. (The Crossroads video didn’t show the actual shot, and her image was pixelated to avoid showing gore.)

Masako Ganaha points out that an agitator goes
partway down stairway and changes his appearance.
screenshot from here

Most people, immediately after the shot, turn their attention to Babbit. Police or medics are on scene immediately, and are working on her to save her. But a continuous angle of video shows the guy with the yellow scarf stepping back into the crowd, and another going halfway down the flight of stairs, pulling off his backpack and changing his shirt, and stuffing away the scarf. He then appears to be someone other than the one breaking down the door, and just someone on the outside of the crowd. This is an AP tactic.

There is one young black man, appearing later on mainstream media, named John Sullivan. He is a BLM activist, but he reports that he was only there to document and to come to understand Trump people, because we need understanding. He appears sympathetic. Ganaha shows in the video, however, that, while he is taking video of the altercation, as soon as Babbit is shot, while people are working on her and trying to save her, he is shouting, “She’s dead! They killed her!” in what she believes is an attempt to incite anger toward the police. This is before anyone could know whether Babbit was dead, and from his angle he certainly couldn’t know that; the people working on her blocked his view. Ganaha says this is also an AP tactic, to agitate against whoever they want to agitate against, in this case the capitol security police. And it is also an AP tactic to have one of them be the sympathetic character, going on media to create a narrative in their favor. (Sullivan was arrested today, in Utah.) 

John Sullivan, arrested Jan. 14, in Utah, for his
participation in the capitol riot on Jan. 6.
screenshot from Fox 13 News

The next of Philipp’s interviews I saw was with war correspondent Michael Yon, whom he had become acquainted with during unrest in Hong Kong. Yon is an expert in observing riots. He points out some of the things you can look for to see professional agitation coordination; he uses the term agent provocateur, or AP. If the group is small, maybe four people, they would know each other and not need identifiers. But if there are more, and they aren’t familiar to each other, then you might see that they have similar shoes; and they don’t change their shoes when they change clothing appearance, because extra shoes would be hard to carry, and nobody looks at them anyway. So that’s something to look for.

And one of the tactics that he had seen before only in Hong Kong was a coordinated technique of calling for what they need: “Send up masks,” “Send up water,” etc. That was happening at the capitol. It shows they were professional agitators, not an incited crowd.

He noted that, at such an event, susceptible people are looking for direction, looking for a leader. Whoever has a megaphone, the loudest voice, gets followed. APs know how to do this, to gather others to do what they want them to do. It works.

He pointed out that there is a difference between these US APs and those in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong they had the moral high ground and wanted to maintain that, so they made sure no one looted, stole, injured innocents, or did property damage. Antifa, BLM, and any other APs here not only don’t care about the moral high ground, they want to make it look like those they are involving look bad.

 

Possible Advanced Knowledge

It would be nice to know whether those buses of activists were actually escorted by police, meaning they were known and welcomed. There is a fair amount of confusion surrounding the lack of security. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who resigned right after the event, revealed that he had asked for additional security multiple times, days ahead of the event. Refusal came, possibly from as high as Nancy Pelosi’s office.

Once the event was underway, Sund asked for National Guard help and was refused. This is odd since, during the morning speeches, the Chiron on the Right Side livestream tells us National Guard troops were activated for the protest. Confusion surrounded that. MSM claimed the President blocked them from going. In reality, the troops said they couldn’t be deployed without an order; as soon as the President learned of it, he gave the go ahead, possibly even against advice surrounding him. Troops are now on scene and will be until several days after inauguration.

The FBI had claimed that they had no notice of any planned violence ahead of time. Mark Levin reported yesterday that they did have credible evidence at least 24 hours ahead of time. One major news story wrote about the violence hours ahead of it happening and had to retract it. MSM wishful thinking? Planted narrative? Why did the FBI lie about what they knew?

 

Casualties

A civil war has not broken out; as they say, “What if they hold a war and nobody comes?” Real patriots aren’t participating in any such war. But the other side is certainly trying to provoke one.

During this skirmish at the capitol—a tragic event—there were casualties, five deaths. The MSM narrative makes it sound like Trump supporters murdered five people in their lawless rioting. Not exactly. One death was Ashli Babbit, unarmed, killed by police. I don’t know much of her background, but she was inside, with an advanced group that was doing damage; she put herself into an outlaw position, although she was not guilty of the death penalty, in my opinion. A second death was an officer beaten in the head with a fire extinguisher, who died later. There are questions surrounding his death, but I’m willing to accept that narrative; if accurate, I hope they find his murderer and convict him. The other three are listed as medical events, which are likely heart attack or stroke, unrelated to physical violence. I’m not even sure they were inside the capitol building. So, in other words, Chicago on any typical weekend is more dangerous than the capitol was under siege.

