The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘donald-trump’

Muckraker’s Response to NBC’s Hit Piece


BY Thomas Hicks 

Brandy Zadrozny @ SXSW 2019, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic, via Wikimedia Commons

Over the last six months, Muckraker, in partnership with the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, has been at the forefront of exposing the threat of non-citizen interference in American elections.

Far from being a “conspiracy theory,” the danger posed by non-citizen participation in American elections cannot be overstated, especially in swing states such as Georgia and Arizona, which were both decided by fewer than 12,000 votes during the 2020 presidential election.

Tens of millions of illegal alien non-citizens have been ushered into the United States and dispersed across all 50 states. Since the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens have no legitimate basis for an asylum claim, many will never appear for their designated court date. In the meantime, these same illegal aliens are being registered to vote.

Muckraker and the Oversight Project have spent the last few months visiting critical swing states and asking non-citizens if they are indeed registered to vote. At apartment complexes in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Minnesota, large percentages of non-citizens we spoke to admitted on camera that they are registered to vote. Some state the obvious—that they support Kamala Harris. Furthermore, we discovered that a Chinese illegal alien living in Los Angeles had been sent a voter registration form.

In response to our reports on this matter (one of which broke the internet with over 55 million views), the usual mainstream publications have done their best to discredit our findings. Today, NBC’s Brandy Zadrozny released a new propaganda piece highlighting Muckraker’s role in exposing this critical issue. In the X post where Brandy shared her article, she remarked that “the threat of widespread noncitizen voting isn’t real. It’s a conspiracy theory with racist roots…”

A few days before publishing the article, Brandy reached out to Muckraker founder Anthony Rubin with a request for comment on a host of questions and statements. Unsurprisingly, Brandy ignored nearly the entire response given to her request.

In the interest of total transparency, below is the entire request for comment from Brandy Zadrozny, along with the associated statement from Anthony Rubin.

We urge you to read the request for comment and our statement in its entirety, and then decide whether NBC is engaged in fair, unbiased journalism.

BRANDY ZADROZNY’S REQUEST FOR COMMENT

Good morning, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Howell:

As established, my name is Brandy Zadrozny and I’m a senior reporter with NBC News, working on a story about the belief in widespread noncitizen voting will fuel an attempt to steal the election from Donald Trump in 2024. I’m reaching out because you appear in our story, named among several others as pillars of the movement built on this belief.

I’m reaching out to give you an opportunity to clarify or comment. If something is incorrect, or you’d like to provide context, please respond by noon EST Wednesday. Most of these questions are for Mr. Rubin.

If either of you would like to comment more generally on your work investigating widespread non-citizen voting, a problem that nearly every reputable expert considers to be an unfounded conspiracy theory, we’d love to include your position. Thanks!

Questions follow:

You are 27 years old, an amateur fighter based in Miami by way of Long Island. Is there any other part of your resume that we should include? College?

We describe your videos as James O’Keefe-ish: deceptively edited, questionably sourced content that has the aesthetic trappings of journalism, but is not bound by its ethics. In one interview, you said you were inspired by Alex Jones.

You’ve trademarked several right wing media startups. Your early videos included confrontations with Black Lives Matter protesters and antifa activists.

Your January video “exposing” the immigrant “invasion” at the Southern border garnered your first major mainstream attention. You appeared on Fox New and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ show.

This summer, you started working for the Oversight Project, a self-described investigative unit within the Heritage Foundation, a once mainstream conservative think tank known these days for Project 2025, its far-right blueprint for a second Trump term. Mr. Howell, I’d love to know more about how Mr. Rubin was recruited. You told NPR the relationship between Muckraker and the Heritage Foundation was “a very, very powerful one,” declining to elaborate because of vague threats from “the cartels” and the Biden administration.

Mr. Howell has called the videos “evidence” that noncitizens were being registered to vote.

Georgia’s secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, called the Georgia video “a stunt,” and said no people with those names had registered to vote. A reporter for the fact checking website Lead Stories went to the same apartments and heard from residents that they weren’t registered to vote, but said they were to get the door-to-door canvasser to leave them alone.

Rubin declined to be interviewed unless NBC News agreed to a live television broadcast. Through a Heritage Foundation spokesperson, Howell also declined an interview unless it could be live-streamed on X.

STATEMENT FROM MUCKRAKER FOUNDER ANTHONY RUBIN

America today is a nation in decline. Among the many indicators of our country’s societal decadence is the corruption of America’s once prestigious news outlets. Rather than focusing on groundbreaking investigative journalism, speaking truth to power, or standing up for American ideals, organizations such as NBC, through media personalities like Brandy Zadrozny, toe a partisan line and use their positions of influence to levy biased attacks on the legitimate findings of others.

The dereliction of journalistic duty by those operating America’s most well-funded news networks has left an information vacuum. In the void, organizations like Muckraker and Oversight Project have taken the mantle, and are working to deliver the American people the information necessary for our constitutional republic to survive. As the prestige of the corporate press wanes and the status of independent media continues to rise, content creators like Brandy Zadrozny, and others of her ilk, must do everything in their power to delay the triumph of truth and Americanism. Delay as they might, ultimately, they will fail.

The coveted partnership between Muckraker and Oversight Project has resulted in the publication of some of the most important information seen during this 2024 election cycle. It is very well possible, and indeed likely, that our work may have prevented enough illegal interference in the upcoming 2024 presidential election so as to preserve its integrity. Only time will tell.

What is certain is that the constant attacks from the New York Times, NPR, NBC, and others, have only strengthened the resolve of those within Muckraker and Oversight Project. We look forward to the day when the aforementioned organizations seek to collaborate with us in a manner that serves the American people. Until then, we will continue standing for the truth, even if it means standing alone.

I reject any claims that Muckraker’s content is deceptively edited or questionably sourced. Conveniently, you are not specific at all when making that claim. Which pieces of ours are deceptively edited? Which sources are questionable? What is both questionable and deceptive is your making such an attack against Muckraker’s prestigious work without any specificity.

Our video, which we released in January 2024, exposing the invasion of the United States, is among the most distinguished works of its kind. My brother and I were the first Americans ever to trek from Quito, Ecuador, to the United States with illegal alien caravans full of military-aged men from special interest countries. Among many events, we were kidnapped by the Gulf Cartel in Mexico. I hope NBC will invite us on, as FOX did, to discuss our critical findings.

The reporter for the “fact-checking” website Lead Stories did nothing to discredit our findings in Georgia. We obtained admissions of a crime on camera. It would obviously be in the interest of every non-citizen who admitted to such a crime to walk it back later. The idea that a non-citizen would admit to a crime in order to get a canvasser to “leave them alone” is absurd. The fact that you would feed such a line to your audience with a straight face, while failing to weigh it with equal consideration against our findings, lays bare the deceptive nature of your “reporting.”

I very much hope to join NBC live, in studio, to share Muckraker’s prestigious work with NBC’s sophisticated audience.

STATEMENT FROM OVERSIGHT PROJECT DIRECTOR MIKE HOWELL

Brandy, we are succeeding in part because the legacy media has failed. We have replaced your industry’s condoning, promotion, and justification of the invasion into the United States with actual evidence. Our work is widely praised because we are telling the American People the truth while the legacy media lies.

An admission against self-interest has high evidentiary value. Video tapes of non-citizens admitting to a potentially deportable offense can be used as evidence in court. I am not surprised a handful of noncitizens recanted their statements to activist media and I would not be surprised if they were coached to do just that.

There is ample other evidence of non-citizens being registered to vote, apart from our videos. Just look at the non-citizens that have been removed from voter rolls lately. Unfortunately, these are only last minute spot checks and not enough to protect the election. A lot of politicians know they have a big problem on their hands so they want to make appearances that they tried to do something.

