American Oversight is a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog that advances truth, accountability, and democracy by enforcing the public’s right to government records. 😂😂😂😂😂🤡 “HEAVILY ARMED?” – Oh sure, sure.
The conclusion was reached …. The narrative was adapted.
Narrative Fallacy, a term popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book “The Black Swan”, describes the human tendency to construct stories and narratives around facts, often simplifying or distorting the truth to fit into a coherent, satisfying narrative. This can lead to the creation of a story where the conclusion is decided first, and then all subsequent information is tailored to fit that conclusion, often overlooking or misrepresenting contrary evidence.
On the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was meeting to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, a violent and heavily armed mob of supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol. While lawmakers and staff were shepherded to secure locations or barricaded behind doors, the rioters pushed past severely outnumbered Capitol Police officers, breaking windows and vandalizing offices, many with disturbingly violent intentions toward members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence for their having refused to succumb to Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in his favor. Five people were killed, including one Capitol Police officer who was beaten by rioters.
The attempted coup was not a spontaneous act. “The invasion of the U.S. Capitol … was stoked in plain sight,” ProPublica reported, with Trump supporters having for weeks discussed openly their plans for a violent overthrow.Their goal of stopping the election certification, based on unfounded conspiracy theories of widespread voter fraud, was encouraged by elected officials like Rep. Mo Brooks, Rep. Paul Gosar, Sen. Josh Hawley, and Sen. Ted Cruz. The biggest instigator, of course, was the former president himself, who for months had fanned the flames of conspiracy and earlier that day urged the crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight.”
Snopes: Fact Check Did Dems’ Video Omit Trump’s Telling Supporters To ‘Peacefully and Patriotically’ Protest at Capitol?
Fact Check: TRUE
Social media posts claimed impeachment prosecutors ignored a key fact. Referring to a video displayed during U.S. President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial on Feb. 9, 2021, Rep. Jim Jordan, a fierce Trump supporter, alleged in the below-displayed Facebook post that House Democrats intentionally “left out” footage of the former president telling supporters on Jan. 6 to “peacefully and patriotically” protest the outcome of the 2020 election.
The following day, Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, echoed the allegation, tweeting: “There’s one line from President Trump’s January 6th speech that Democrats keep conveniently leaving out: ‘Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'”
To investigate the claim, we first gathered evidence to confirm or disprove that Trump made the comment to supporters on Jan. 6. According to video footage by Bloomberg and a transcript by Factba.se of Trump’s remarks during the so-called “Save America Rally” at Ellipse Park near the White House around noon (EST) that day, the former president indeed said:
After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down — anyone you want, but I think right here — we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated — lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.
In other words, it was true that Trump at one point told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” leave the pro-Trump event at Ellipse Park — which is directly south of the White House and a roughly 20-minute walk from the Capitol — and go to the Capitol to try to convince members of Congress to delay a constitutional vote affirming then-President-elect Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.
In the wake of the January 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol, narratives have been spun and misinformation has been sown, particularly by groups like American Oversight, which have portrayed the incident with a heavy bias. Their depiction of the day as a “violent and heavily armed mob” storming the Capitol paints a picture far removed from the reality of what transpired. The assertion that the crowd was “heavily armed” is misleading; in fact, the majority of those present were not armed, with most weapons being found outside the Capitol premises, a detail often omitted or downplayed in such reports. This exaggeration serves to fuel a narrative of an orchestrated “coup,” aiming to frame the event in the most nefarious light possible.
Furthermore, the claim that the riot was “stoked in plain sight” with plans for a “violent overthrow” lacks substantiation when one examines the actual discourse and planning that took place. While there were indeed calls for action, interpreting these as explicit endorsements for a coup is a stretch that distorts the context of political protest. The narrative pushed by American Oversight and echoed by similar entities, suggests that figures like Trump, Brooks, Gosar, Hawley, and Cruz directly incited violence, oversimplifying complex political rhetoric into a caricature of sedition. This narrative conveniently ignores the broader context of the First Amendment and the right to protest, even if misguided or based on conspiracy theories.