President Trump, looking out window in the Oval Office
image found here

This is not to downplay the violence. It was wrong in every way. But, if you step back for perspective, it was not the storming of the Bastille with days of public beheadings. Business was underway again by late evening. The biggest casualty was the President’s opportunity to have the election fraud evidence seen—which was prevented by the timed attack. That in itself is enough to indicate the President was not inciting it.

My Conclusion

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.

 

Sources

·         Right Side livestream of President’s rally and speech—4+ hours of video 

·          Transcript of President’s speech 

·         “Timeline of Events in DC on Jan. 6” by Petr Svab for The Epoch Times, Jan. 13 (updated Jan. 14), 2021. 

·         “How a Presidential Rally Turned Into a Capitol Rampage” the “capitol mob timeline” by Lauren Leatherby, Arielle Ray, Anjali Singhvi, Christiaan Triebert, Derek Watkins and Haley Willis for The New York Times, Jan. 12, 2021. 

·         Account from James Buntrock, from the capitol  

·         “Analysis of Ashli Babbit Video Suggests Coordinated Actions—Interview with Masako Ganaha” Crossroads with Joshua Philipp, Jan. 11-2021. 

·         "'Agent Provocateur' Tactics Seen at Jan 6 US Capitol Protest—Interview with Michael Yon” Crossroads with Joshua Philipp, Jan. 10, 2021. 

·         “At Least One BLM Activist Among Those Who Breached US Capitol” Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov, Jan. 8, 2021. 

·         “Black Lives Matter Activist Took Part in Storming of Capitol” by Zachary Stieber for The Epoch Times, Jan. 8 (updated Jan. 9), 2021. 

·         “NEW Video appears to show police officers welcome Trump protesters into U.S. Capitol building” by Ellen Killoran for CrimeOnline, Jan. 8, 2021. 

o   Christina Bobb report for OANN, Jan. 8, 2021, Twitter video mentioned in above.   

·         “Trump Impeached Again! Save America Rally Transcript, McConnell's Hints, Hill Rioter Seeks Release” Robert H. Gruler for R&R Law Group, Jan. 13, 2021. 

·         “Why Impeachment Will Likely Fail; State of Emergency Declared in DC” Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov, Jan. 13, 2021. 

·         “Live Q&A: Trump Says Impeachment Is a 'Witch Hunt;' Big Tech Loses Billions Over Censorship” Crossroads with Joshua Philipp, Jan. 12, 2021. 

·         “Ep. 43: Another Impeachment? Capitol Hill Fallout; Tech ANTI-TRUST? Using the Law” Viva & Barnes livestream, Jan. 10,2021. 

·         “Live Q&A: Emergency Declaration in DC Approved by Trump; First Time Trump & Pence Speak Since Jan 6” Crossroads with Joshua Philipp, Jan. 11, 2021. 

·         “‘A Greater Revival Will Come to This Nation’—Interview With Pastor Brian Gibson” Crossroads with Joshua Philipp, Jan. 8, 2021. 

·         “Video shows police officers stand by and do nothing as rioters charge into US Capitol” by Gabrielle Fonrouge for New York Post, Jan. 8, 2021.    

·         “SEE IT: Video shows bloodied police officer pinned into door at U.S. Capitol riot” by Ellen Killoran for CrimeOnline, Jan. 8, 2021. Quote: “As CrimeOnline previously reported, Capitol police confirmed Thursday night that an officer died after sustaining injuries in the riot. According to multiple reports, he had been hit in the head with a fire hydrant. A woman died in a police-involved shooting after she reportedly tried to climb through a window, and three others died in what police described as ‘medical emergencies.’” 

·         “What Happened in DC,” Dr. Eric Nepute of Frontline Doctors, 

·         Paul Sperry tweet, forwarded on Facebook, about bus loads of Antifa in DC 

·         In-person account from Paulette Carson, forwarded on Facebook, about the rally and Antifa infiltration 

·         Congresswoman Cori Bush tweet, forwarded on Facebook, dated Jan. 5, 2021, before the events happened 

·         “Utah activist John Sullivan arrested for involvement in Capitol riot” by Erin Cox for Fox 13 Salt Lake City, Jan. 14, 2021. 

·         “Capitol Siege: The Left Rewrites History” Ep. 116 Slightly Offensive with Elijah Schaffer, Jan. 14, 2021. (behind paywall) 

·         Brett Hastings post on definition of incitement. 

·         “Missing Laptops Raise Cyber Risks From U.S. Capitol Mayhem” by Alyza Sebenius for Bloomberg, Jan. 7 (updated Jan. 8), 2021. 

·         “FBI: Attack on Capitol Was Pre-Planned” by Don Tran, NTD News, Jan. 14, 2021.