Anthony and his brother were kidnapped by the cartels. I know you work for NBC, the home of Deal or No Deal, which I greatly respect, but you should know that being kidnapped means one is justified to operate with proper safeguards. I will not be providing you with an organization chart or other information to make the cartels and weaponized U.S. federal government’s job any easier. I will say that our “recruiting process” is highly confidential, very prestigious, and best-in-class. It is another reason why our work has replaced legacy media’s. We work with the best and for the best people, the American People. We are giving the people back what is theirs: hard documents and evidence about their Nation.

Brad Raffensperger, who is currently fundraising from leftist trial lawyers, did not investigate our claims. I don’t believe he would even know how to even if he cared enough to do so. Instead, he called our evidence disinformation within a day of our release and before his office even looked. That should tell you everything you need to know. He then chose to work with far-Left media on hit pieces of the Oversight Project which only made us stronger and the Left weaker. I thank him for this gift and we will have something for him soon in the form of potential litigation. He is a public official and he owes us information that belongs to the American People about coordinating with radicals.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Voters and voting compromised


We’ve not too long before our next election cycle. Across the globe, about 70 countries will be casting votes for the candidates presented before them to choose from. 

However, with the recent UN (United Nations) Summit of the Future1, what will voting look like in our near and distant futures? 

 The United Nations, Not Individual Countries, Matters?! 

As stated above, the Summit of the Future (September 2024) was held in New York City. Each year, the UN meets in NYC to have meetings. 

When the Summit of the Future, specifically a new UN Charter, was held & agreed upon, it basically furthered cemented the US (as well as ALL the other member-state countries) into giving up more sovereignty of our (their) government(s). By changing the sovereignty, you also impact voting, as well as a host of other key points of government. 

Why would the US delegates commit We the People to THAT?! Compliance to the United Nations is very costly (not only our taxpayer dollars go to support the UN, but now our very system of government is being sacrificed. 

If that wasn’t enough, the Global Citizen Festival rounded out the Summit festivities. From my archives, here’s an excerpt about what I’ve shared about the Global Citizen Festival: “Global Citizenship (a direct ‘attack’ on every nation’s individuality and culture by the U.N., United Nations)” 

It’s important to point out that this quote was made in 2018, during a Republican led Administration. The stark reality is, that the same quote can be made during a Democrat led Administration, too. What does this teach us? That regardless of major political party, the United States is being dissolved before our very eyes! 

We can also learn that neither party has completely removed We the People from the United Nations, which is clearly a socialist based entity. If you study history, you know that under a true socialist system, voting is completely a farce. Is this what we are destined for? Is this what our students and children will be faced with?! 

 A Follow Up Conference: 

To almost dovetail the UN’s efforts, the 2024 Generation Democracy held its Summit (Oct. 7, 2024).2 Here’s a direct quote from the review of the Summit, “A core theme of the Summit was empowering young leaders with the skills, knowledge, and networks needed to drive democratic change.” The US sent a special envoy to be among the elite featured at the Summit. 

Typically, ‘a youth’ (young leader) is anyone who is a teenager to about 24 years of age. The objective of the UN Youth Strategy3 played right into the Summit of the Future (Sept. 2024).It’s obviously, also playing into the Generation Democracy Summit, as well. 

The UN Youth Strategy was described as a holistic umbrella approach to guide our children to the UN’s ideas of peace, security and human rights. Of course, all through the lens of the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). Without this type of umbrella, the coercion of reshaping our children’s minds from national to globally couldn’t be enforced as much as the UN Secretary General needs. 

Another part of blatant socialism is tracking and tracing citizens. If you’ve followed my blog long enough, as well as listened and researched to the plethora of like minded people who have exposed the vast levels our governments go to to do this in each of our countries, you know, it’s only going to be expanded with AI. 

In 2021, I wrote this article4 about our rights being sacrificed in the name of AI (Artificial Intelligence). In that article I revealed that the Mozilla Foundation (parent group of Firefox) had hosted a webinar5 on “Democratic Values and AI”. In the opening comments you can learn how this move isn’t reserved for Americans only, but everyone in other countries as well. 

So, what ARE the values of a UN-led democracy? Straight from their website6, “good governance, monitors elections, supports civil society to strengthen democratic institutions and accountability, ensures self-determination in decolonized countries, and assists in the drafting of new constitutions in post-conflict nations.” Warriors, in other words, the bedrock of the UN’s first charter and now this new one signed and agreed upon in September, is a democracy! Not a republic, not a monarchy. No other form of government will or can survive under the UN’s thumb. 

 How Has America Chipped Away at A Constitutional Republic?

In recent history (further research into a more distant history is definitely in order to completely understand the more recent moves, but for our purposes, we’ll focus on recent), post-9/11 saw the US State Department enter into the Inter-American Democratic Charter (specifically via the U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States (OAS7). Here’s a direct quote from the website for the OAS, “The promotion of peace, democracy, and good governance are core OAS concerns.” Warriors, do you see the SAME words used in the OAS’s website as used in the UN’s?! 

(*Note: be sure to access the OAS’s website (embedded above) and read Article 1 of the IADC, you’ll see ‘free and fair elections’ mentioned. However, just how ‘free and fair’ can these elections be when you’re using the very SAME goals as the globalists?! You’ll also learn how the IADC led to a Quebec Summit and much more.) 

Then, there’s the USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement). This ‘agreement’8 was something We the People never voted on, or said we wanted. The subsequent moves9 by our US Congress to put into a legislative form of all the WAYS10in which the USMCA must be met11, soon followed. With those moves, several different APPOINTED committees were set in place to oversee every aspect of all 3 countries. Think of an American version of the EU Union (European Union). The John Birch Society12 published an excellent article on how Americans were sacrificing our form of government, as well as our freedoms, by allowing the USMCA to exist. The video JBS produced13(about 30 minutes long) laid out the appointed committees. The time stamp you really need to listen for is near 6:45 where the words ‘international bureaucracy’ are uttered. Then, notice the image of the powers increased under the USMCA through the Federal Trade Commission. “Government procurement”, “Intellectual Property Rights”, and “Rules of Origin and Origin of Procedures” all are attached to voting. 

 Enter, Lowering the Age of Voting: 

Here in the US, the subject of lowering the age of voting FROM 18 to 16 is not a new subject. In Canada, the government has been debating and researching this topic for a while. They have based their quest on following other countries which have done so. Why? Supposedly the younger you can get our children to vote, the more involved in good democracy they’ll become. Can we hit a ‘pause’ button for a moment, please? 

When the human body develops, especially the brain, it needs years to fully develop. While a child CAN reach a level of cognitive maturity at age 16, most don’t develop a psychosocial level (one of the last steps in truly understanding and thinking needed for adulthood) of understanding until age 18. Considering how important voting is and many issues it surrounds, shouldn’t we be not even considering a move to lower the age?! The National Institutes of Health published a paper14 studying children and youth from around the world on this subject. 

Back to Canada for a moment, according to this recorded talk15(by several government leaders and their associates), the research they chime on about glows with how great a 16-year-old can be at contributing to society. 

According to the NPR (National Public Radio16), across the EU, 2 countries (Belgium and Germany) 16 years olds will be voting for the first time in 2024. 

World Population Review17 shared that at least 2 South American countries allow 16 year olds to vote, but by 18, it’s a mandatory event. (The website clearly showed that the vast majority of nations use 18 years for the earliest a person can vote.) 