The simplification of the event into an “attempted coup” orchestrated by Trump himself, as alleged, misrepresents not only the intent and actions of the crowd but also the legal and procedural aspects of the certification process. It’s crucial to differentiate between political rhetoric, which can indeed be fiery, and the legal manipulation of electoral outcomes, which was not the case here. The new Trump Administration’s investigation into January 6 must navigate through this mire of misinformation, correcting the record and seeking truth beyond the sensationalized accounts that have dominated public discourse. This investigation will need to counter these false premises with facts, examining the actual dynamics of the day, the role of various actors, and the truth behind the so-called “heavily armed” narrative, to restore a factual understanding of what January 6, 2021, really was about.
The New Sheriff in Town
On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump will return to the presidency, bringing with him Kash Patel as the new FBI Director amidst lingering mysteries from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The FBI’s investigation into these events now steps into a new era where Patel’s leadership could significantly alter the investigation’s trajectory. Known for his skepticism of the “deep state” and his close ties to Trump, Patel’s directorship might lead to a thorough re-examination of the involved departments, interviews with key figures previously untouched, and a deep dive into previously unreleased documents and communications, potentially unveiling truths that were previously obscured or ignored. The following outline delves into how Patel’s influence might reshape the narrative and outcome of the January 6 inquiry.
• Patel has claimed that President Trump had “pre-emptively authorized” 10,000 to 20,000 National Guard troops to be deployed days before the attack on January 6th, asserting this was done in an Oval Office meeting on January 3, 2021. He emphasized that the authorization was denied by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
• He has also stated that due process wasn’t selective during the January 6th investigation, suggesting that prosecutors, the DOJ, and the FBI have manipulated the narrative by selectively choosing what evidence to present or hide.
• Patel has gone as far as to say that he has evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that January 6 was an “inside job,” implying some level of orchestration or setup by those within government or law enforcement.
• In defense of his testimony and against accusations of being a Trump lackey, Patel has claimed that the January 6 Committee attempted to discredit his account of Trump authorizing National Guard deployment, calling it a “smear campaign.”
Part 1: The Scope of the Investigation
Following Trump’s inauguration, the FBI’s task force on January 6 would likely see a shift in priority. The Department of Justice (DOJ), now under new leadership, would need to reassess its approach. The FBI, as the primary investigative arm, would continue to delve into:
Violent Acts and Conspiracy:The focus would remain on identifying those who committed violent acts against law enforcement, as well as any organized conspiracies among groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. FBI’s Role: There would be an intensified scrutiny of the FBI’s actions before, during, and after January 6, including their intelligence gathering and response.
Part 2: Departments and Agencies Involved
Several government bodies would be crucial in releasing documents:
FBI: Internal communications, operational plans, and intelligence assessments regarding January 6. Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Documents related to threat assessments and security coordination. U.S. Capitol Police: Records of planning, communications with other law enforcement, and their response tactics. Department of Defense:Details on the deployment of the National Guard, including any delays or communication breakdowns. Office of the Inspector General:Reports on law enforcement failures or misconduct during the event.
Part 3: Key Individuals and Testimonies
The narrative would pivot to key figures whose testimonies could be pivotal:
FBI Director and Field Office Heads: Christopher Wray and local FBI officials in Washington D.C. would be central, discussing the FBI’s preparation, response, and post-event actions. Former DOJ Officials: Individuals like Jeffrey Rosen (former Acting Attorney General) and Richard Donoghue could provide insights into the DOJ’s actions and decisions leading up to and following January 6. Capitol Police Leadership:Former and current chiefs like Steven Sund, whose accounts of the day’s events and pre-riot intelligence would be crucial. Trump Administration Officials: Interviews with former White House staff, legal advisors like John Eastman, and security personnel could reveal internal deliberations and directives. Members of Extremist Groups:Leaders or members of groups indicted for conspiracy might offer direct accounts or corroborate evidence of planned actions.