UNICEF18(the arm of the UN which also stated in 202119that some pornography in schools was OK and that all homeschooling was bad), shared that voting by 16 years old isn’t specifically named in their Convention on the Rights of the Child, but, that voting COULD fulfill what is included in Article 12 (for example: “the child’s right to express his or her views freely in “all matters affecting the child”). Don’t let it be lost that even as globally aligned and awful as UNICEF is, that they also consider a 16-year-old to be under the ages of adulthood. That said, the UN, UNESCO, UNICEF all support the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the Human Rights Declaration, where voting is also laid out to fit the UN’s agenda, NOT each country, on its own. 

The website HRE (Human Rights Educators20) based in the US, clearly states that the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) is a legally binding treaty that established standards governments ratify to uphold! Considering the tag line for the website is “Every Child, Every Right”, it’s not hard to see that voting, as a right, will be lumped in! 

Then, there’s the US Congress, that they too are introducing bills and writing resolutions concerning younger voters. 

HR Joint Resolution 1621(introduced 1/11/23) and still in the current Session (118th). This resolution has 17 co-sponsors, along with one sponsor. 

It unites both the Republicans and Democrats in an effort to seek the repeal of the 26th Amendment and replace it with a newer version allowing 16 year olds to vote. It leaves a mandate that within 7 years, three-fourths of the States ratify this. (*Note: with each of these, don’t get lost in what member of Congress sponsored or co-sponsored, or that, with the exception of 1 member, all are Democrats. Look to the States which will participate, they don’t always vote one party; at least under the current 2 party system.) 

S 298522(introduced 9/28/23) by one Senator and has 10 co-sponsors. This Senate bill has an identical ‘sister’ bill in the House (HR 529323). The House version has 68 co-sponsors and one sponsor. Both of these bills would like to see the States offer voting pre-registration to 16 year olds. There are a few conditions. See Article 6 of these big bills. (*Note: usually, when the Congress has two identical bills in a current session, the one with the most co-sponsors has a better survival rate than the lesser. Also, watch this topic, because if it fails in the 118th Session, it can be re-introduced in the 119th Session.) 

Both this bills are title the Youth Voting Act. 

Currently, in the US, specific towns allow 16-year-olds to vote in limited capacities. The National Youth Rights Association24 website is watching this and in full support of a national lowering of the voting age.  Yes. Definitely something to keep a close eye on.

 Related: 
 archives: 

 1) *The STEM25(Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) push was a key tool of the UN to promote the SDGs. 
 2) *The vast amount of globalization being pushed on our children26is steeped in collectivism, a vital part of socialism’s success. 
 3)*Law enforcement across America (as well as elsewhere) is under the thumb of the UN. Law enforcement is also a huge part of the success of compliance needed for socialism to survive27. 
 4) *Be sure to scroll down to the list of resources and notice the links dealing with ‘democracy’. Democracy is what the UN needs America to become (instead of the Constitutional Republic it IS). Democracy is often used in promoting citizens to vote, here and elsewhere. Just turn on a TV and watch the news media ads for “Democracy 2024” or similar advertising. 

 Actions: 

 1) Warriors, we’re seeing some very alarming things going on in our world. Voting is a precious commodity, as well as a right we have. Not assigned by the government, but encompassed in our freedom to speak. That’s a naturally given right, that no government should be able to remove. However, what we’re seeing isn’t so much a way to remove our right to vote, but to limit that right..in essence, limiting our free speech.
 If you’re reading this in the US, know not only your US Constitution, but your State’s version. If you’re reading this from outside the US, know what your government framework says, and what it doesn’t. 
 Often, the way these things fly under the radar is the unspoken word or intent.
 2) Inform others about these efforts. Recently, I was a guest at a local middle school28 and I focused on the several amendments our US Constitution devoted to voting. When I brought up the push to lower the age to 16, the adults were horrified, as well as the students feeling nowhere near ready to be that active. Neither group didn’t say ‘no’ to voting, just not at 16 years. It’s too soon!
 3) Lastly: watch and listen concerning this UN led effort and share this article!

Sources

:https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/declaration-on-future-generationshttps://www.iri.org/news/driving-democracy-forward-insights-from-the-2024-generation-democracy-global summithttps://www.commoncorediva.com/2018/10/03/future-kids/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2021/11/15/what-rights/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4pjdSjgvEhttps://www.un.org/en/global-issues/democracyhttps://usoas.usmission.gov/our-relationship/policy-programs/democracy/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/23/the-crushing-blow/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/27/the-crushing-blow-part-two/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/28/the-crushing-blow-part-three/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/29/crushing-blow-the-conclusion/https://jbs.org/nau/usmca/https://jbs.org/video/nafta/usmca-what-they-are-not-telling-you/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6551607/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Ji-23ei5Uhttps://www.npr.org/2024/06/07/nx-s1-4987217/eu-parliamentary-election-there-will-be-16-year-old-voters -in-germany-and-belgiumhttps://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-countryhttps://www.unicef.org/innocenti/should-children-votehttps://c-fam.org/friday_fax/unicef-report-says-pornography-not-always-harmful-to-children/https://hreusa.org/projects/every-child-every-right/every-child-every-right/https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/16/text?s=1&r=1&q=%7B%22search %22%3A%22voting+16+years+old%22%7Dhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2985/text?s=1&r=4&q=%7B%22search%22%3A %22voting+16+years+old%22%7Dhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2985/related-bills?s=1&r=4&q=%7B%22search% 22%3A%22voting+16+years+old%22%7Dhttps://www.youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/voting-age-status-report/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2018/09/21/under-our-noses/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2018/04/04/global-smobal/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2023/08/26/brute-force-ahead/https://iredellstandingfortruth.com/2024/10/05/east-iredell-middle-school-constitution-day/

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Timeline of Events Surrounding J6 D.C. National Guard Deployment Shows Politically Motivated Decisions


As Kamala Harris and Democrats continue to use January 6 as a campaign issue, it is important to recall those responsible for preventing the National Guard from protecting the Capitol.

Thanks to the surgeon-like precision of my researcher Haley McLean, this timeline (we believe) represents the most exhaustive one to date showing the requests and denials related to the deployment of the D.C. National Guard before and on January 6, 2021. Events have been curated from a number of resources including congressional testimony, internal agency investigations, media coverage, videos, and book excerpts.

We preface the timeline with critical context and information about the lead-up to January 6 involving key political operatives and known foes of President Trump.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summer 2020

Jamie Fleet, then-Democratic staffer for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Committee on House Administration (chaired, at the time, by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who was later appointed to Pelosi’s January 6 Select Committee) had a team of counselors working in anticipation of coming debates and objections from states—including Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia—about the certification of the electoral college vote. Knowing that objections would likely be raised on January 6, Fleet’s team began contingency planning to prepare for the possibility that the proceedings would “not [be] traditional.”

June 2020

  • Following the June 1 photo op at Lafayette Square during the BLM riots in Washington, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley contemplated resigning. Sitting in his Pentagon office, Milley wrote several drafts of a letter of resignation. Milley sought advice from a wide circle of confidants, including Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs under the Obama administration; retired Army General James Dubik; members of Congress; former officials with the George W. Bush and Obama administrations; and Robert Gates, former secretary of Defense and CIA chief. Most agreed with Gates’s advice: “Make them fire you. Don’t resign.”
    • After Lafayette Square, Gates told both Gen. Milley and then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper that, “given Trump’s increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior, they needed to stay in the Pentagon as long as they could.” 
    • By June 10, 2020 Gen. Milley had decided not to resign. “Fuck that shit,” he reportedly told his staff. “I’ll just fight him.” Milley assured his confidants that he would never openly defy the president—a move he considered illegal—but he was “determined to plant flags.” He told his staff, “If they want to court-martial me or put me in prison, have at it, but I will fight from the inside.” Milley saw himself as “tasked” with safeguarding “against Trump and his people” from potentially misusing the military, something he confided in a “trusted confidant” to ensure he remained true to this plan. “I have four tasks from now until the twentieth of January,” he affirmed, “and I’m going to accomplish my mission.”
    • Milley “sought to get the message to Democrats that he would not go along with any further efforts by the president to deploy the machinery of war for domestic political ends. He called both Pelosi and Schumer.” 
  • Gen. Milley stood up a crisis management team that was “dedicated to monitoring domestic unrest.” He outlined his and his staff’s efforts in four phases: “So I said—and this is from June—so I said: Phase one is now through the election, and phase two is the election out through the certification, which was known, it was a known date, the 6th. So from the election to the certification. Phase three, I said, was certification to inauguration. And phase four was inauguration plus 100 days.”
    • Every morning at Gen. Milley’s direction, he and his staff began tracking civil disturbances in the United States, focusing on events and incidents involving groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Milley explained, “when I say ‘tracking’ I had the Joint Staff report, set up a system of reporting in the morning at our normal 7:30 meeting” and “the reports from every morning and it’s June, July, August, September, October, all the way through.” 
    • Milley and his team “had LNOs [Liaison Officers] with the FBI, in the FBI building … I think we called it domestic unrest as a general thing,” and “we just worked with the FBI and local police, and we made sure that we kept track of it. And we stood up a team to make sure that we, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I, had situational awareness just like we have overseas.” 
    • Milley had his Joint Staff historian “conduct an in-depth research on the use of the Insurrection Act, what it’s all about, going all the way back to 1807 or whatever year it started, all the historical examples, laid out every single one of them in detail. The historian would walk me through it.”

Fall 2020 through December 2020

  • Gen. Milley’s crisis management team continued tracking domestic activity as civil unrest from the summer of 2020 began dying down and leading up to January 6, including November and December MAGA rallies. 
  • December 29, 2020—A meeting between Jamie Fleet’s team and the Biden-Harris team addressed potential scenarios where they flag that Vice President Pence “may go sideways.” Senator Josh Hawley’s statement that he will object to the certification process is referenced. 
  • Late December, 2020—As more than 140 Republicans in the House, roughly two-thirds of the GOP members, were preparing to contest the election results on January 6, and with Senator Josh Hawley becoming the first to announce his plan to vote against certifying the Electoral College results and force a debate, “Milley was not alone in his anxiety about the coming days. Other senior leaders in the administration and in Congress were concerned about whether Trump might try to use the powers of the FBI, the CIA, and especially the military to try to stay in office. Starting on December 31, some called Milley seeking comfort. ‘Everybody’s worried about coups, attempted coups, overseas stuff in Iran,’ one congressman told Milley.” 
  • December 31, 2020—D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA) Director Christopher Rodriguez and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser officially requested D.C. National Guard support on January 6. The request was sent to Major General William Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, seeking support for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department with 30 designated traffic posts and six crowd management teams at specified Metro stations.

January 2, 2021

January 3, 2021

  • 9:24 a.m.—United States Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund made his first request for D.C. National Guard to House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving: Irving told Sund he doesn’t “like the optics of that” and directed Sund to consult with Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger. Afterwards, Irving immediately called Stenger to advise him of Sund’s request, insisting they come up with another plan. Irving told Stenger that he will “never get this by Pelosi.” 
  • 11:53 a.m.—Sund brought the D.C. National Guard request to Stenger. Stenger asked Sund if he could unofficially inquire with Walker about what assistance the National Guard could provide if they were needed on January 6. 
  • Around Noon—Sund met U.S. Capitol Police head of Protective Services Bureau Sean Gallagher at USCP headquarters. Gallagher advised Sund that he had received a call from Carol Corbin, program director at the Department of Defense, who wanted to know if they would be requesting the National Guard. After having his request denied by Irving and Stenger, Sund asked Gallagher to tell Corbin, “Thank you, but at this time we will not be requesting the National Guard.” 
  • Later in the day—Sund contacted both Irving and Stenger and told them about the call from Corbin and the inquiry from the Defense Department. Sund said that based on their instruction to him, he asked Gallagher to inform Corbin that the USCP would not be requesting the National Guard and reiterated that he was still planning to call Walker that evening to advise him of the outcome. 
  • 5:30 p.m.—Meeting with President Trump at the White House about Iran: Attendees include Milley, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Acting Secretary of Defense Miller. In his interview with the January 6 Select Committee, Milley said he believed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Defense Department Chief of Staff Kash Patel, and White House General Counsel Pat Cipollone also attended the meeting.
    • During the meeting, President Trump said, “There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.” He continued: “I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.” 
  • 6:14 p.m.—Sund called Walker to ask what assistance the National Guard could provide if they were needed on January 6. Sund told Walker that he did not have an approved Declaration of Emergency from the Capitol Police Board to make the request and that he was specifically asked to inquire unofficially so that he could “lean forward” on the request.

January 4, 2021

  • Capitol Police confirmed there was no requirement for Defense Department support in a phone call with Secretary McCarthy. 
  • Secretary Miller, in consultation with General Milley, Sec. McCarthy, and Defense Department general counsel, reviewed the Defense Department plan to provide support to civil authorities if asked, and approved activation of 340 members of the D.C. National Guard to support Mayor Bowser’s request. Support provided in response to Mayor Bowser’s request includes: 90 personnel (180 total/2 shorts) for traffic control points, 24 personnel (48 total/2 shorts) for Metro Station support, 20 personnel for Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, and 52 personnel for Internal Command and Control. 
  • Sec. Miller issued a memo to Sec. McCarthy that authorized the deployment of “the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort and in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority.”

January 5, 2021

  • Sec. McCarthy issued a January 5 memo to Walker placing unprecedented restrictions that stripped Walker’s authority to deploy D.C. National Guard Quick Reaction Force without explicit personal approval from McCarthy.
    • Gen. Milley was actively involved in advising Sec. McCarthy on the Jan. 5 memo, “line by line going through this, lining it out, editing, and stuff like that, resulting in this memo.” 
  • Mayor Bowser issued a letter to Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Sec. Miller, and Sec. McCarthy confirming that there were no additional D.C. National Guard support requirements. 
  • Before 10:00 a.m.—Sund advised Irving of his conversation with Walker, telling him that Walker had assured him the National Guard would be prepared to repurpose 125 troops and send them once Walker notified the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy. Capitol Police would need to send someone over to the armory to swear them in. Irving “seemed satisfied” and thanked Sund for following up with Walker.
  • 10:00 a.m. briefing—Jamie Fleet, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, House Sergeant at Arms Irving, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund, and Aaron Lashure were present. Fleet asked Sund about the status of the National Guard. “Sund said that the Guard could be activated with an emergency declaration from the board, but they are here. They are a phone call away, and if we need them, they are ready to go.” 
  • Shortly before Noon—Sund advised Stenger about his Sunday evening conversation with Walker. 
  • 6:36 p.m.—Speaker Pelosi’s Chief of Staff Terry McCullough and Jamie Fleet “had a conversation with Mr. Irving [House Sergeant at Arms] later that day on the 5th, where Mr. Irving generally provided a short summary of the conversation, the 10 a.m. conversation, for Ms. McCullough’s benefit. And then we spent a few minutes talking about the possibility that there that—that Members during the proceeding, might—there might be disruption among Members.”