Part 4: Subpoenaing Digital Records
The investigation would heavily rely on digital communications:
Email Records:
• From DOJ and FBI officials, particularly those involved in the strategic response to January 6.
• Communications between Trump’s legal team, including figures like Rudy Giuliani, and government officials.
• Emails from Capitol Police, DHS, and DoD discussing security measures or lack thereof. Text Messages and Chats:
• Platforms like Signal, used by some groups involved in the riot, could reveal planning or coordination efforts.
• Text messages between government officials on the day of the riot to understand real-time decision-making. Former DOJ Personnel:
• Subpoenas might extend to former personnel like Michael Sherwin, who led the initial response, for their comprehensive insights into legal actions taken.
Part 5: The Hardy Boys and The Case of the Missing Files
A new investigation into the January 6 events will face significant challenges due to allegations that the original House Select Committee deleted or failed to archive evidence properly. Key issues include:
Deleted Files:Claims have been made that over 100 encrypted files were deleted, with some reports suggesting these files have been recovered, indicating a need to verify and analyze this data. Archival Discrepancies:There’s contention over whether the committee adequately preserved all relevant materials, with Republicans asserting that less than the expected amount of data was archived, possibly hiding or deleting crucial evidence. Access to Evidence:The new investigation will need to navigate through the complex task of accessing potentially encrypted or deleted files, which might require digital forensics expertise. Political and Legal Scrutiny:The political nature of these allegations could lead to further partisan disputes, complicating the investigation’s ability to reach a consensus on what was lost or hidden. Transparency and Trust:Rebuilding public trust in the investigation process will be paramount, as previous claims of evidence mishandling could cast doubt on the integrity and completeness of any new findings.
These challenges highlight the need for thorough, transparent, and legally sound approaches to ensure that the investigation can overcome past controversies and deliver a credible outcome.
Part 6: Those “Other” Videos
Among the footage that has surfaced are clips purportedly showing Capitol Police preemptively attacking protesters. These videos depict officers firing nonlethal projectiles like rubber bullets and deploying tear gas into crowds that, at that moment, appeared relatively peaceful. Such actions are suggested by some to have incited a reaction from the crowd, escalating the situation from protest to riot.
Equally compelling are videos where Capitol Police are seen guiding protesters through the Capitol building. Instead of the narrative of a forceful breach, these clips show officers seemingly escorting individuals, including the infamous “QAnon Shaman,” Jacob Chansley, through various parts of the building. This has led to questions about the intent and coordination, or lack thereof, among law enforcement on that day. Was this an attempt to manage the crowd or an indication of a different narrative where the entry was less confrontational than previously portrayed?
The new investigation, under Patel’s direction, is poised to scrutinize these videos, questioning the initial response, the preparation, and the actions of Capitol Police. Were these actions part of a broader strategy, or were they individual decisions made in the chaos of the moment? This investigation seeks not only to clarify what happened but to understand why, potentially reshaping public understanding of January 6 from multiple angles. The focus is on unearthing the truth behind these conflicting visual narratives, aiming to provide a more comprehensive picture of that day’s events.
Part 7: The Nancy Pelosi Conundrum
The narrative surrounding Nancy Pelosi’s involvement on January 6th has taken a suspicious turn with the revelation that her daughter, Alexandra Pelosi, was filming her during the Capitol riot. This has led to speculation that the event was staged or at least anticipated, especially given Pelosi’s comments in the video about taking “responsibility” for not having the National Guard present. Critics point to this as evidence that Pelosi might have intentionally delayed or prevented law enforcement support at the Capitol, suggesting a deeper orchestration of the day’s events for political gain. Quotes from the aftermath, where Pelosi is heard discussing the lack of preparation and accountability, only fuel these suspicions, painting a picture of someone who might have had more control over the security situation than was previously acknowledged.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the FBI issued a report last week that detailed at least 26 FBI Confidential Human Sources (CHSs) were present at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
There are limitations imposed on the OIG in an investigation like this. If the office found 26, there were likely more. The OIG’s mandate is limited to interviewing current FBI employees only. If the FBI was working with Capitol police, and the Capitol police had a CHS, the OIG would not learn of or report on this because of lack of jurisdiction. The same with the CIA and other three-letter agencies. And, if agents were involved, all they had to do was retire or move to another agency to avoid investigation. The report does not detail the total number of agents that might have had information but fell out of purview.
If you look at the report, you will see in the methodology who was not interviewed. The OIG could not interview anyone that was not currently employed by the FBI. For example, the report details at least David Bowdich, Jeff Sallet, John Brown, Terry Wade, and Stephen Laycock all declined to be interviewed. A footnote reads: “One former FBI TFO [Task Force Officer] declined our interview request.” In another telling statement, the OIG acknowledges an inability to subpoena or compel testimony from former department employees and third-party witnesses.
In other words, the OIG only spoke to people who are with the FBI and who cooperated. The office did not speak to any third parties or former FBI employees. Nor did it speak to anyone outside the FBI that might have been working with the FBI at the time. In short, the OIG spoke to a limited number of cooperating FBI agents.
While it is a milestone that we know of 26 CHSs who were at the Capitol on J6, it is doubtful that we have all the information about all the law enforcement operatives who were involved.
Conclusion:
The new January 6 investigation must navigate through a labyrinth of legal intricacies, political machinations, and ethical dilemmas. The imperative to release documents, conduct interviews, and scrutinize digital communications is not just a pursuit of truth but a critical step toward restoring the integrity of our democratic institutions.
This investigation stands at the precipice of history, tasked with piecing together not just the events of that fateful day but also with understanding the broader implications for our nation’s future. It’s an endeavor that seeks to answer not only “what happened” but “how can we ensure it never happens again?” The release of previously unseen documents, the candid testimonies from those involved, and the forensic analysis of every email and text message are all pieces of a puzzle that, when assembled, will reveal the truth behind the chaos.
However, the journey towards this truth is fraught with challenges. We’ve seen narratives shaped by bias, facts twisted to fit preconceived conclusions, and justice itself seemingly on trial. More than ever, it’s evident that our system of justice is in dire need of being revisited. The scales have been tipped by misinformation, political agendas, and the rush to judgment, leaving many to question whether justice has truly been served or if it has been merely a tool for political warfare.
The narrative would conclude not just with reflections on how these investigations test the resilience of democracy but with a clarion call for a reevaluation of our judicial processes. This is more than a testament to democracy’s enduring spirit; it’s a wake-up call. The resilience we celebrate must be matched by a commitment to a justice system that is fair, transparent, and immune to the whims of political change. Only then can we hope to prevent future breaches of democratic processes and ensure that the lessons of January 6 are learned, not just recounted. The path forward is clear: we must demand a justice system that serves truth over narrative, and in doing so, fortify the very democracy we aim to protect.
PJ Media readers won’t be surprised to learn that the feds manipulated yet another aspect of the January 6 information operation, according to more findings in a definitive Congressional Oversight Subcommittee Report. In addition to finding that former Congressman Liz Cheney should be referred for charges for manipulating a witness to frame President Trump, as I link nearby, the report finds that the military completely blew off Trump’s call for prepositioning the National Guard to “keep things safe” on J6. Worse, the Department of Defense Inspector General committed lies of omission by leaving out and mischaracterizing the timeline, instructions, and orders that day to keep the heat off the Pentagon for ignoring and then lying about Trump’s orders three days before the riot.
Indeed, the Acting Sec Def and the Army Secretary both cared more about pleasing the likes of Liz Cheney and her co-signers of a letter that called for no National Guard presence at the Capitol that day than they did about doing their damned job: keeping order.
The report tells in granular detail the tale of that entire day in 2021, when feds were manipulating, framing, and conducting what was an information and propaganda operation against the people who attended Donald Trump’s speech, and then went on to gaslight the American public.