January 6, 2021

  • Morning of January 6—House Sergeant at Arms Irving and his staff met with Democratic staff without Republican staff present. 
  • 8:19 a.m.—Jamie Fleet called House Continuity Officer Tom Kreitzer. Fleet asked Kreitzer how long it would take to set up an alternate Chamber if needed. The reason behind Fleet’s inquiry stemmed from “just a feeling in the neighborhood.” 
  • 8:30 a.m.—Sec. Miller and Gen. Milley reviewed a Defense Department plan to support law enforcement agencies and requested an exercise regarding Defense Department contingency response options. 
  • 11:30 a.m.—Sec. Miller participated in table-top exercise regarding Defense Department contingency response options. 
  • 11:57 a.m.—President Trump began his speech at the Ellipse.
  • 12:30 p.m.—Pelosi’s Chief of Staff McCullough called House Sergeant at Arms Irving. 
  • 12:33 p.m.—House Sergeant at Arms Irving called McCullough. 
  • 12:40 p.m.—An alleged pipe bomb is discovered in an alley between the Capitol Hill Club, a GOP hangout, and the Republican National Headquarters blocks from the Capitol.
  • 12:53 p.m.—First breach of exterior police lines occurred on the west side of the Capitol.
  • 12:58 p.m.—Sund called House Sergeant at Arms Irving, telling him, “We are getting overrun by protesters on the West Front! I need approval to request the National Guard immediately!” Irving replied, “Let me run it up the chain,” and “I’ll call you back.” 
  • 1:00 p.m.—Joint session of Congress convened. Vice President Mike Pence released his letter indicating he would not send back certificates from contested states.
  • Shortly after 1:00 p.m.—Sund called Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger. Call went to voicemail. 
  • 1:05 p.m.—Sec. Miller received open-source reports of demonstrator movements toward the U.S. Capitol. D.C. Metro police arrived at the Capitol.
  • 1:06 p.m.—Stenger returned Sund’s call. Sund told him that he needed the National Guard immediately. Stenger asked Sund if he asked Irving. Sund responded, “Yes, Paul said he was running it up the chain.” Stenger said, “Okay. Let me know when Paul gets back to you.” 
  • 1:07 p.m.—A plainclothes Capitol police officer under the supervision of Sean Gallagher discovered an alleged pipe bomb outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the vice president-elect, is inside the building.
  • 1:10 p.m.—Trump ended his speech at the Ellipse. Despite last minute plans to go to the Capitol, his Secret Service detail informed the president it wasn’t safe and returned him to the White House.
  • 1:21 p.m.—Stenger called Sund again. Sund told him that they were having trouble holding the line and needed the National Guard. Stenger told Sund he’d get back to him and hung up. 
  • 1:26 p.m.—U.S. Capitol Police ordered the evacuation of the Capitol complex. 
  • 1:28 p.m.—Sund called Irving to ask for an update on the Guard. “Still waiting,” Irving replied. 
  • 1:32 p.m.—Jamie Fleet missed a call from Irving. 
  • 1:33 p.m.—Irving texted Fleet saying, “Tried to call with an update. Call anytime.”  Fleet returned Irving’s call. 
  • 1:34 p.m.
  • 1:39 p.m.—Stenger called Sund for an update. Sund advised him that he is still waiting on approval from Irving regarding the National Guard. 
  • 1:40 p.m.
    • The Architect of the Capitol reported to Army senior leaders that an estimated crowd of 15,000–20,000 people are “moving in the direction of the National Capitol.” 
    • Irving approached McCullough and other staff members in the Speaker’s lobby behind the House Chamber to ask about permission to seek support from the D.C. National Guard. 
  • 1:45 p.m.—Sund called Irving again. Irving told Sund he’s still waiting on approval for the Guard. 
  • 1:49 p.m.
  • 1:50 p.m.—Irving held a meeting of leadership staff in Stenger’s office to discuss the question of bringing in the D.C. National Guard. House leadership staff, along with some from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office, were in attendance. They were informed at the time that the Guard had not yet been called. 
  • 2:01 p.m.—Sund called Irving again. Irving told Sund to give him just a couple more minutes.
  • 2:08 p.m.—Sund called Irving again and was informed that the Capitol Police Board formally approved the request for D.C. National Guard. 
  • 2:10 p.m.—Sund called Major General Walker and informed him of the Capitol Police Board’s authorization to request D.C. National Guard assistance. 
  • 2:12 p.m.—First breach inside of the Capitol.
  • 2:13 p.m.—The Architect of the Capitol reported to Army senior leaders that crowds were continuing to gather at the Capitol, which is “reportedly locked down due to multiple attempts to cross police barriers and police injuries.”
    • Senator Grassley gaveled the Senate into recess. Grassley’s security team entered the Senate Chamber and evacuated Grassley off the floor, exiting from the north door of the chamber. Other leaders were escorted out the same way. Vice President Mike Pence was escorted from the Senate Chamber by U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Capitol Police. 
  • 2:14 p.m.—Fleet called Irving.
    • It is reported that rioters have breached the second floor of the Capitol. Capitol Division officers were directed to respond to the Senate Chamber, where they began to barricade the doors. 
    • U.S. Capitol Police Command Center issued an alert through the mass notification system, warning of an “inside threat.” 
  • 2:17 p.m.—The Task Force Guardian Commander told Quick Reaction Force (QFR) Officer in Charge to get QRF “geared up and on the bus for when Sec. McCarthy approves a change in mission.” 
  • 2:19 p.m.
    • Walker emailed Sec. McCarthy and advised him of the Sund request for immediate assistance. Walker received no email or phone response. 
    • D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Director Christopher Rodriguez initiated a conference call with Walker to help with Sund’s request for D.C. National Guard assistance. 
  • 2:20 p.m.—As Pelosi evacuated the building, she asked an unidentified staffer, “Are they calling the National Guard?” The staffer responded, “Yes, ma’am, yes they are.” Pelosi turned to Terry McCullough to ask if she had reached Sen. Mitch McConnell. “And will they call the National Guard?” McCullough answered, “That’s correct.” She continued to complain about the lack of guardsmen as she walked through the underground tunnel to her awaiting SUV. “They’re calling the National Guard now? Should have been there to start off with.”
  • 2:22 p.m.—Sec. McCarthy arranged a phone call with the D.C. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Homeland Security Emergency Management Agency Director Rodriguez, and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department leadership. McCarthy was “not aware that the building was breached until we were on that phone call. And it was—that’s where, you know, if—the call starts, and I get up and I leave. I literally say, find out the requirements, I’m going to get the authority, and I left my office to go down to the Secretary of Defense’s office” 
  • 2:25 p.m.—Sund learned that the Defense Department was trying to get him on a conference call and then received a text message from Rodriguez. The text provided a telephone number and an access code for the conference call. A second text followed: “This is Chris Rodriguez.” Sund called the number and was placed on hold; he waited several minutes while receiving a second text with the same call information from Walker. Sund hung up and tried calling back several times, getting the same result.
    • House Chamber Officers, a unit within the U.S. Capitol Police Capitol Division, initiated evacuation of the remaining representatives from the House Chamber. 
  • 2:26 p.m.—House Speaker Pelosi’s motorcade came within a few hundred feet of the pipe bomb located at the Democratic National Committee when her security detail drove her through a security perimeter and away from the Capitol. Other congressional leaders were on their way to Fort McNair to shelter in place.
  • 2:30 p.m. 
  • 2:30 p.m. Conference Call
    • Homeland Security Emergency Management Agency Director Rodriguez established a conference call with D.C. and military leaders to seek Secretary of the Army’s authorization for immediate deployment of D.C. National Guard. Army Sec. McCarthy was not on the call. 
    • Participants in the 2:30 p.m. conference call included Mayor Bowser, Sund, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert Contee, Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, and “all of us” (meaning the Defense Department’s April 2024 witnesses), but “McCarthy never spoke on that call” and “We were told [McCarthy] was unavailable. I called his executive officers to ask to speak to him, and we were told he was unavailable.” (Col. Earl Matthews April 2024 Congressional Testimony)
    • “[Maj. Gen. Walker] tried to call Secretary McCarthy three times between 2:30 and 5pm.” McCarthy’s phone went straight to voicemail. Walker did not hear back from McCarthy the entire day. (Brig. Gen. Aaron Dean March 26, 2024 testimony.)
  • 2:34 p.m.—Sund texted Homeland Security Emergency Management Agency Director Rodriguez, “I am on the call. Only person.” Rodriguez called Sund back and patches him into the conference call, which is already in progress. Several people are on the line, including Maj. Gen. Walker, Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, and other members of the D.C. National Guard and Pentagon military staff. Also on the call are various D.C. government officials, including Mayor Bowser, Chief Contee, and Homeland Security Emergency Management Agency Director Rodriguez. Sund requested D.C. National Guard assistance. Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt didn’t like the optics and advised his recommendation would be “not to support the request.” Piatt closed the subject by saying that he would run the request up the chain of command at the Pentagon. 
  • 2:40 p.m. (roughly)—En route in an SUV to Fort McNair, Pelosi told McCullough, “I feel responsible. We have responsibility, Terry. Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with? And I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for war.” Pelosi again raised the deployment of the National Guard. “We’re going to stay here all day, for the rest of our lives, until the National Guard decides to come and get rid of these people?”
  • 2:41 p.m.—Stenger called Irving. 
  • 2:43 p.m.—Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd shot Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt in the neck outside the Speaker’s Lobby; Sund left the conference call due to shots fired in the Capitol so he could pass along the information to congressional leadership. Immediately after Sund left the conference call, General Milley demanded to get the attorney general on the phone so he could “get every cop in D.C. down there to the Capitol this minute, all seven to eight thousand of them.” 
  • 2:45 p.m.—The conference call in Army Sec. McCarthy’s office with his staff and D.C. leaders ended on receipt of a report of gunfire inside the Capitol. 
  • 2:51 p.m.—Irving called Stenger. 
  • 2:55 p.m.—The D.C. National Guard Quick Response Force departed Joint Base Andrews with a police escort to the D.C. Armory, according to the Quick Response Force officer in command. The Task Force Guardian Commander arrived at the U.S. Capitol Police Command Post in the Capitol. 
  • 2:57 p.m.—Fleet called Irving. 
  • 3:00 p.m.
    • Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke with Army Sec. McCarthy from Fort McNair. “We need a full National Guard component now.”
    • Defense Sec. Miller determined all available forces of the D.C. National Guard are required to reinforce Metropolitan Police Department and U.S. Capitol Police positions to support efforts to reestablish security of the Capitol complex. 
    • Army Sec. McCarthy directed D.C. National Guard to prepare available Guardsmen to move from the armory to the Capitol complex, while seeking formal approval from Sec. Miller for deployment. D.C. National Guard prepared to move 150 personnel to support U.S. Capitol Police, pending Sec. Miller’s approval. 
  • 3:04 p.m.—Sec. Miller provided verbal approval to Army Sec. McCarthy for the immediate mobilization, activation, and deployment of the D.C. National Guard to the Capitol, including the deployment of a Quick Response Force. 
  • 3:05 p.m.
    • Secure Video Teleconference initiated between D.C. National Guard and Army Sec. McCarthy’s senior leadership. McCarthy is not on the call.
    • Army Sec. McCarthy provided an update to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer regarding his 3:04 p.m. conversation with Defense Sec. Miller. 
  • 3:07 p.m.—Irving called Fleet.
  • 3:08 p.m.—Fleet texted Irving: “So command center is saying guard on the way?” Irving responded, “Yes, they indicate the National Guard is on the way.” Irving replied, “They are en route. I’m told some leadership from the NG have shown up at the USCP Command Post but not troops yet.” 
  • Around 3:10 p.m.—House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer along with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer called Republican Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. Hoyer “was pleading” for Hogan to send the National Guard, but Hogan said he had not received authorization.
    • According to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), “Steny Hoyer spoke to the Governor of Maryland, who reported that he had National Guard personnel at the D.C.-Maryland border but he had been prohibited to send them in by the Pentagon.” 
  • 3:15 p.m.—The D.C. National Guard Quick Reaction Force arrived at the D.C. National Guard Armory, according to the Quick Reaction Force officer in command. 
  • 3:19 p.m.—Army Sec. McCarthy called Schumer and Pelosi again, explaining that Defense Sec. Miller had indeed approved immediate D.C. National Guard mobilization. 
  • 3:22 p.m.—Speaker Pelosi called Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, telling him, “Governor, I don’t know if you had been approached about the Virginia National Guard. Mr. Hoyer was speaking to Governor Hogan. But I still think you probably need the ‘okay’ of the Federal Government in order to come into another jurisdiction.” 
  • 3:26 p.m.
  • 3:30 p.m.—Bowser told Pelosi and Schumer she was getting “mixed messages” about deployment of the guard. “I thought there was some resistance from the secretary of the Army,” Bowser said.
  • Around 3:45 p.m. (“about an hour after the 2:22 call” which ended at 2:45 p.m.)—Homeland Security Emergency Management Agency Director Rodriguez departed Emergency Operations Center for Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters. 
  • 3:48 p.m.
    • Army Sec. McCarthy departed the Pentagon for Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters. 
    • McCarthy made a stop at FBI headquarters before heading to Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters to meet with Mayor Bowser and Chief Contee to develop an operational plan. 
  • 4:00 p.m. (roughly)—Mitch McConnell told Defense Sec. Miller, “we are in one hell of a hurry, you understand?” related to deployment of the National Guard. Schumer told Miller, who is on speaker on someone’s cell phone, “We need them there now, whatever you got.”
  • 4:05 p.m.
    • Army Sec. McCarthy arrived at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters and met with Mayor Bowser and Chief Contee. McCarthy received a situational brief and developed a plan for the D.C. National Guard to help the U.S. Capitol Police at the Capitol. 
    • HSEMA Director Rodriguez arrived at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters shortly after Army Sec. McCarthy. “Secretary McCarthy, I believe, was there by the time I got there, at MPD headquarters.”
  • 4:07 p.m.—Sund emailed a written request to Maj. Gen. Walker for immediate D.C. National Guard support. 
  • 4:08 p.m.—The Architect of the Capitol reported a 40-person Quick Response Force is on the way from Joint Base Andrews to the Armory, “with 184 more on standby” as of 3:23 p.m.
  • 4:13 p.m.—According to the Defense Department Executive Secretary, Defense Sec. Miller approved a U.S. Capitol Police request for Pentagon Force Protection Agency support. 
  • 4:18 p.m.—Defense Sec. Miller, Gen. Milley, Army Sec. McCarthy, and Chief of the National Guard Bureau discussed availability of National Guard forces from other states in the region. Sec. Miller gave voice approval for out-of-state National Guard forces to muster and be prepared to deploy to D.C. 
  • 4:22 p.m.—Sund called Maj. Gen. Walker again, requesting immediate assistance. Walker emphasized he had not received deployment approval from Army Sec. McCarthy. 
  • 4:30 p.m.
    • Army Sec. McCarthy called Sec. Miller to brief him on the operational plan. Neither D.C. National Guard nor U.S. Capitol Police were involved in the development of this operational plan. 
    • Sec. Miller concurred with Army Sec. McCarthy’s plan for D.C. National Guard personnel to meet with the Metropolitan Police Department and conduct Capitol perimeter security and clearance operations as part of a joint U.S. Capitol Police, FBI, Metropolitan Police Department, and D.C. National Guard operation. 
  • 4:32 p.m.—Sec. Miller provided verbal authorization to re-mission D.C. National Guard to conduct perimeter and clearance operations in support of U.S. Capitol Police. Army Sec. McCarthy was to provide public notification of support. 
  • 4:35 p.m.
    • Army Sec. McCarthy said he called Maj. Gen. Walker and informed him that Miller approved the D.C. National Guard re-mission request to support the U.S. Capitol Police. But this call never happened, according to Maj. Gen. Walker and Defense Department witnesses from an April 2024 House Oversight Subcommittee hearing. 
    • Army Sec. McCarthy then admitted he did not call Maj. Gen. Walker because “the Mayor said she wanted to go on TV to communicate to the public, and they had asked me to go with,” and “I wanted to get my thoughts collected.” McCarthy was “at a table taking notes” and “had to get ready” for the televised press conference.
  • 4:40 p.m.—Army Sec. McCarthy had a phone call with Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. Governor promised to send Maryland National Guard troops to D.C., who are expected to arrive on January 7, 2021. 
  • 4:47 p.m.
  • 5:00 p.m.
  • 5:08 p.m.
    • Maj. Gen. Walker received an order via secure video teleconference to deploy D.C. National Guard from Army Sec. McCarthy’s Chief of Staff, Gen. James McConville, in passing. First D.C. National Guard bus departed D.C. Armory. 
    • Maj. Gen. Walker ordered the D.C. National Guard Quick Response Force, now enhanced with additional personnel, to move to the Capitol. 
    • Col. Earl Matthews testified that he was sitting right next to Maj. Gen. Walker in the conference room during the video teleconference when Gen. McConville conveyed the order, and that he was told that the order came not from Army Sec. McCarthy, but from Defense Sec. Miller, that they had the authorization to go. “That’s what I was told at the time.” The order was relayed via the ongoing video teleconference. “The conference was ongoing, it was running, and General McConville, Chief of Staff of the Army, happened to be on the conference talking to us, and he mentioned that we had the authorization to go.”
  • 5:15 p.m.
  • 5:20 p.m.—D.C. National Guard arrived at the U.S. Capitol Police headquarters to be sworn in by U.S. Capitol Police. 
  • 5:29 p.m.—D.C. National Guard personnel arrived at U.S. Capitol Police headquarters, according to the Task Force Guardian Commander and Quick Reaction Force officer in command. 
  • 5:30 p.m.—Maj. Gen. Walker arrived at the Capitol. 
  • 5:40 p.m.—The U.S. Capitol Police swore in D.C. National Guard personnel as “Special Police” at U.S. Capitol Police headquarters. 
  • 5:45 p.m.—Sec. Miller signed formal authorization for out-of-state National Guard to muster and gave voice approval for deployment in support of U.S. Capitol Police. 
  • 5:55 p.m.—D.C. National Guardsmen arrived at U.S. Capitol. 
  • 5:58 p.m.—Pence, who was with Sund, told Pelosi, Schumer, and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) that the House and Senate would be able to reconvene “in about an hour.”
  • 6:00 p.m.
    • D.C. National Guard personnel joined the line of law enforcement personnel facing the crowd on the west side of the Capitol.
    • Army Sec. McCarthy briefed Sec. Miller, Gen. Milley, the White House Counsel, the National Security Advisor, and officials from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Interior, Department of Justice, and FBI by telephone that 150 D.C. National Guard personnel were at the Capitol and another 150 were on the way.
    • Brig. Gen. Matt Smith, Deputy Operations Director, G-3/5/7, Headquarters, Department of the Army, received a report from the Architect of the Capitol that 1,000 police officers were on Capitol grounds and that the building was clear of rioters as of 6:04 p.m. 
  • 6:14 p.m.—U.S. Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police Department, and D.C. National Guard successfully established a perimeter on the west side of the U.S. Capitol. 
  • 7:36 p.m.—Sec. Miller provided vocal approval to lease fences in support of the U.S. Capitol Police for security of the Capitol building. 
  • 8:00 p.m.—U.S. Capitol Police declared the Capitol building secure. The Senate reconvened; a few Republican senators who had supporter an audit of the election withdrew their support and instead pledged to certify Biden/Harris victory.
  • 9:02 p.m.—The House reconvened.

January 7, 2021:

  • 3:42 a.m.—Pence officially certified Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 presidential election.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Yet Another Conspiracy Theory Bites the Dust!


Tin foil hat wearers, unite!

The Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has not yet issued a report on the DOJ’s role in the events of January 6. Horowitz announced on January 15, 2021 that he would conduct the inquiry; the DOJ is the only government agency that hasn’t published the findings of an internal investigation.

Now we know why. Or at least the official excuse.

Horowitz informed the House Weaponization subcommittee on September 25 that he had paused his investigation for an unspecified amount of time so as to not interfere in the department’s “ongoing criminal cases” into January 6. “We reinitiated it last year and I’m in the process of reviewing a draft report,” Horowitz told Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky) during a hearing on FBI retaliation against whistleblowers.

Setting aside the dubious explanation—the DOJ’s criminal investigation continues to this day with new arrests announced each week—Horowitz used the delay to explain why the report won’t be released before Election Day.

But the legitimate reason why the report will be more than four years in the making represents another example of election interference by the Justice Department. Promoting the false narrative about the “insurrection” and placing blame at the feet of Donald Trump is central to the Democrats’ winning election strategy this year. The Biden/Harris regime and their bootlickers in the corporate media consistently portray suspicions that the federal government played an animating if not lead role in the Capitol protest as the stuff of “conspiracy theories.”

So thanks to Horowitz’s foot dragging, arguably the biggest unanswered question of January 6—how many FBI informants were involved—will remain a mystery until after Americans vote this fall and possibly until after Inauguration Day.

Hints and Clues Amid the Subterfuge

Horowitz, however, did tip his hand in terms of whether his report will address the role of FBI informants. Under further questioning by Massie, Horowitz said he intends to reveal the number of FBI informants, officially known as confidential human sources, on Capitol grounds that day. His report may also disclose expenses paid to informants by the FBI:

Horowitz’s comments finally caught the attention of media outlets and lawmakers who’ve ignored this scandal for nearly four years. During a segment on Fox News, which largely stopped covering January 6 following the departure of Tucker Carlson in April 2023, legal analyst Kerri Kupec called Horowitz’s testimony “the sleeper story of the day.”

Kupec told reporter John Roberts that “so many lawmakers and pundits were decried as crazy for suggesting that there could be confidential human sources involved in January 6th and it looks like there might just have been.” 

Roberts responded: “A lot of us were told if you think this you’re crazy, you’re a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist but a lot of it turned out to be true so we’ll see how this goes.”

Perhaps more telling than the coverage at Fox News is the lack of coverage by regime media. Neither the Washington Post, CNN, or MSNBC reported on Horowitz’s testimony; the New York Times, which in a 2022 article confirmed the government’s acknowledgement that at least eight FBI informants were planted inside the Proud Boys, also failed to cover Horowitz’s comments.

Where Ya’ Been, Guys?

GOP leaders in Congress also took note. Calling Horowitz’s testimony about FBI informants an “alarming bit of information,” House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed his office will push for answers. “I’ll be requesting classified briefings,” Johnson told Fox News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram after the hearing.

One could commend Johnson for finally speaking out. A classified briefing will likely yield the same non-answers by the FBI that Director Christopher Wray offers in public. But at least such a briefing generates headlines and keep the story alive.

Pergram then posted a lengthy response from Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman James Jordan (R-Ohio):

How [Horowitz] answered Mr. Massie’s questions, sounds like there were confidential human sources at the Capitol that day. Sounded like it was plural. Like he said, sources. But the part that bothers me is, does it sound like they’re going to be a report on what actually happened? How many? What they were doing. We’re not going to have a report…until after the election. This seemed like news that the American people [have] been seeking for almost four years.

Based on Mr. Horowitz’s testimony, based on the work the committee has done over the last couple years, looks like there were confidential human sources at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. We want to know what took place. We want to know what they were doing. We want to know all the answers to the key questions, and we’d like that information soon.

While Republican interest in the matter is welcome albeit long overdue, there simply is no question FBI informants were involved before and on January 6. It is well known that the FBI embedded informants in both the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prior to the events of January 6; some participated in pre-planning meetings as well as the protest itself.

During a transcribed interview with the House Judiciary Committee last year, former Washington FBI chief Steven D’Antuono also appeared to confirm multiple FBI offices sent informants to the nation’s capital for January 6. D’Antuono told House Republicans last year that he polled all 56 field offices in 2021 to determine how many FBI informants were involved.

And it is quite possible informants were not the only FBI assets at the Capitol on January 6. Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund estimates “multiple” FBI undercover agents tracked suspected “domestic terrorists” in the city that day. Sund told Tucker Carlson in an August 2023 interview that deploying FBI undercover employees, which are different from informants, represented “regular standard police work.” Sund, however, expressed concern the bureau did not share any information with his office about the use of FBI informants or undercover agents.

None of this passes the smell test. And it never did. Which is why it’s long past time for Republican leaders in Congress to pressure the inspector general to release his report immediately.

If the report is in draft form as Horowitz stated, Republicans must demand an immediate classification review and instruct Attorney General Merrick Garland to post the report by November 1. All demands will be ignored but that should not stop Congressional leaders from doing so. If anything, it will make it harder for the rest of the GOP in Washington—and the regime media—to keep ignoring this major scandal.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Guest Column: DOJ Dusts Off Civil War-Era Statute to Replace 1512(c)(2)


In the aftermath of SCOTUS ruling that overturned DOJ’s most common felony against J6ers, the Department of Justice is using an antiquated law to keep punishing Trump supporters.

This is a guest post by David W. Fischer, a Maryland and D.C.-based criminal defense attorney and the senior partner at Fischer & Putzi, P.A.  Most recently, Fischer defended January 6 defendant Thomas Caldwell, who was acquitted on seditious and other conspiracy charges.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. 

That’s what Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is doing in their over-zealous prosecution of January 6 defendants.  In June, the Supreme Court in United States v. Fischer effectively nuked hundreds of “obstruction” of Congress charges against January 6 defendants, ruling that a post-Enron statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512, designed to punish document destruction, did not apply to a Capitol Hill protest “gone wild.” 

Nonetheless, obsessed with targeting Trump supporters, the DOJ is now charging multiple defendants with a Civil War-era statute—18 U.S.C. § 372—which punishes (up to 6 years in prison) those who intimidate “officers of the United States” from their posts.  The DOJ charges that J6ers conspired to chase Members of Congress from Capitol Hill in violation of Section 372.  Once again, the DOJ is unfairly prosecuting J6ers under a statute that does not apply to their conduct.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 372 punishes conspiracies “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed[.]”  The DOJ’s position is that Members of Congress hold the “offices” and are the “officers of the United States” that are covered by Section 372 and, accordingly, that J6ers can be prosecuted for allegedly causing their evacuation from Capitol Hill.  The DOJ is obviously wrong from both a historical and statutory construction standpoint. 

Enacted During the Civil War

In April 1861, confederate soldiers and sympathizers began forcibly seizing federal property within the southern and border states, chasing Union soldiers (Fort Sumpter), postmasters, custom house managers, and other federal officials from their posts.  Congress quickly responded by passing a series of laws that included what is now Section 372.  The obvious purpose of Section 372 was to protect “officers of the United States,” a term of art used in the Constitution, which applies to those individuals who hold federal jobs in the government thanks to the “Appointments Clause,” Art. II, § II, cl. II.  Members of Congress, however, are not constitutional “officers of the United States.” 

Members of Congress are not ‘Officers of the United States’ Under the Constitution

That Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States” is widely accepted among constitutional scholars.   As the Supreme Court observed in Bowsher v. Synar, which struck down portions of the 1980s Gramm-Rudman Act, “[N]o person who is an officer of the United States may serve as a Member of the Congress.”  Additionally, Members of Congress do not hold an “office, trust, or place of confidence” as that term is used in Section 372. 

In fact, this phrase is boilerplate language used in ubiquitous commissions given to presidential appointees, e.g., military officers, federal judges, etc., since the days of President George Washington.  Presidential commissions of “trust and confidence” are issued to “officers” pursuant to the Commissions Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 3, cl. 4 (“[The President] shall commission all the officers of the United States.”).  A Member of Congress does not receive a “commission” because he or she, unlike federal judges, executive branch appointees, and military officers, is not an “officer of the United States” and, hence, does not hold an “office, trust, or place confidence.”

The DOJ’s Counter-Argument is Baseless

 In court filings, the DOJ has not disputed that, under the Constitution, Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States.”  Instead, the DOJ argues that the 1861 Congress that enacted Section 372 used the term “officer of the United States” in a sense broader than the technical, constitutional definition.  According to the DOJ, because Members of Congress “hold office,” they are covered by Section 372’s use of the term “officers of the United States.”  This argument, however, is baseless. 

In fact, binding Supreme Court precedent from the 19th century holds that, when used in federal criminal statutes, the terms “office,” “officer,” and “officer of the United States,” absent unambiguous language to the contrary, refer to individuals who received positions via the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In one of those cases decided in 1878, United States v. Germaine, a surgeon hired by the Commissioner of Pensions was indicted for extortion while serving as, in the words of the statute, an “officer of the United States.”  Arguing for the indictment’s dismissal, the surgeon argued that because he was not appointed to his position pursuant to the Appointments Clause, he could not be convicted of violating a statute, which applied only to “officers of the United States.”  The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that absent unambiguous language to the contrary, the term “officer of the United States,” when used in criminal statutes, is limited to individuals appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause.  In 1925, the Supreme Court in Steele v. United States summarized its numerous 19th century: “It is quite true that the words ‘officer of the United States,’ when employed in the statutes of the United States, is to be taken usually to have the limited constitutional meaning.”

Other Language in Section 372 Supports the J6ers

Section 372’s wording, moreover, proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute.  This statute punishes conspiracies aimed at preventing individuals “from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States[.]” Members of Congress, obviously, do not “accept” their positions—instead, they assume or take office.  A person “accepting” an “office, trust, or place of confidence” presupposes that someone offered that person position they accepted.

Members of Congress, by contrast, run for their offices and are elected by the voters. They do not “accept” government job “offers.” Accordingly, the phrase “office, trust, or place of confidence” in § 372—which lists stations that can be “accepted,” obviously does not include Members of Congress

Additionally, Congress’s use of the phrase “any person . . . holding any office . . . under the United States” in Section 372 further proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute’s language. This language, tellingly, appears to have been lifted from the Constitution’s “Ineligibility Clause,” pursuant to which Members of Congress are prohibited from simultaneously holding “offices”: “[N]o Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”  (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2).  It is beyond belief that Congress intended to include itself in Section 372 by using verbatim language from the Constitution’s Ineligibility Clause, which actually bars Members of Congress from holding “offices.”

More Abuses of the Law

One of the unfortunate aspects of the lawfare that has been unleashed against Donald Trump and his supporters has been the misuse of federal criminal statutes.  Section 372 was enacted with a very specific purpose:  to protect commissioned officers in charge of various federal outposts throughout the United States, especially in southern states.  Additionally, the Supreme Court has made clear that criminal statutes that use the terms “office” or “officer of the United States” do not apply to individuals other than commissioned, presidential appointees. 

As Members of Congress were not covered in Section 372’s language, the DOJ’s use of this statute against J6ers is a total and complete miscarriage of justice just as everything else this bully agency is.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: