One of the most frustrating parts of the
information overload that we live in now
where things are constantly coming at us
through our phones is that we never get
a resolution to some of the biggest
stories of our time. Something will just
explode. It'll happen. Well, that's
amazing. I can't believe that. And
you'll have about 4 hours to think about
what happened and its implications. Then
you're on to the next thing. That's just
the nature of having too much
information. Now, whether that's by
design, whether we're being overloaded
as part of some diabolical plan to keep
us distracted, or whether that's a
natural byproduct of technology,
unrestrained technology, it's not clear,
and it probably doesn't matter because
that's the daily lived experience of
most Americans. Something huge will
happen. You'll form an impression of it.
It's not clear whether that's a correct
impression or not, and then we'll move
on. And this is true even of really big
events. The biggest mass shooting in
American history, took place a little
less than nine years ago, 2017
in Las Vegas, and some guy apparently
opened fire on a concert right below
him. You remember this?
867
people were injured. 60 were killed by
gunfire at least.
And there was an FBI investigation and
the authorities stared into the camera.
And so we're going to get to the bottom
of this. And the normal parasites showed
up telling us that, you know, the lesson
is we have too many guns in this
country. Guns are the problem. You
shouldn't have a gun because a lunatic
shot people in Las Vegas or whatever.
They took advantage of the tragedy to
push their own agendas.
And then that's kind of last we heard of
it. Who was this guy? Some guy. Steven
Paddock. Some guy. What was his motive?
Unclear. Didn't leave a manifesto. So we
don't really know.
There seems to be some evidence that the
official story is false.
Nah, it's fine. And then because we were
so distracted with all the other things
that were taking place at the time, no
one ever really followed up in a
satisfactory way. And so even now, the
largest mass shooting in American
history is solved officially. But do we
have a satisfactory answer that explains
why it happened? No, we don't. We're not
even close to that. In fact, the answer
that we do have may be completely
different from the actual answer we
don't know and no one is actively trying
to find out because again we're on to
the next thing and so on and so on and
so on with almost every big news story
over the past I don't know 15 years more
and there's kind of no way to change
this because there's not enough time in
life to go back and reverse engineer
what we thought we knew about the most
significant moments in American history
but there are a few of them that are
worth pressing on even though years have
passed. And one of them, one of the top
ones after 9/11, which is the most
important story of our lives because it
completely changed America, the
structure of America. But after that,
you'd have to say that January 6th is
near the top of the list. Why? Well, a
bunch of reasons.
Most obviously, because January 6th
produced the single largest federal
criminal investigation in American
history. almost every single FBI field
office was involved in tracking down the
perpetrators of this insurrection in
which many policemen were murdered and
so on and so forth. Well, almost every
one of those details turned out to be a
lie. It was not actually an
insurrection. No one was armed. No one
had a gun. There's no such thing as an
unarmed insurrection. Can't insurrect
if you're unarmed.
And no police officers were murdered
that day. In fact, the only person shot
to death that day was a protester who
was shot to death by a cop, a capital
policeman called Michael Bird. Her name
was Ashley Babbett. You're familiar with
the the rough outline of this. But the
one fact that is true is that this did
produce the largest FBI investigation in
American history. Something
5,000 agents were involved. And in the
end, they arrested about 1,500 people
on federal crimes. And a bunch of those
people went to jail. Now, not everybody
who is involved that day on camera,
provably involved, including people who
encouraged others to breach the capital,
to go inside to break an obvious law
by going into a locked federal building.
Not all of those people wound up being
charged or serving jail time. Nick
Fentes, for example, was on camera
encouraging people to storm the capital.
He wasn't punished for that apparently.
Certainly didn't serve any jail time
over it. Ray Eps didn't serve any jail
time over it. Same thing. What is that?
Maybe just a weird anomaly
where the feds spent years in the again
largest
domestic criminal investigation in
American history, charged 1500 people
with federal crimes, but just missed a
couple who were on camera encouraging
others to break the law. You know,
things happen. Bureaucracies are
famously inefficient. Maybe they just
kind of forgot those guys or maybe
something else was going on. We're still
arguing about that.
But lost in all of this debate, and
you'll remember there wasn't much debate
about January 6th at first. Everybody
was appalled by it. It was an
insurrection. Republicans were appalled
by it. When Ashley Bird was killed,
there were Republican senators who
applauded the shooting of an unarmed
woman, an Air Force veteran, by a cop
with a record of reckless behavior.
Michael Bird.
They were just happy she was dead
because she was threatening them
somehow. She was like 5'2
and unarmed woman and she was shot to
death for no justifiable reason. But
they were happy. Republicans were happy.
And why were they happy? Well, because
they're a lot of them are basically
authoritarian, of course, but because
they felt threatened. They're such
physical cowards that Ashley Babbot her
presence threatened them apparently.
So almost nobody really asked these
questions at first and the few who did
were strongly discouraged from asking
those questions. They were defending
violence or vandalism or whatever
insurrection.
But over time it became clear that the
purpose of the exercise was to discredit
Donald Trump who had just lost the
election. Remember this all took place
on the day the vote was being certified.
accuse him of trying to overturn the
results of that election, get him
impeached and convicted, and thereby
prevent him from ever running for office
again. The purpose of the whole
exercise, at least the aftermath, the
propaganda, the lies that attached to
the events subsequently, the purpose of
that was to solve the Trump problem once
and for all. Like, he's gone. He will
never darken our city with a shadow
again. We're not going to have to deal
with that. all the uncomfortable
questions about our foreign policy or
our economic policy like no more Trump
and both parties could get behind that.
In fact, they strongly were both behind
that. This is before they subverted
Trump and somehow brought him to their
side. Who knows how that happened. We've
addressed that in other episodes. But
the point is we now know with some
clarity and certainty that January 6 was
not in fact an insurrection against the
Congress. It was an insurrection by the
Congress, by Permanent Washington
against the population
and that's really really clear. But
there was one part of that story that
was really never resolved at all one way
or the other. And it was uh a widely
reported facet and then soon forgotten
part of the story in which somebody
planted pipe bombs like uniomber type
pipe bombs pipes with explosives outside
the Republican National Committee and
the Democratic National Committee the
morning of 9/11.
And this is one of those stories again
that right away in the first hours after
the fake insurrection happened. News
outlets told you about it and then they
kind of stopped reporting on it. And
then we learned maybe a year later that
Kla Harris was at the DNC when the pipe
bomb was found, but somehow she never
mentioned it and you began to think it's
not clear what happened there, but
probably not what they told us. And by
the way, why haven't they answered the
question, who did this? This is Capitol
Hill. This is Washington DC. This is one
of the most surveiled places on planet
Earth. There are very few physical spots
on Capitol Hill where you're not being
monitored by cameras where there's no
CCTV
recording your movements. And of course,
now with advances in technology, facial
recognition, but others, it should be
pretty easy to find out who planted
bombs on Capitol Hill. especially if
you've got the largest domestic law
enforcement investigation in American
history trying to find out. But instead,
there was basically silence until a guy
called Darren Bey,
who ran at the time a website called
Revolver News,
ran a piece that asked that question
like, "Wait, why haven't they solved
this? And what was that? How would that
be connected
to the events of January 6th if this was
in fact an insurrection
by Trump voters against the system
itself against the United States of
America? This is like a modern Fort
Sumpter
preceding a civil war and that's
literally what they told us it was. They
tried to overthrow the government. Okay.
Now,
how did that fit in? What did that have
to do with it? And the explanation that
the Biden administration gave sort of to
the extent they talked about it was well
this was an effort to distract people
law enforcement from the insurrection
that was happening at the capital. They
would set off these bombs outside the
two party headquarters. Law enforcement
would rush there and the
insurrectionists would continue to I
don't know what sit at Nancy Pelosy's
desk wander aimlessly around the Senate
which is what actually happened. didn't
didn't actually do anything, but
whatever, except get shot. But that's
kind of where they left it.
But this piece by Darren Bey raised the
possibility that of course, and once you
thought about this was clearly true, of
course, federal law enforcement know
exactly who planted bombs in front of
the party headquarters.
What made January 6th different from all
other widely publicized crimes in our
lifetimes is that it was a crime
committed not against private citizens.
It wasn't like shooting people at a
country music concert in Las Vegas,
injuring 867 of them. I mean, that's
sad, of course, but what does that have
to do with Washington? What does it have
to do with us? What does that have to
people who run the country? Now, those
are like whatever country music fans
probably voted for Trump. Like, it's
sad. Sad. Maybe we can use her deaths to
advocate for disarming the population,
but it's not really a threat to anyone's
power. Just the opposite, actually.
January 6th was at least construed, and
I think a lot of the people who repeated
the propaganda convinced themselves this
was an actual threat to bipartisan
Washington, not just to Democrats, but
to Republicans. Lindsey Graham was every
bit as upset as Chuck Schumer because it
was a threat to the symbol of their
power, the Congress, which once upon a
time was called the people's house and
was called the people's house as a
reminder that actually the purpose of
all of this is to serve the owners of
the country, which is not members of
Congress, 535 stewards of the country.
It's the people who vote for them, the
citizens. They own all of this. So they
own by definition the Congress itself,
the people's house.
That's not the prevailing attitude in
Washington, which needless to say is we
own all of this.
And you're here for some purpose,
increasingly unclear. Labor has no value
thanks to AI. So, it's not like you're
actually doing anything for us. You're
kind of in the way.
And the last thing we want is for you to
like pipe up and criticize us or get in
the way of whatever our plans might be.
you're just kind of annoying hecklers
spoiling the play that we're putting on
for our own amusement.
And so shut up. And by the way, if you
refuse to shut up and if you get really
mouthy about it and show up with
bullhorns at our house, not yours, not
the people's, our house, we're going to
put you in prison and we're going to
deny you bail. And for the overwhelming
majority of you who can't afford
competent counsel, we're going to give
you public defenders who hate you, who
ensure that you're going to be stuck in
some roachinfested hell hole. For
example, DC City Jail. So that's that's
what happened.
But the pipe bomb question hung in the
air. How could they not know who did
that? They're highly motivated to track
down the perpetrators,
but somehow not that interested in
solving a crime, a attempted bombing
of the two political headquarters didn't
make any sense at all. As Darren Bey
bravely and correctly pointed out
several years ago, but still the
Washington Post, the New York Times
didn't seem to have a lot of interest in
solving this crime or in pushing federal
law enforcement to solve the crime. like
where what's the status of this? How
many hours of CCTV footage do you have?
Have you looked at it? Have you run it
against your facial recognition
software? Why can't you find the person
who did this? You know you can. Why
aren't you?
And so it really took, I don't know,
four or five years until a reporter
called Steve Baker, who at the time
worked for The Blaze,
really set about trying to answer this
question.
And as you're about to hear in our
interview with Steve Baker, he went to
some lengths to solve the riddle. And he
may or may not have solved it. I mean,
we're not weighing in on that. And his
conclusions are now the subject of a
pretty well publicized lawsuit.
So, not only is it not our place to
weigh in on it, just want to make it
clear we're not weighing in on it,
but it certainly is an inspiration to
the rest of us that we should probably
get to the bottom of this. So, Steve
Baker spends quite a long time trying to
figure this out and he thinks he figures
it out and he names somebody wrongly or
not. And within literally days, after
years of not solving this crime,
federal authorities arrest a guy who
they claim did it. And he is by all
descriptions some apparently autistic
guy, black guy,
and they spun this whole story and he
confessed to the crime and like we can
rest easy now. He did it because who
knows what? He's transgender. Who knows?
I can't even remember what the excuse
was for why this guy did it.
And a lot of people who know the guy
pretty well like yeah I know he didn't
do that. Like that's that's absurd.
But you know we're not going to weigh
that cuz we don't know. What we do know
is that after years of apparently not
doing anything to solve this crime which
is primopaciacia a serious crime.
Bombing the party headquarters on
Capitol Hill. Yeah that's serious.
the Department of Justice like just
solved it in about 10 minutes after
Steve Baker throws out another
hypothesis as to who did it. A federal
employee. That's his theory.
So, we're not quite sure what to make of
this other than a reminder that no US
citizen has an obligation to take the
word of anyone in an official capacity
in authority and particularly not in
federal law enforcement as gospel. Just
because they say it does not mean it's
true. Obviously, just because anybody
says anything doesn't mean it's true.
People lie. Not always. Hopefully, not
often, but they do sometimes. We know
that. and people in authority have
motive to lie, particularly when they're
covering up something that they did in
the first place. And that may be the
macro lesson of this.
There has been no effort really and no
pressure to provoke an effort really to
find out who is behind these supposed
pipe bombings.
In part because everyone in Washington
is potentially implicated in this. If it
turned out that January 6 was not an
entirely organic, maybe partly organic,
but not an entirely organic event. If it
turned out that it was to some extent,
maybe not wholly, but in part staged or
encouraged by people with a completely
different agenda,
an agenda that included sabotaging
Trump's political career going forward,
then the perpetrators wouldn't just be
the Democratic party, they would be the
majority of Republican leadership.
It would be a bipartisan effort. And
that may be the real takeaway here. What
we're looking at on January 6, what
we're looking at in the Iran war, what
we're looking at in the total
mismanagement of the US economy for most
of our lives is not a partisan question.
It's not like one party took control,
got both houses of Congress and the
White House, packed the Supreme Court,
and went crazy.
It's that the leaders of both parties,
not their voters, but the leaders of
both parties in Washington had a very
similar vision for what they wanted, how
it might benefit them, and they did it.
not in opposition to each other but in
consensus in agreement with each other.
That is the unavoidable conclusion. If
you look at the past, say 40 years of
American history, not that the parties
are bitterly at odds, but that they are
secretly in collusion. How could you
reach another conclusion if you look at
the outcome? You probably couldn't. But
this specific story, well, not related
to economic reform policy, is a kind of
window into the wall of resistance that
you bump up against when you start
asking questions about, hey, what is
going on here? America's 250th
anniversary is here, and it presents a
great opportunity to consider why our
national culture matters. Being an
American is not something to be ashamed
of. We should all be proud to live here.
And the same goes for being a Christian.
This July 4th, the Hallow app, which is
the best prayer app ever, is launching
the American Heroes Challenge. It's a
13-day journey, and it takes listeners
through the lives of the people who
shaped this country, but whose stories
are not in history textbooks, because
they just don't fit. These stories are
amazing. Tales of Native Americans, the
Declaration of Independence, World War
I, even 9/11.
These stories tie together history and
faith that will affirm your faith. It's
not a feel-good history lesson. It's a
July 4th invitation to look at people
who lived with courage and to encourage
us to strive to do the same. Download
Hallow free for 3 months at
hallow.com/tucker
and do this challenge. We loved it. You
will love it. With that, here is Steve
Baker. And just once again, we're not
endorsing his claims because of course
we don't know if they're true, but we
wanted to air them when almost nobody
else was willing to because we think
it's worth letting viewers decide, does
that make sense? Can't know if it's
true. Can't know really if most things
are true.
But you can assess
the evidence that we can confirm and
come to your own conclusions about what
it means.
and you should because in this case it
matters.
With that, here's Steve Baker.
Steve Baker, thank you very much for
doing this.
>> Thank you.
>> Um, now we have some distance between uh
right now and January 6th. I think you
know as much or more about it than
anybody. Can you just describe it in
general? What was January 6th in
retrospect? Uh, I like to couch it in
this preface is I saw a lot of people
doing bad things that day.
>> Yes.
>> I saw a lot of people doing good things.
>> You were there.
>> I was there.
>> Yeah.
>> I've been prosecuted for being there.
>> Yep.
>> Uh, I saw a lot of otherwise good people
doing some stupid things that day, but
that's true on both sides of the police
line.
>> Yep.
>> Now, you were one of the first people to
have access to the treasure trove of
that alleged 41,000 hours worth of
video. I think that was back in gosh
that was back in February of 23,
something like that.
>> Something like that. And um in fact, in
fact, uh you had a couple of your
producers called me to ask me what they
needed to be looking at.
>> And uh you took the um the Lieutenant
Tar Johnson story,
>> uh that you did on your second week or
second day of that.
>> Uh that was my suggestion. And the
truth of the matter is is that it was a
setup what happened at the capital. It
was manipulated. It was engineered.
And
there
is incredible amount of disinformation
on both sides of the line. It doesn't
matter whether you're on the left. It
doesn't matter if you're on the right.
whether you're MAGA, whether you're um
on the sedition hunters side of the
ledger, doesn't matter. Tremendous
amount of wrong information on both
sides. And one of the things that I've
endeavored to do because I've had more
access to the video than any other
journalist in the world. I've I've spent
more time in there, not only myself, but
teams of other journalists working with
me that we've gone in there with focused
um intentions and knowing what we were
looking for. and then obviously
surprised by many things. Like for
instance, one of the biggest pieces of
misinformation on the right is that the
doors were thrown open by the capital
police and people were waved into the
capital. That's not true. All seven of
the doors that were breached at the
capital were breached from the inside by
the protesters who first went through
the broken windows on that northwest
Senate wing door that we've famously
seen. Now, after that, in an effort to
deescalate, once the the building was
overrun, Capitol police did hold doors
open for people. And you that was one of
your first videos was showing the um uh
the shaman being led to the Senate Yes.
chamber and the cop opened the door for
him. And that was a brilliant reveal.
They did do those kinds of things, but
not until later, not until after the
capital was breached. And that's one of
the mistakes that again the right makes.
The biggest mistake that the left makes
is they are convinced by the narrow
presentation of video that they saw
because they'll tell you, I mean my
critics will tell from the left will
say, "You can't gaslight me. I saw it
with my own eyes. I was watching it
live. I know what happened." No, you
don't. You saw a very narrow narrowly
focused battle scene. There were only
like between 80 and 100 people who did
any violence that day at all. Out of the
hundreds of thousands of people that
went to the Capitol that day, only 80
Tucker.
But if you show the same battle scene
from this angle, that angle, this angle,
this camera, that camera, and you show
it over and over and over and over again
relentlessly for 5 years, then they
believe that they know what they've
seen. But they don't. Not until you've
seen all of the other footage, which we
have endeavored to do. I don't think
anybody can see 40,000 hours worth of
video, but we've seen the most important
parts of it. And that's why I can
honestly sit before anybody again on the
right or the left and go, "No, that's
not correct." And the right has a lot
wrong as well. What they do have right
is that it was a fedsurrection,
but I don't think it was set up by the
FBI. I believe, and I've talked about
this before, so this isn't a big
revelation. I'll give you a couple of
those later. But this this is and was a
s a setup that was designed and
manipulated by elements of the
department of defense, capital police,
and the CIA
to take down. It was a furtherance of
the CIA and the intelligence community
operation to take Trump out from ever
being in politics ever again.
And so the idea was to provoke something
so awful that he he he would be stain
well maybe legally prohibited by
>> right
>> uh conviction on an impeachment trial
but otherwise so stained that he could
never run again.
>> That's exactly what the intent and the
purpose was and it was uh manipulated
from the very beginning. I mean look
you've you've done stories and all of us
want to avoid defamation lawsuits but
I'm kind of past that point now. Uh but
you know if if we started from the very
beginning and revisited every aspect of
January 6, this would have to be a you
know 20 part series today and we're not
going to do that.
>> Well, give us some indication of why
you've concluded it was a setup.
>> The the first thing that happened and I
I was there that day. I captured my own
video and
as I was driving home on the 7th from DC
to um uh Raleigh, North Carolina where I
live, we started hearing about the
arrests that were already being made and
the drag net was already thrown the next
day. We're hearing about on the radio
television on the drive home. So I
didn't go home. I actually called a
friend of mine, special operator, United
States Army, and said, "Hey, I need a
place to crash for a few days because
before I get arrested,
thinking that for sure, because I went
inside the capital building that that
would happen, even though I went in with
a camera and in the intent of following
the story where the story went as a
journalist, not as a rioter and I never
did any rioting, the or any violence or
anything of uh uh of that type,
but because of the types of people that
for being arrested. I thought, "Okay,
well, I need to go hide out somewhere. I
need to write my story. I need to
publish my videos, go through them all,
and then when I get my story out, they
can come get me." So, the first thing I
did is I started going through frame by
frame analyzing my own video. And so I'm
staying with a tier one special operator
and he's, you know, standing over my
shoulder looking at the videos that I
have and he's pointing to the screen and
going, "Okay, now watch him. This is his
job. Watch watch what he does here." And
and I'm like, "What are you what are you
talking about?" He's got a sandwich in
one hand and a cup of coffee in the
other hand. He goes, "Yeah, watch watch
what happens right here. Watch." He does
that. Now he disappears into the crowd.
Now watch her. This is what she does.
No, this is her job.
And and I'm seeing this through another
set of eyes. And what are you talking
about? He goes, "Well, this is what we
do overseas. This is how we incite color
revolution overseas.
We're trained to do that."
And so while I'm in the my fiveday
process of going through all of my stuff
and writing my first story about January
6, which which was 9,500 words, what I
saw that day, what I experienced that
day. Um, one of these times he's leaning
over my shoulder. He says, "Oh, you
know, we were there that day." And
again, I'm like, "What?"
He said, "Yeah, we had boots on the
ground that day."
>> Meaning the National Guard waiting down
the street? No. Meaning special
operators from
the US Army
>> in plain clothes.
>> In plain clothes.
And so my second article, which came out
about 6 weeks afterwards, I actually
revealed for the first time that
elements of our special forces were in
the crowd. Now, I didn't portray them as
being uh, you know, there for nefarious
reasons or doing anything wrong. In
fact, I even said it very well could be
that they were there, you know, to take
care of business in case things did get
out of hand,
>> but they weren't there in their capacity
as private citizens and Trump voters.
>> That's correct. Now, there were there
were mil we know that for a fact. I
mean, there were enlisted people,
retired military. Um,
>> Babbot was a former Air Force enlisted.
>> Uh, there were FBI agents there as
private. There were ATF agents there,
private capacity. There were Trump
supporters from all of the bureaus and
agencies and this that and the other
thing within the federal government that
were there in private capacities and
many of them were arrested and charged.
Some of them did time in prison. And and
so
uh in this particular situation though,
I learned through my own work and
through my access to that community is
that uh we had elements there of a very
very uh elite nature from our special
operators and
I just published that they were there.
Now nobody believed me. Nobody wanted to
believe me. I got highly criticized for
that. They've been ordered to be there.
>> Yes. Yes. And then exactly one year
later, a writer for Newsweek, gentleman
by the name of William Arkin on the
first anniversary of January 6,
published an article. The headline was
secret commandos with shoot tokill
orders at January 6. That's the
headline, the Newsweek story. It's still
online. You can look it up.
It took me over two years before Arkin
would even respond to me because I
wanted, you know, look, I wanted to
maybe pick his brain. He could pick
mine. He could share with me what he
knew, what I know, and he wouldn't talk
to me. When he finally responded, he was
very hostile toward me, very
antagonistic. He says, "I feel like
you've been trying to set me up." Like,
I'm not trying to set you up. I'm just I
want to colleague to colleague share
what we know about that very thing.
And he actually I have it I have the
screenshot from the the DM communication
with him where he denied that it ever
even happened. Yeah. He goes he goes
that was uh it never happened.
Well, you wrote about it. It's still
online. If it never happened, how come
it's not been retracted? Yeah. It just
never happened.
>> He disavowed his own story. That's
correct.
>> Cost of living is already making it hard
to live here and it's not getting any
better. Unfortunately, it's likely to
get worse. And a lot of Americans fill
the gap with credit cards, not just for
fancy dinners, but to cover things like
groceries and bills. That is a disaster.
It's understandable, but don't go down
that road because there is a tax in
effect a survival tax of 20% interest or
more. Why would you do that? Why would
you hand money to the big banks when you
could keep it for your family? Our
friends at American Financing have a
better way. If you're looking to buy
your first home or refinance your
current one, they're helping Americans
achieve the dream of home ownership with
monthly mortgage rates currently in the
fives. American Financing saves its
customers an average of 800 bucks per
month. That's nearly 10 grand every year
back to you. This isn't just a loan.
It's a total financial reset.
So, debt is tough, but there's a smart
way to do it and a reckless,
self-destructive way to do it. credit
cards. And so we recommend American
Financing. They're salary based, not
commissionbased, which means they
actually work for you, not the banks.
They're called America's Home for Home
Loans for a reason. Call 8006855696.
800685-55696
or visit americananfinancing.net/tucker.
Has uh the Pentagon ever admitted that
this took place?
>> No. uh because the Pentagon won't even
admit that this particular unit exists.
Now, you've had a member of your that
unit sitting at your table here
recently.
>> H
>> uh they don't exist. Um that was one of
the things that made this very difficult
was first of all, you know, when when
you write a story, you have to call and
you know how it is. You have to call get
spokesperson on the record.
>> Yeah. Disavowing or saying something or
commenting about whatever, whether it's
the FBI, CIA, DoD. Well, when you call
the DoD and you ask them about this
particular unit out of Fort Belvoir,
just outside of DC,
we don't know what you're talking about.
There's no such unit.
>> Well, there is such a unit. And the
special operators community is well
aware of who they are. And they don't
have a name, not a real name. They have
a variety of names that they go by.
They're typically uh universally
referred to within their community as
TFO or Task Force Orange. There's been
books written about them. Um, uh, they
have variously been called the unit, the
activity, and other things throughout
the years. But they do,
>> what's their job? They operate
domestically.
>> They have a couple of jobs. Uh, they
are, uh,
they're not supposed to operate
domestically. Not at all, as none of the
United States, you know, armed forces
are except for National Guard. And so um
there's the signal intelligence group
that's uh mostly if I and and and
they'll believe me they'll correct me
when I get little minor details wrong
but the signal intelligence part of them
they're most of them are out of Fort me
and these are the guys I mean look these
are these are the most elite of the
elite of the elite now they don't look
like Navy Seals they don't look like
Delta Force guys they're typically
smaller they use their brains uh their
training is much more uh in the way of
uh surviving through isolation
>> and They're they become deep inserts
into uh uh jurisdictions around the
world where we're not supposed to exist.
We're not supposed to operate, that sort
of thing. And they they typically are on
the front edge. They leave before Delta
Force and SEALs are ever deployed. These
guys, the unit, the activity TFO have
been there already for a long time. Uh
and they have to survive that without
contact. And they're all all of them are
polygots. uh one of my closest friends
and deepest sources uh within that
community. He he speaks eight languages,
five of them native as he says, and
they're all highly trained, all have
specialization. They're all smart. IQ is
off the charts. So, they're not the you
know,
>> right,
>> uh the meaty kind,000 push-ups.
That's not them.
>> But they run marathons
>> and everything about them is is is
they're trained for endurance and
isolation. H is their greatest skill.
>> What was their job on January 6th?
>> I don't know.
>> I still haven't found that out.
>> But you found out early that there were
current members on duty members of the
US military in the crowd.
>> Yes.
>> Dressed in civilian clothes. What's the
CIA's connection to the events of that
day?
>> I I believe that Well, look, you go back
to the 51 intel
>> Yes. leaders who signed
>> intel officers who denied that Hunter
Biden's laptop was Hunter Biden's
>> etc etc. Yes, this is all part of that
same operation downstream from Mark
Millie.
>> Yep.
>> Trump's, you know, chairman joint chiefs
of staff.
>> Y
>> um
the I believe that um certain very high
ranking elements in the capital police
were obviously in on this. We know that
now from our video. We've we've
discovered this from the video review,
Tucker. I don't I don't have to pull
this out of my ass. It's in the videos.
And we've released a lot of it. And a
lot more of it is coming. But we know
that the Capitol police were ground
soldiers that day. Not all of them. The
frontline officers, they were doing
their job.
>> Yep. In fact, I I one of my very first
stories and I and I I got this from my
own camera was that the Capitol police
were I called them sacrificial lambs
that day or pawns. I I use the word
pond, sacrificial ponds. And the reason
why I said that is when I was on the
front line with my camera and had my
camera in these young officers faces
that had just been called to the front
line of this battle that was just
breaking out on the west lower west
terrace there at the capital. They had
fear in their eyes
and they had no protection. They had no
body armor. They had no goggles. They
had no face, you know, gas masks. They
had no helmets. That's another story
right there. Their helmets had been
collected
two weeks before were taken up. They
were ordered to turn their helmets in.
>> Yes,
>> that's a whole other story that we've
done work on. That's why I said we could
do a 20- part series on this. This is so
complex. But
my thought about these young frontline
capital police officers
real quick, you can go, you can be a
capital police officer for 30 years, and
I'm not being critical. I know they're
accused of being uh, you know, glorified
mall cops, that sort of thing, tour
guides. But you can go 30 years at the
Capitol Police and basically never do
anything other than Yes, ma'am. The
restrooms this way.
>> Yes.
>> Um, unlike Metropolitan Police
Department who
>> the city of Washington,
>> right, DC police,
>> that police force knocks heads every day
for sure.
>> They have to deal with most of the
riots.
And so I saw these young kids being
called to the front line facing actual
real violence because there was real
violence that day. And my next thought
was
what they're seeing coming at them over
my shoulder.
And for instance, the the uh uh Capitol
Police Lieutenant Tar Johnson who you
interviewed.
>> Yes.
um he called his wife and said, "Tell
the kids I love them. I'm not coming
home today. This is, you know, we're
we're dying here today."
And that's what they thought because all
of the sudden there's this handful of
just a few dozen people violently
attacking the front line of officers,
but they see tens of thousands of people
over my shoulder coming at them, not
knowing what their intentions were.
They were scared. They were scared to
death. Yeah. And some of them
overreacted. So, I have a lot of I have
a lot of sympathy for these frontline
officers because they were not um they
didn't get briefings that morning.
>> Uh they were under under manned,
understaffed on purpose. Uh January 6
every four years is supposed to be an
all boots on the ground day
>> for the capital police. They're supposed
to work double shifts. As a matter of
fact, that's policy. That's department
policy for first amendment protest days.
The Capitol police themselves had issued
and signed off on six permits for
protest on the property that day and
they did not inform their officers that
they had issued permits that day.
Jeez.
How many uh federal agents in plane
clothes were in the crowd that day? Do
we know?
>> Unknown. Um, you have to separate that.
You know, we heard the reports a few
months ago about the 247 that Patel,
this is one of the actual truths that
Cash Patel is told about that day is
that there were 24ome
uh FBI agents that were called in for
crowd control. But Tucker, they didn't
arrive till after 4:00.
Those orders were issued late. These
were not the undercovers. These were not
the ones that that's reported were doing
nefarious activities. These were people
with no crowd control training
whatsoever. The FBI is not trained for
that. A special agent in the FBI is not
trained for crowd control.
>> Yeah. They're not bouncers.
>> And they showed up with their FBI
jackets on, their FBI ball caps, their
vests. Uh some of them had put on their
uh ballistic vests, that kind of thing.
But it all was emlazing with FBI. These
were not the plane. Okay. All FBI are
playing clothes except for the, you
know, the uh SWAT teams. all of them.
And so when you say that they were plain
clothes, that doesn't mean undercover,
but they showed up with their FBI, you
know, big yellow letters all over their
their gear. And I was there. I I videoed
them as they arrived, but I also videoed
the SWAT team that was already there
early on.
It was it was FBI SWAT team that were um
trying to save Ashley Babbot's life
down in the lower level of the capital.
Yeah. walked right past her body.
>> You did?
>> Yes.
>> I got her on I got her. I have I'm the
one that published the video of her
being extracted out the Yes.
>> south door. That's my video.
>> Christians ought to be safe in the Holy
Land of all places. But they are not.
Keep in mind, these are the descendants
of the first converts, the first people
who followed Jesus, people whose
families have worshiped in the land
Jesus walked for centuries, for
thousands of years. And these same
people are now facing enormous pressure
to leave, fleeing their homes amid war
and anti-Christian terrorism. Untold
numbers of innocents are lost and
without hope, fellow Christians. But how
do you support them? There are groups
out there who claim to support them
whose real agenda is to move them out of
their actual homeland. We think that's
wrong. We think that's evil, in fact.
And so we've looked far and wide to find
a group that is actually supporting
Christians in the Middle East. And we
found one. It's called the Vulnerable
People Project, VPP. It's one of the
very few groups consistently helping
vulnerable Christians throughout the
Holy Land. They deliver food and water
to Christian communities trapped in Gaza
for example. They help rescue civilians.
They provide emergency aid to families
who have nowhere else to turn. Today
they are helping Christian churches and
families safely remain in the
communities where their ancestors
worshiped Jesus. There should be a lot
of groups doing this and trust us we
have looked for over a year now and
there aren't. But the Vulnerable People
Project is doing exactly that and their
work makes an amazing difference in
people's lives. A gift of just $33 helps
provide a day of protection and support
for the vulnerable Christians in the
West Bank. Who's looking out for them?
Nobody. Well, they are. A monthly gift
of $83 helps sustain that protection
throughout the month. So visit save
westbankchristians.com
and stand with Christians in the land
where Christianity began. That's save
westbankchristians.com.
We are proud to partner with them. Thank
you. Um
so we don't know. So the 240 FBI agents
number is not relevant to the question
of to what extent was this a setup
>> that 247 are absolutely irrelevant and
that's another thing that the right gets
wrong if I can car if I have to
characterize the two narratives about
January 6. That's one that they get
wrong.
>> But but the the relevant question is how
many people in the crowd pretending to
be protesters were actually working for
the federal government. Correct. And we
don't have that answer. We don't have
that number. The FBI could tell us that
number. They know that number. First of
all, we know that there was 20some CHS's
that they have told us about
confidential human sources actively
working with CIA hand I mean I'm sorry
FBI handlers as they were embedded in
the various organizations whether the
Proud Boys or the Oathkeepers or 3enters
or whatever. We know that uh we don't I
believe there was a much higher number
than that that they've not revealed. And
then of course there were the oper
operatives. The other thing, and I'm not
trying I'm not trying to give FBI any
grace in this, but the truth of the
matter is is if you've got a crowd size
of my estimate was that the total crowd
size was between 400,000 600,000 people
at the capital that day.
>> Damn.
actual Capitol police officers who
testified in the crowd said that as they
looked out over the sea of people, it
was, this is a quote from the trials, it
was a crowd as large as any inaugural
event I have ever attended. That means
it's big, really big. And so,
um, now the press still says that there
were only 30,000 people in in DC that
day. They they've held to that number.
Um, and that's incorrect. Then you've
got people that exaggerate and say there
were two million people, but there
weren't. So
you have this situation where in a sit
in a crowd of that size anytime, you're
going to have elements of all of the
federal law enforcement agencies and
departments and bureaus are going to be
there. They're going to have counter
surveillance teams in the crowd and we
want them there.
They're sniffing for bombs. They're
they're looking for nerd elves. They
they know the signs. They're trained for
that very thing. And we want them there
just as we want them in Time Square, you
know, on New Year's Eve, just as we want
them in any large event.
>> Sure. Cuz they're there to protect the
public. What you don't want is plain
closed federal agents or confidential
human sources stirring up mayhem,
provoking violence
>> or actual trained provocators.
>> Provocators
>> in the crowd. Were there?
>> Absolutely.
>> Was Ray Eps one of them?
>> I believe he was. I mean that look the
circumstantial evidence is there. I
mean, look, you know the story
intimately about Ray Eps. Um,
>> he kept threatening to sue me, but never
did.
>> Yeah. Well, he he probably doesn't want
to go through discovery.
>> I would I suspect that's true.
>> Absolutely. But I mean, look, we we
don't need to relive his case, but the
obvious is the obvious. He was number 16
on the FBI's January 6 most wanted list.
And then suddenly he wasn't and suddenly
disappeared. And suddenly the New York
Times comes out Alan Foyer and does a
puff piece article on him and gosh when
did that come out? Summer of 22. And
they made him the sympathetic character.
>> I never forget it. Yeah.
>> It's incredible. How does how does the
guy that is the most open most person
calling people to go into the capital,
how does he become the sympathetic
character of the left
>> and never get charged? You know,
>> eventually
>> eventually, right? But but with minor
charges.
>> He never even had to come into
>> never got charged with anything. No,
which is kind of crazy since Nick
Fuentes was calling people to rush the
capital. What is that? a lot of people
there a lot there's there's characters
that are on video and there's a there's
a tremendous amount of video beyond the
Capitol police CCTV which by the way
that video has no you know CCTV as you
know has no audio but the body cam
footage the news camera footages the
insane amount of iPhone footage that
have been collected for discovery in all
these trials so we hear tons and tons of
characters that are calling for violence
calling for people to attack law
enforcement, to storm the capital, this
that and the other thing. And so many of
those have never been arrested.
>> Is that true?
>> Absolutely. Meanwhile, you were and I
was correct.
>> And what were you charged with?
So when when the FBI first interviewed
me in October of 21, a month later, the
uh US attorney, assistant US attorney
who had my case, notified my attorney in
Raleigh, that his client was going to be
charged within the week. This was the
week before Thanksgiving of 21. And they
listed the charges. They were going to
charge me with, I kid you not,
interstate racketeering.
To my knowledge, I was the only one of
everybody in the whole January uh 6 drag
net prosecutions weaponization of our
government against all of us that was
going to be charged with racketeering.
And basically the case that they were
going to make is that because I as an
independent journalist blogger had made
money from the licensing of my videos,
HBO uh licensed my videos. Uh New York
Times licensed my videos for their
documentary. Uh others all over the
world licensed some of my videos. And
you know, you don't give much money for,
you know, it's like uh the the the
standard rate is $1,000 per minute.
Well, so when they when they use six
seconds of your video, you're not
getting a lot of money.
>> No. So So uh uh that was the only thing
that we could conclude. And then so what
we did is we did a major press
offensive. So this was the week before
Thanksgiving. On Monday of Thanksgiving
week, we sent out about 200 press
releases to all manner of media and
saying that, you know, journalist is
being prosecuted for his journalism on
January 6th being me. And the DOJ backed
off and we didn't hear from them again
for even though they said I was going to
be arrested Thanksgiving week. We have
this in writing by the way, still do.
They said I was going to be arrested the
week of Thanksgiving of 21. We didn't
hear from them again till 20 months
later when I got a grand jury subpoena.
>> 20 months.
>> 20 months. They went dead silent. Would
not even respond to my attorneys.
>> That's so wrong. That is not a free
country when they act like that.
>> Left me in the lurch like that for that
long. And then it was until uh after the
grand jury subpoena, it was another 8
months before they did actually arrest
me. And I Where did they arrest you? I
uh I was working for the Blaze at the
time and I was in Dallas where the Blaze
headquarters was. That was kind of
pre-planned when they when they told us
what the what the date of my uh
voluntary
submission to the FBI. We chose to do
that in Dallas so that we could get it
all on camera. And uh I submitted myself
to the FBI field office in Dallas. And
then they uh processed me there,
handcuffed me. That's where they
captured my perk walk per burp walk on
camera. And then they took me down to
the federal courthouse in Dallas.
>> You charged with a felony?
>> Nope, I wasn't. I was charged with four
misdemeanors. Ultimately, that's they
charged me with the basic four. You
know, parading um what I call glorified
trespassing,
>> disorderly conduct.
>> Well, they do that, but there wasn't
any. In fact, that was the other
advantage that we had. Even before my
arrest through the blaze, we released
all 37 minutes of me in the capital
behaving like a journalist, stopping,
taking notes, camera, this that. I mean,
my entire 37 minutes are on YouTube.
You're going to go watch it right now.
And so, what happened? Um, ultimately, I
uh had a trial date set that was exactly
one week after the 204 election. I had
Are you serious?
>> Yeah. So, I have um my pre-trial hearing
was the day after the election and Judge
Christopher Cooper, which by the way,
the same judge who just made uh made
them tank take Trump's name off of the
Kennedy Center, uh same judge, he um he
hated me. He really wanted to put me in
jail for what? Um
uh my journalism
>> walking in a building you owned to
commit journalism.
>> Wait till you hear what he said in my
hearing.
So the day after the election, he was
obviously in a bad mood because Trump
won
and
he shot down every one of our motions. I
mean, it would not allow allow me to
present a selective prosecution defense.
And that was going to be our primary
defense is because we were going to
force the government to explain why the
other 80s something journalists that
came in from the outside into the inside
of the capital that day and followed the
story where the story went, why weren't
they prosecuted?
All the people that work for the New
York Times, Washington Post, LA Times,
etc., etc.,
>> they were not arrested.
>> Correct. Not arrested, not charged with
anything. Why were they not? And yet I
was. So that was going to be our
argument. And the judge totally said,
"You're not you're not going to do a
selective prosecution and you cannot
present a First Amendment case in this
courtroom.
>> You can't appeal to the Constitution of
your own country."
>> That's correct. So, uh, as soon as we
got off of the pre-trial hearing, it was
a Zoom call. I got on another Zoom call
with my attorneys, four of them, and
immediately two of my attorneys who are
former federal prosecutors themselves
said, "Look, you understand that this
trial is going to be nothing but a
shaming exercise against you." And I
said, "Yeah, I've been covering the
trials. I know exactly what they're
going to do. I'm not doing it." Informed
the court, informed the DOJ that I'm
pleading guilty to all four misdemeanor
charges.
>> And what was the penalty?
>> Well, so this was now a So my pre-trial
hearing was the day after the election.
My beginning of my court date was
supposed to be the very next week,
exactly one week after the election.
The next day,
we got a message from Charlie Kirk
because he was on the transition team
and he said directly to me, "Your pardon
is a done deal. Don't worry about it.
It's all taken care of."
So, I had that knowledge and that
information going into my trial date
and um I rolled the dice. That's why I
plead guilty to all four rather than
going through the humiliation exercise.
And so, we were in the hearing and at
the end of that pleading guilty to all
four, the judge asked the clerk, "When
is Mr. Baker's um
um sentencing hearing and she typed in,
she goes, "Mr. Baker, sentencing hearing
will be March 6th." He goes, "Okay." He
said, "Mr. Baker, your sentencing
hearing is going to be on March 6th of
uh next year." He said, "But since I
probably will not see you in March,"
he knew the he knew the pardons were
coming as well. All of the all of those
judges did. They all knew it that the
pardons were coming. He said, 'Since I
won't see you in March, he said, and I'm
and I quote, "I'm going to hazard to
deliver to you the remarks that I would
normally give at your sentencing
hearing."
And then he dressed me down for the next
seven or eight minutes. I have the
transcript for my journal. He never
mentioned one thing I was charged with.
Never mentioned anything that I did or
said at the capital. The only thing he
did was my post January 6 um uh or
talked about was my post January 6
journalism in which I had referred to
the weaponization of the Department of
Justice and the bias of this court and
he spent seven or eight minutes
defending the court against my
journalism.
Not one word about my
>> This is nuts
>> charges. Nuts.
>> We have I have it all. It's all have I
have the transcripts.
Wow. So, you never went to jail?
>> No. Uh, I I did not get a pardon. I got
a case dismissal with prejudice because
in the federal system, until you are um
sentenced,
>> you're not convicted,
>> right?
>> Because that's when the
paperwork basically is filed. And uh so
I was uh it's for me it's like it never
happened. I mean, it did. I went through
three years of hell with that, but
>> yeah. And the cost I can't even imagine.
Um, wow. I don't think that got enough
attention at the time.
I was one of the high-profile cases. I
actually had a bevy of mainstream media
journalists from the Washington Post, AP
and uh, W USA 9 and everything were
there in my in my hearing. They were
there. And in fact, in the press
conference afterwards outside the
courthouse, I actually looked at the the
guy from the Washington Post, Spencer
Hugh, and I said, "You were in there.
You heard what the judge said. He
criticized me for my journalism, not for
what I did on January."
>> What did Spencer Hugh of the Washington
Post say?
>> He went, "Yeah, yeah, you're right." And
then his article that came out later
that day was incredibly fair.
>> Good.
>> Yeah.
So it was I don't know but it was months
many months after uh January 6th that I
first became aware of the mystery of the
two pipe bombs left on Capitol Hill that
morning. It was a piece I think by
Darren Bey and Revolver.
>> Mhm.
>> Um
and
so that was at least four years ago and
I don't think we're any closer to or I'm
not any closer to understanding what
that was. Can you describe the story
like what was publicly
conveyed about those pipe bombs and then
tell the story about what you think
actually happened?
>> Yeah. What what the public believes
happened was that a nefarious individual
planted uh these uh
devices, these weapons of mass
destruction at both the Republican
National Committee headquarters and the
Democratic National Committee
headquarters. And that uh a lot of
people believe that those were to be
used in case uh we couldn't stop the uh
you know we you know the uh the people
who stormed the capital that day
insurrectionist right the
insurrectionist which I was accused of
being uh couldn't stop the vote that day
or the the confirmation of the electoral
college vote that they were going to
blow blow the bombs. That was the
initial thought and that was of course
the the way the press breathlessly
presented this,
>> right?
>> Um that's not at all what happened.
Let's just start with the very
beginning.
>> So this is but here's what we know or we
read that day or the next day. Two
bombs, two explosive devices were found
outside in front of the RNC and the DNC
on Capitol Hill on January 6th. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Yes. Now everything starts breaking down
from there. First of all, we now know in
hindsight from actual FBI agents who
were tasked
to that investigation that they were
told by leadership that the devices were
inert.
individuals that are familiar with bomb
making and bomb training from all of the
federal agencies have said looking at
the photographs and looking at the FBI's
uh forensic report which came out a week
later. I have I have the entire report
said that these were typical training
devices.
>> H they were not bombs.
>> They were not bombs. One of the FBI
whistleblowers famously said they would
have been bombs if they had been bombs.
And and so we now know that despite what
the FBI continues to say about the
devices being dangerous, being the
having the potential to do great harm
and bodily, in fact, they've charged the
guy that they've arrested with weapons
of mass destruction and terrorism.
But
I mean, when it was first reported, it
was reported as as an act of terrorism.
>> Yes.
>> But you're saying the FBI knew right
away or
>> Absolutely. They knew
>> they were not bombs.
>> Yeah. They they knew on the day of that
they were not bombs. Why would they lie
about that?
Um I don't think that the FBI was
brought into the lie until the
investigation began and then that's when
the blob informed the blob that we must
protect the blob.
>> Yes.
>> And that's where we are today.
>> Well, that's how things actually work.
>> That's how it's not partisan.
>> No,
>> it's not one agency. It's not a rogue
agency or a rogue politician. It is the
system protecting itself.
>> And by the way, I I stole the blob
analogy from Mike Benz who actually did
the work for Darren Bey back on the
pipeline.
>> I did and I should have said that. I
should have said that.
>> And so the uh
the first that was the first breakdown.
The second breakdown is is then in the
timing. So the discovery of the devices,
the first one was discovered 25 minutes
before the bicameal meeting of Congress
and the gavl dropped by Vice President
Pence at 1:00. So the first bomb was
discovered 25 minutes before that. All
right. Um then the second device was
discovered 5 minutes after 1:00.
Well, chief police son or a c chief of
police, capital police son who you've
interviewed a couple of times, uh he
absolutely says that those were
diversionary devices. Those were meant
to divert resources from the capital
already, as I mentioned earlier,
extremely depleted. There's on January
6, there were 2,000 unifor uniformed
officers with the capital police. less
than 250 were on duty that day
>> despite the fact there were all these
six or something registered protests.
>> Despite the fact that the assistant
chief of police, Yogan the Pitman
>> had signed off on six legally permitted
protest events on the capital grounds.
>> Yogan Pitman who went on to get rewarded
by Nancy Pelosi with a job at the
>> Berkeley
>> University of California at Berkeley.
Yeah. Um tells you so much. Uh okay. So,
>> but these bombs were or these devices
were found right around the time of the
vote.
>> Correct.
>> And the rest of us thought that it was
like it was almost like the anthrax
attacks before 9/11. Like we knew,
>> right,
>> or after 911. We knew something terrible
was going on, but there were never any
details.
>> Yeah. Well, here's another interesting
aspect of the timing. So, not only did
the gavvel drop at one o'clock, those
six permits all began at one o'clock.
Now, Trump had messed up the schedule
because he arrived at the stage at the
Ellipse an hour late. So, he was
supposed to take the stage and begin his
speech, his hourlong speech at 11:00
a.m. He did not take the stage until
11:57.
All right. Then, he went over his time.
He did not leave the stage till 1:16
p.m. By then, the first breaches had
already happened. The first battle lines
had already been established and the
first launching of less than lethals
into the crowd were already taking place
before the president ever left the
stage. all those early people, including
Ray Eps,
including about um 50
former Marines
that were on that front line, had
already breached the barricades, had
already started taunting and attacking
police.
And um
and now you have two calls over the
police radio, which we have. We have an
entire uh uh all day of the police radio
and the calls go out. They need
reinforcements at the RNC and the DNC
because that's within both of those
buildings or within the capital police
jurisdiction. So they had to divert this
already depleted
um force
and that's why we know that they were
diversionary devices and that was the
point was to pull law enforcement away.
So at the same time that capital police
are going to the other locations. Now
you have the arrival of metropolitan
police are now showing up at the
capital. They're streaming in. They're
coming in to kick butt. The fighting
gets worse and worse and worse. And as I
said, good people on both sides of the
line, bad people on both sides of the
line.
>> And
the uh the next thing that we know, and
this is what's really important is in
the aftermath of the devices, is what we
learned from video. And this is the
single most important thing that we
learned from video. First of all, is we
saw the reaction to the discovery of the
device at the DNC. Now, we did not see
the reaction because the Capitol police
has never showed us or the FBI has never
showed us any video in the alleyway
behind the RNC. No, the device was
actually behind the Capitol Hill Club,
you know, Republican hangout kind of
next door and attached to the RNC. Um,
there's allegedly no camera there, but
there is. I'll get to that here in a
minute. But at the DNC,
we see a um Thomas Massie likes to call
him uh the the two counter surveillance
officers that work for the capital
police. Undercover, plain clothes,
counter surveillance officers, capital
police, and they work for the intel
department of the capital police. One of
them Massie calls man bun guy cuz he
wearing a man bun and the other one he
calls backpack guy. Well, back guy went
to the two SUVs that were guarding the
parking deck entrance of the DNC. Why
were they there? Because then Vice
President-elect Kla Harris was inside
the DNC, not where she was supposed to
be, by the way. She's supposed to be
over at the capital, which is another
very, very strange aspect of this entire
story is she's being coronated over at
the capital and she's a voting senator
and she's not there. H at 1:00 she's
inside the DNC.
So,
the
Secret Service have swept that building
already. Human assets, dogs, they've
swept that entire side. We found on
video at 8:30 in the morning 8 9 10
Secret Service walking right past where
the bomb allegedly was found.
That bomb was in the wide open. It could
not have not been seen. It could not
have uh not been found by bomb dogs. It
could not have not been found by not to
mention the pedestrians that were
walking by it all day long. It's wide
open right there. It wasn't hidden
behind a bush.
At 105,
backpack guy, counter surveillance
officer with the C capital police goes
over to the SUVs. He informs the Secret
Service agent sitting inside the two
SUVs, um,
we just found a, you know, bomb, sus
suspicious device.
The reaction of the Secret Service
agents is the most suspicious thing that
makes made all of our mind. Uh Darren
Bey, uh Mike Benz, anybody else who's
done any work on the on the pipe bomb
knows that when you're informed that
there's a bomb sitting 10 ft from you,
you don't sit in the SUV and finish your
sandwich for two and a half minutes.
>> No.
>> No. And then when they get out,
they casually walk around. They don't
stop traffic. Now, there's protocol.
Okay, these guys are trained. Every one
of these agencies, bureaus are all
trained on what to do when suspicious
devices are found. They have to set up
um uh perimeters cord on off certain
amount depending upon the the type of
device they think it is. It could be 700
ft. It could be 2,000 ft.
>> Yeah. It's a bomb.
>> It's a bomb. So within a matter of feet,
they don't have any concern for their
own safety whatsoever. They're allowing
families to continue walking 10 ft past
the bomb down the sidewalk.
>> Man, and we know for a fact that they
were told it was a bomb.
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay. Well, then
>> I don't believe that they were told
that, though. This is what this is what
we've been told. I believed, and I've
said this from the very beginning, the
only thing that explains their reaction
or lack of reaction thereof was the fact
that they were told by the capital
police guys, hey, look, uh, we're in the
middle of a training exercise.
So, we've got these, you know, devices
over here. Um, we're going to have to
start the dog and pony show here a
little bit. The bomb squad's going to
come out. We're going to have the robot
and all that. Oh, no. No. Go ahead and
finish your lunch. That's the only thing
that explains the reaction.
>> And it's why that Kla Harris, despite
being there at the time and talking
about January 6 constantly, like it was
Pearl Harbor plus 911, never publicly
said a word about the fact she was
there. Now, you would think Kla Harris
would be bragging, I survived January, I
survived a bombing attempt from the
radical right white right-wing
supremacists or whatever. Instead, it
took a year before Newsweek uh not
Newsweek, um Politico revealed that she
was even in the building.
>> Right. That's right.
>> Entire year.
>> So, I think we can say based on
everything that you said pretty
confidently, these were not bombs.
>> These were not bombs.
>> Right. How'd they get there?
This is where we have a real struggle
because we have the videos of this dark
figure, this gray, you know, hoodied
figure walking through
that area around the RNC and DNC on the
night of the 5th.
>> Both.
>> What's that?
>> Both on both sides.
Same same individual caught on camera.
multiple multiple cameras all you know
they're caught on ring cams caught on
the DNC cameras caught on capital CCTV
cameras um this this figure comes out of
nowhere at 7:34 p.m.
Plants both devices and then disappears
through a secret gate by the way at 8:18
p.m. Um
>> through a secret gate.
>> Mhm. What is that? in the alleyway
behind the RNC and there's residences be
in that alleyway. Yeah. Um
>> uh and businesses and there the the
actual alley is called Rumsy Court and
at the opposite end of the long alleyway
from where the RNC and the Capitol Hill
Club are is a Catholic church and
there's a garden on on the other side of
a fence. Well, if you don't know where
the gate is, because it's a hidden latch
and the the gate, it completely and
perfectly blends in with the fence. So,
if you're not a resident, you don't know
that that gate exists and there's no
path, there's no footprints or whatever.
The first time I went through it, there
was snow on the ground that I went out
and checked it out myself. So, I only
reason I found it is because I could see
the snow prints where local residents
use that as a shortcut.
The second time I went out there and
videoed, there's no evidence whatsoever.
And I I had my camera and you can't see
a latch. You can't see a gate of any
kind. I happen to know where it was cuz
I'd been through it before. And so this
young bomber, which we'll get into, I'm
sure, here in a moment. this uh young
black autistic uh individual who um
allegedly confessed to the crime told
FBI that he mapped out his route for
planting the devices by using Google
Maps. There's two things that aren't on
Google Maps though. That secret gate,
nor are the blind spots in Capitol
Police CCTV cameras.
Hm.
>> And the person who left these devices
was clearly aware of where the blind
spots were. And now we know more by
video. Now, the FBI has only ever
released about 30 seconds of video of
the bomber and put out a $500,000 reward
asking for tips from the public. If you
recognize the way this person walks or
the way you recognize anything about it,
you know, call this 1-800 number.
And um
the interesting thing is is that the FBI
themselves told the Congress
congressional committee, this was
loudermil and mass report
that they had 30,000 video files of the
bomber. That's their that's their
number, not mine. 30,000 video files.
They have only released about 30 seconds
of video. Because of our access to
Capital CCTV, we have about 21 minutes
of the hoodie bomber walking around.
It's never been shown to the public.
>> Where'd you get that?
>> Of Capital CCTV.
>> How do you get access to Capital CCTV?
>> Well, um, if you remember, you guys were
first granted access by McCarthy.
>> Um, and then they used a small handful
of us as guinea pigs to eventually give
universal access.
>> So, House investigators had it. House
Investigators have it. They have they
have the the the hard drives. Yep.
>> Uh and then they gave us access. Uh
myself, uh Julie Kelly, um John Solomon,
uh uh Joe Haniman, uh who was with Epic
Times at the time, now my partner in
this project. Um they um and myself. And
so with this access that we got, we
harvested, literally harvested this
amount of footage of the bomber walking
around.
And this is where it really
comes home to the capital police is on
the evening that the gray hooded figure
was planting the devices. This
individual only sat down in two places
during the stroll during that 7:34 to
8:18 period. The first place that the
hooded bomber sat down at was the DNC
bench
then but did not place the bomb the
first time that this individual sat
down. got up, left, went around the
block, and went to the Congressional
Black Caucus Institute and sat down at a
bush
outside the Congressional Black Caucus,
reached into the backpack, pulled out a
device, and slid it under the bush,
then
changed their mind, reached, grabbed it
back, and put it back into the pouch or
the backpack. stood up, went down a back
alleyway back to the DNC, and then
planted the bomb at the DNC. You can see
the hooded figure on camera reach in,
pull the device out of the bag, and then
lay it over behind the bench and the
mulch there.
One problem with that scene right there
is the FBI says that
Brian Cole Jr., who they arrested for
being the bomber said that that was when
he set the timer on, you know, the egg
timer, kitchen timer,
except on video he doesn't set the
timer. One hand in, one hand out, never
stops to set the timer and sets it down.
FBI is clearly wrong. And if the kid
really gave that in his confession, he
was clearly lying in his confession
>> or delusional
>> or delusional or the fact that autistic
individuals give the highest percentage
of false confessions to law enforcement
of any other demographic.
>> So
he wasn't charged, however, when you
first started looking into the story,
Brian Cole.
>> No. And this is this is where the the
problem comes in. Let me go back to the
sitting down at the two locations. So
the next day on the 6th, the first
device is found at the RNC alerted by a
lady uh by the name of Carlin Younger.
And the first device is found at 25
minutes before 1:00. And then the
Capitol police send out over their
radio. They deploy their own counter and
surveillance teams, three of them, two
men each, to go out and look for other
devices. this one counter surveillance
team where man bun guy and backpack guy
they we find their car. My team, my guys
on my investigative team find their car.
We follow their car through the city and
it arrives at the Metro South parking
lot right across the street from the
RNC. They get out of their car, put
their backpacks and their jackets on.
They walk and they beat. Now they're
deployed to look for devices, right?
This is their job. Our job is to look
for devices. They spend their entire
stroll from Metro South over to
not the DNC. They go to Congressional
Black Caucus Institute and walk right up
to the bush,
do this, look under the bush. 2 minutes
later, they then find find the bomb at
the DNC.
The only two places that the hoodied
individuals sat down the night before is
the only two places they actually looked
in their stroll while they were looking
for devices. They didn't look under
garbage cans, under cars. They didn't
look under other bushes. They looked
nowhere else. Tucker,
>> this was a capital police operation.
>> Do we know the identities of man bun and
backpack?
>> Yes, they have been interviewed by the
committee. Uh in fact uh uh
Representative Massie actually
interviewed a man bun guy himself. Uh
they have been interviewed and the
congressional investigators say that
it's the most um pre-planned and
rehearsed interview they've ever
witnessed in their life. And by the way,
they could only get permission to
interview them if they were not under
oath and they had to be interviewed
together, which you never do in an
investigation.
>> They were not under oath.
>> Nope. They were not under oath and it
was not a Why would a law enforcement
officer
>> refuse to testify under oath?
>> Because this was capital police. Capital
police is different.
>> Why? Why would house investigators
settle for that?
>> How about because uh Johnson and Jordan
uh restricted the committee from
investigating the capital police.
>> Now, why would they do that?
>> The Ptorian Guard.
>> Yeah. So if you're the C, just to be
clear, I mean, and if you doubt this,
you can go back into the clips and look
at every sex scandal or dewise scandal
on Capitol Hill. It's always the capital
police
>> who are involved in it. And tons of
people on the hill have drinking or drug
problems. There's a lot of
>> crazy sexreated behavior and other
things. And the capital police know all
that.
>> Yes, they am I being a conspiracy nut
here or is this
>> No. No. As a matter of fact, the first
time I ever met Tar Johnson, it's one
one of the reason why I gave your your
team his story.
>> Y
>> was he looked at me the very first time
I met with him was in uh 22 sometime
>> and he said, "Steve, you have no idea
how powerful the capital police are."
>> That's true.
>> And I'm thinking Keystone cops,
glorified mall cops,
>> of course.
>> No way. you know, dignitary protection
detail and the intel department are not
the keystone cops.
Yeah, this is the CIA.
And as a result of that cooperation with
the agency,
they know where all the bodies are
buried. They know where the skeletons in
the closets are. everything that you
just talked about a moment ago. This is
what they have privileged knowledge to
and this is how they affect legislation
on Capitol Hill. This is how they affect
who the leadership is going to be.
That's how the leadership disappoints us
so gravely every time we get our guy in
and he suddenly is no longer our guy.
>> So you think that the capital police are
like a vector of control?
>> Absolutely.
>> Yeah. I I would not be surprised by that
at all.
um at all. And of course, they're
controlled by the speaker of the house.
>> Yes.
>> So, it's an inherently political
operation. So, Laddermilk um
Congressman Laddermilk, who was chairman
of the last two January 6th
investigative committees. The first one,
his subcommittee was under House
Administration. The new one is a
subcommittee under um Judiciary
Committee chaired by Jordan. Loudermilk
is the chairman of the subcommittee. In
order for him to even get this
committee,
and how do I know this is because he
told me himself to my face. The only way
he was able to continue his
investigation into matters related to
January 6 is he had to agree not to
investigate the capital police. To which
my response was, you can't investigate
January 6 without investigating the
capital police. Why would you ever allow
I mean any investigation that begins
with parameters like that it's like
Jeffrey Ebstein search warrants that's
like designed to obscure rather than
illuminate the truth.
>> Right. Right.
>> They thought they thought that they
would eventually have the ability to
circumvent some of that. And they did
get the interview with the two counter
surveillance. I know their names. I've
never released their names publicly but
I I know who do you think?
>> Uh yes. In fact, uh, backpack guy is now
the,
you're not going to believe this. He's
now the capital police liaison to the
FBI.
>> Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. I
kid you not.
>> Doesn't surprise me at all. If you look
into the work histories of people with
big jobs in DC,
>> it's very very common to c come across
something like that. You know, I mean,
he'll probably be the director of the
FBI someday,
>> right?
>> Um,
>> so there's two things that we know. We
know that the bomber had intimate
knowledge that only Capitol police could
know. The hidden gate, the um uh under
se several reasons why the knowledge of
where the blind spots were in the
cameras is very important to this story.
Not the least of which is that the
bomber only carried one bomb at a time
and reloaded the backpack in a blind
spot over at Fulier Park knowing that
there was no and that's where the bomber
either parked their car or their
accomplice was waiting for them there
who would have access to the blind spots
only some
>> only the capital police
>> right
>> only
we know that there was when the bomber
entered the m there's a famous there's a
famous video of the bomber apparently
waving at a cop car and right in front
of the uh Capitol Hill Club as as a as a
um uh uh marked Capitol Police car comes
by. The the bomber apparently waves at
the car, then walks around the corner,
two Capitol Police cars pull up with
their headlights on and create a blind
they they blitz out the cameras that are
faced down the street.
It completely obscures. And it was at
that moment that the bomber ducked down
into Ramsey Court was when the two
secret blinded those cameras.
So, who was that person?
We want to go there.
Yeah. I mean, you're being sued for
saying this, so I just want to be
completely clear. I have no clue. I'm
not endorsing your position at all.
you're being sued by one of the,
you know, one of the worst lawyer, in my
opinion, the worst lawyer I've ever
dealt with in my life. So, which I hope
we can get into. Um,
so, you know, I I have no idea if what
you're saying is true. I'm not imputing
the character of anybody. I I'm sure
there's another side to it, but I'm
interested in the story, and this will
presumably come out in trial if your
case goes to trial. So,
>> um, well, just tell us about your
reporting. like how did you go about
figuring out who this person was?
>> Exactly. Look, in in our reporting about
January 6, I I've not just obsessed for
5 and a half years over the pipe bomb,
>> right?
>> I've been on the pipe bomb and then been
off the pipe bomb. And
>> it is in some ways the most interesting
story cuz like the US government tells
us there was a simultaneous bombing of
the two party headquarters and it was
like super dangerous and it was an act
of terror and then they never mention it
again or release any relevant
information. So I mean for 4 years I've
been wondering and that's why we're
having this conversation. So I'm just
interested how did you go about trying
to ascertain the identity of this
person?
>> So so this is what was happen happening
at the time is that going back to the
initial part of our conversation where I
learned that there were elements of our
department of defense department of war
now in the crowd not knowing what their
reasons for being in the crowd were. I
have no idea. But I was very curious why
in a very small area of the capital on
the west side three people died of heart
attacks.
So you had two gentlemen early on, one
before the first less lethal was ever
fired. One that a lot of people have
claimed were murdered by Capitol police
and was hit. They say he was hit by a
less than lethal. No, he wasn't. We've
seen the video from every angle. He was
never struck by a less than lethal
device or launcher.
>> And then the third one was Roseanne
Boland right near the uh the tunnel.
Three people dying of heart attacks
within 50 yards of each other at any
event ever in the history of the world
has never happened.
So I'm very curious about this.
I know that that particular element or
unit of our armed forces has a weapon.
It's called an agitation weapon. It is a
directed energy weapon. Backpack size.
We just learned a lot about that from
the invasion down in Venezuela, the
discombobulator that the uh president uh
called it, the discombobulator weapon.
So I started investigating
the source, the use, who in our
government has the agitation weapon and
what its uses were. I learned that one
of its uses was it can make people go
nuts in a crowd in a color revolution.
going in what way?
>> Um,
a three-star general retired from SOCOM
that I interviewed
>> Special Operations Command,
>> correct? Told me,
yes, that weapon exists,
and I quote,
"With it, we can stop your heart. We can
make you your pants."
But I wouldn't need that weapon to start
January 6. I would just need four or
five of my best men. That's exact quote.
I interviewed members of that unit about
the weapon. I have interviewed former
Secretary of the Army about the weapon.
All have verified its existence and its
quote unquote prolific use within our SP
special operators community.
And
I started looking for backpacks in the
crab. I know what the shape is. I know
what the design is. I've interviewed two
people that have participated in the
design of that weapon.
One of them's a doctor. The one is a
special operator who
essentially assisted DARPA in the design
of the the how to how to make it field
worthy out in the in in the field. And
um
so I started looking for it in the
crowd. Me and my team, we're we're
looking at backpacks everywhere. Well,
one of the most interesting backpacks
that day was worn by a small handful of
Capitol police officers that were up on
the upper terrace that early early early
on before the crowd had gotten violent
started launching less lethals into the
crowd. and they were wearing so they've
got they've got their um their black
uniforms on but they've got military
colored backpacks on. So we start
zooming in on them in the cameras
and we got totally distracted about the
looking for dis uh a directed energy
weapon because what we found was is that
this team of less lethal officers were
illegally firing into the crowd. They
were firing their weapons against
policy, against the law, against their
own training. In fact, some of them were
training officers in in the use of less
lethal and they were using them in
what's called a criminally negligent
manner, shooting people in the head, in
the crowd, in the face. They were
shooting their own officers in the back
of their helmets on the front line. You
could see the you could see the pepper
pellets go explode off the back of their
helmets.
So, we decided to do a story on the use
of less lethal, got distracted from the
the directed energy weapon story and
because we now we found all this fresh
video, you know, and so we needed to
identify these officers. So, we're going
down the line, we identify one, two,
three, four, and then there was one
officer we couldn't identify. To be
honest with you, we didn't know if it
was a male or a female, but this officer
was firing the pepper ball gun that was
hitting people in the head.
It's a point blank range, by the way.
Very close on. These were not misfires.
And
I have a source. One of my earliest
sources at the capital police on January
6th investigation was a CDU officer,
civil disturbance unit of the Capitol
Police. And the less lethal team is part
of CDU. So I called my source and I then
sent him a photograph still shot of this
officer and he immediately went, "Oh
yeah, that's uh Shaunie Kirkoff." I
said, "Well, who's Shawnie Kirkoff?" He
said, "Oh, she great cop. Uh he said it
was kind her she was uh you know uh
always a good hang. She was fun to be
around. Um she was a good friend, but it
was kind of weird." He said when she
left
um she left the Capitol police about 6
months after January 6th and when she
left she wiped her social media out. She
changed her phone numbers and her email
and we we all lost contact with her. We
were friends. We lost contact with her.
And he said we heard that she might have
went to one of the three-letter agencies
or you said maybe it was defense
intelligence or something. But anyway,
that's that's what we heard. And I went,
"Oh, okay. So now I have a name, right?"
And so I start looking for this name.
Turns out Miss Kirkoff was the first
person to ever testify in the very first
January 6th trial, the trial of Guy
Refett in the summer of 22. She's the
first person to testify in the very
first trial. And she testifies as a less
lethal officer who fired at this
individual that was being that was on
trial at that time. And this is what she
said and this is what happened in the
transcripts. The first thing before she
faced direct examination from the
government is the judge went to a
sidebar and told the uh both of the
attorneys
said now you know that there's some
under seal aspects about this first
witness. Yes, your honor. Yes. Be
careful when you're questioning.
Oh, I thought okay. I thought that was
interesting. And so then direct
examination starts and the prosecution
asks her her name, spell your name, go
through the whole process that they
typically do. And one of his first
questions was, of course, you know,
where are you employed now? And she
said, I still work for the government.
He goes, oh, you're no longer with
Capital Police. She said, no, I left
Capital Police about 6 months after
January 6. He said, did you leave under
good circumstances? Oh, yes. Uh, very
good circumstances. In fact, I had
already applied for my current position
in the government
uh before January 6.
Okay, that's interesting. Then it's time
for cross-examination.
The judge hits the button again, calls
another sidebar, and he says to the
defense attorney, "Don't you go waving
Miss Kirkoff's 302s around this
courtroom."
That's the FBI investigation forms.
That's what a FBI 302 is. And now I'm
like, my radar is pinging off off the
charts. So, I have to know who this
person is. So, I have sources at OD and
that's how this whole element of the
story comes into it is that I took the
information that I had and I received
assistance from OD and that helped me
identify her as a current CIA employee.
>> What does she do at CIA? What I was told
by OD and I is that she was on their uh
the equivalent of a dignitary protection
type detail where she could possibly be
accompanying
Director Ratcliffe and other dignitaries
around armed
and um she protects John Ratcliffe, the
director of the CIA.
I'm just telling you that her job
description as it was relayed to me by
OD and I was that she was on that detail
and she could be one of the people that
protect Ratcliffe.
>> That's crazy.
>> That's what I learned.
>> John Ratcliffe being the former
congressman and current CIA director.
>> Correct. All right.
So, now we're full into this and I'm
doing everything I can. You know, now we
find videos of her college career as a
world class, you know, all-American
athlete, soccer player. And I learned
that she had a careerending
injury. Well, not career, it was it was
her college career ending in injury in
her fourth year, fourth season. Uh, she
broke her tibia in half on her right leg
and a in a game. And um and then we
found videos after recovery and therapy.
She played a year of minor league ball
for the Columbus Eagles.
And I see her walking across the field
and she's dragging her right leg in a
manner
that would be um typical for somebody
with that exact injury with a what they
call a circumduction move where the
dragging the right foot
>> yep it comes around
>> in front of the left left foot
>> and I've seen more of the pipe bopper
video than anybody and And I've seen it
over and over and over and over again.
I've watched
my that 20 minutes of video. I've spent
dozens and dozens of hours watching it.
And I went, "You've got to be kidding
me."
And so then I took
>> So you hadn't had that in mind? You
hadn't thought?
>> No. I was investigating the illegal,
improper use of less lethal
weapons used against the January 6th
crowd. And you find out that one of the
people you believe was using these
weapons illegally winds up at CIA to
which she had applied before January 6,
but now she's at CIA in some protective
role potentially protecting the director
of central intelligence, John Rackcliff.
>> Potentially.
>> Yeah. I mean, I you know, it's hard even
know to know what to say about all of
those connections. Um,
and then as you're watching video of
this person, you say to yourself, "Oh my
gosh, I recognize that gate, that
distinctive gate produced by an injury."
>> Yeah.
>> No more complicated than that.
>> No, that's I'm glad I asked you the
question.
>> I have no I have no malice against
Shaunie Kirkoff. As I said before, I
think that she believed she was in
involved in a training exercise,
>> right? And it sounds like um
I mean it sounds like you you didn't go
into this imagining you would conclude
that.
>> No. And then what we did because of this
evidence, we started looking at her as a
Capitol police officer. And we found two
and a half hoursish of video of Miss
Kirkoff as a Capitol police officer from
the Capitol CCTV video archives from
January 5th and January 6th. We we have
her running all over the capital on both
days, the fifth and the sixth as a
police officer. So we have tons of video
of her and she has that gate. So is
there any way to I mean I you know
there's all kinds of biometric software.
Is there a way to you know bring science
to bear on this question?
>> Well that's what we did. So, I took it
to a source of mine within the
intelligence community who I've not
named and will not name ever.
Um, this source can come forward if they
desire to at any point in this uh
defamation trial if they choose to come
forward, but I will not out them. And
this in this source
uh is a let's just say
30-year career
in the community,
an expert in gate recognition and also
an engineer in the technology. And this
person ran the gate recognition for me.
Came back to me with a 94% hit. So, I
turned over as much video of the hoodied
January 5th pipe bomber and Miss
Kirkoff's footage, both as a soccer
player and as a Capitol police officer.
The the the software came back with a
94% hit, but the expert analysis, human
analysis was 98% match.
So when I'm asked how sure am I that
she's the bomber, I'm 94 to 98%.
>> So um pardon my ignorance. Is gate
recognition software commonly used by
intel or investig or law enforcement
agencies?
>> As a matter of fact, FBI used gate
recognition technology to um
disclude a January 6 pipe bomber. They
had as one of their uh persons of
interest a gym owner over in Virginia
across the river who had, believe it or
not, an odd gate, but more importantly
had a receipt for having purchased the
identical type of rare Nike collectible
shoe that the bomber was wearing that
night. Nike Air Max Speed Turf 2018
edition is what the bomber was wearing
in a very specific color scheme. gray,
gold, and black. And um
he had a receipt for having purchased
this. So they ran gate recognition on
him and eliminated him as a suspect.
They ran gate recognition on the Guthrie
case just recently. You know, Savannah
Guthri's mother.
>> Uh they use gate rec recognition on that
suspect. Um gate recognition in courts
have been used for hundreds of years,
hundreds of years. I mean, you can it's
in many cases it's more accurate than a
facial recognition or a fingerprint
because you can get it from a distance.
And that's what's so valuable about gate
recognition.
>> So, are you the I mean, the FBI was
doing or claiming to do an investigation
into these pipe bombings
>> for a long time,
>> right?
>> Did they ever talk to her? Was she ever
did she ever come up as a suspect in
this?
So, uh, when I discovered all of this, I
took this information to my sources at
ODNI and all hell broke loose. So,
following the law, following procedure,
um, Tulsi had a special group called the
DIG, the Director's Initiative Group,
which was shut down and dissolved
because of this story.
>> Yep. By by CIA. by CIA. Of course, the
people that worked in the dig that
assisted in this story
um and looked at the evidence
were demanded by CIA to come in to
Langley for 4-hour sitdown interviews
and polygraphs and they told him, you
know, bite me. It's like you forget that
OD and I we oversee you. It's not the
other way around. And they did. The
point of dig, one of the things that Dig
was doing is looking into
mysteries
in which the, you know, federal
government had the documents, necessary
documents to show what actually happened
in a bunch of different stories, right?
>> Yeah. I, you know, I had taken I because
I believed it was a a possible public
corruption issue. Nobody in the
intelligence community trusts the FBI
and I'm sorry I'm I'm I'm sorry to all
the
>> that is I can verify that
>> from supporters out there but they don't
trust Cash Patel's at all
>> FBI any more than they trusted
>> and in fact knowledgeable people in the
government will always tell you that the
FBI kind of gets a pass CIA gets a lot
of attention for being evil and killing
people and all this stuff but like in
real life you're afraid of the FBI.
>> Yeah.
>> Because they're the ones that can harm
you domestically.
>> That's right. Yeah. People are afraid of
the FBI. That's absolutely true.
>> Right. So, u that's why I took it to OD
and I FBI would have been the the
natural people to go to with this, but
I've been through this. I've taken a
public corruption
>> office of the director of national
intelligence.
>> Correct. Right. Right. So, that'd be
Tulsi Gabbert until recently
>> and I took it directly to the dig, the
director's initiative group within the
FBI and I took this name of this person.
actually they they uh are as I said they
were the ones that discovered that what
her job was at CIA and then they drafted
a memo. Now this was just a draft memo.
It had never been complete. Still had
the yellow you know markings on the memo
had not been approved for distribution
but the deputy director of ODNI
I call it a leak. It's not it's it's
it's uh you know it was a pass along to
the deputy director Ellis of CIA before
the draft memo was complete. This was
done before our story about Miss Kirkoff
was published on November 8th of last
year. So this draft memo was being
circulated. It was uh given from the
deputy director, Tulsi's deputy director
to deputy director of CIA who gave it to
FBI, who gave it to the White House and
leaked it to the press.
The White House had it the day before
our story came out,
two days before our story came out, Miss
Kirkoff's partner gets a call from the
FBI and said, "Oh, we're going to raid
your house tomorrow morning." No, they
got a 12-h hour advanced notice that
their house was going to be raided.
That's not standard operating procedure,
by the way. So, on the morning, Friday
morning, November 7th, FBI shows up and
they're there all day. Now, I have no
idea that the FBI is raiding Miss
Kirkoff's house, but what I learned was
from one of my Capitol police sources.
It was about uh one or two o'clock in
the afternoon. Hey, your girl's her her
house is being raided right now. And um
so we sent our um uh I was still with
Ablaze at the time and so our acting
editor-in chief at the time Chris
Bedford um lived in um Alexandria where
Kirkoff lives and so on his way home he
drove past the house
and sure enough they're all out there
got uniformed and plain clothes
individuals local cops FBI are all
milling around that house. This is the
day before our story came out that
night. Miss Kirkoff at 8:00 PM by a very
high ranking FBI
um individual who I still don't know who
it is, but our attorneys know who it is
through discovery that I've not seen
yet. Um
told her that we need you to come in for
a polygraph.
And that and what they told her was that
look,
it's gonna you're gonna spend more time
in the drive downtown, you know, to FBI
headquarters and the drive back than
you're going to, you know, spend being
interviewed. Well, that wasn't true. She
ended up being interviewed and
polygraphed for 4 hours. Didn't get back
home till after midnight. But what we
then learned months later was that she
failed that polygraph.
Not only did she fail the polygraph, she
was admonished by the poligrapher, the
the uh examiner, admonished for her
rehearsed answers to the questions
>> and the questions pertain to the pipe
bombings
>> directly. The questions were are did you
plan?
>> How do you know that she failed the
polygraph?
>> Uh it uh so in the Brian Cole Jr. case.
Now, you you asked earlier, how did
Brian how did this investigation
suddenly get ignited again? 5 days after
I named U Miss Kirkoff as the potential
bomber based on forensic science gate
recognition technology. Um, suddenly
outside of Brian Cole Jr.'s house in
Woodbridge, Virginia is a FBI
surveillance team. 5 days after
after 5 years, nothing. 5 days after
there's a surveillance team on his
house.
He was then arrested a month later,
charged with the crime on Dan Bonino's
birthday. They did the dog dog and pony
show, you know, uh press conference
where, you know, Bondi and um Janine
Piro and Cash Patel and Dan Bonino all
made their statements and their speeches
>> about this Brian Cole Jr.
>> about this Brian Cole Jr.,
>> who is he? He is a um uh
autistic black man.
He was 25 years old on January 5th and
6th of 2021. He's 30 years old now.
And um he famously because of his autism
and his extreme OCD, he famously walked
his dog two or three times a day around
the neighborhood. His neighbors,
including an FBI whistleblower, still an
employee of the FBI, says it ain't him.
He walks nothing like the bomber. He has
a very interesting gate.
Uh I I can go through the forensics with
you uh till the cows come home. Tucker,
just just very very briefly and then I'm
going to give you the blockbuster. All
right.
>> It just you when I'm sorry to say this,
but when uh Cord Meyer's wife, Mary
Penchon Meyer, who had had an affair
with uh President Kennedy, was murdered
on the Topath in Georgetown right near
where I grew up um by by CIA was
obvious. It's very clear what happened
now. But then at the time, uh and she
was a well-known person in Georgetown in
1962 or whatever. Uh they arrested an
autistic black guy, put him on laughing.
It's just like horrible. Yeah. And they
put him on trial. He was acquitted by a
DC jury.
>> But um it's the same. It's the same.
It's I mean that's I'm not you know
whatever.
>> No, I know. Just like I've heard this
story before.
>> Here's here's let's find the autistic
black guy. Right.
>> So bad. Here here's a really interesting
side note to this story is so you had
the evening of the arrest the the press
conference from all the mucky mucks
>> Mhm.
>> DOJ and FBI.
>> That was 6 months ago. You know who has
never mentioned it. Yet during the
campaign it was a top three priority of
this administration.
President. The president never patted
Cash and Dan on the ass and said add a
boy. He's never mentioned it. Nobody in
the White House has ever commented on
it. And our sources in the White House
is nobody in the White House buys this
arrest.
>> Well, I can confirm that which is why
I'm talking to you. Yeah, of come on
now. Um, but I also don't, you know, I
don't know. I mean, just be, you know, I
don't know. I don't know anything. Uh,
which is why I'm grateful you're here.
So,
>> okay. So, you write a piece saying that
it looks like this Kirchoff woman could
be the person her date her gate is
basically identical. Yes.
Um, she meanwhile works in a protective
capacity at CA possibly for the director
himself. Crazy crazy town. Um, what is
her response to it? She denies it.
>> Well, you know, one of one of the things
that I've been criticized greatly over
in me and my my team and my writing
partner Joe Hanaman is that we never
reached out for comment to Miss Kirkoff.
That's not true. Try reaching out to
somebody who's an employee of the CIA.
Yeah, I have. Her background her
background is her background has been
scrubbed. Now I did find her address. We
found that
>> I could have knocked on her door.
I didn't do it. Shame on me. Okay. So I
should have gotten I should have should
have could have knocked on her door.
Um we contacted everybody else at 9:00
the next morning. So our our our story
comes out on a Saturday morning. nine
o'clock on Sunday morning, November 9th.
At 9:00 am, I'm in a hotel in DC and I
get a call from the freaking CIA.
It's the chief um public affairs officer
at the CIA calls me at 9:00 a.m. from
home with a crying baby in her arm. I
can hear the baby crying. She's going,
"Excuse me, excuse." She goes, "Look,
I'm just calling you to let you know
that you got one aspect of your story
wrong." I went, "Okay, great. What What
one aspect did I get wrong?" She said,
"You've got uh Miss Kirkoff's job
description wrong." Now, the job
description that I published, I didn't
make up. That was what OD and I, who has
access to the entire intelligence
community database, read off to me and
told me what her job was. But instead,
she said, "No, she's just a security
officer at Langley on the campus. That's
all she is. Security officer Langley."
And so, we corrected the story. I mean,
we didn't correct it. We just made, you
know,
>> but she didn't say
our employees was not the pipe bomber.
>> No, nothing like that. She just And she
actually even said, she said, "I just
don't I don't want that one little
thing, you know, to take away from the
veracity of your story." She said that
and um thank you. So, I notified my
editors. They made the note, you know,
to the to the story and uh and then
everything continued to blow up. Now,
fast forward 6 months later, and I have
sat down with for many, many hours a
current existing CIA employee who has al
also become a whistleblower, but he
still has his job.
And he has held Miss Kirkoff's files in
his hands. And he said, "That Sunday
morning call that you got saying that
she was a campus security officer at
CIA, that's a lie." And he goes, "You
know, that's what we do for a living,
right? We lie." Yeah. I said, "Yeah, I
understand."
>> Um,
so what did FBI say about this? Did you
call Dan Bonino or Cash Patel to ask
their view? Well, you know, I I have
reached out to Bonino on many occasions,
and this is part of the story is is that
in my reporting about the new FBI, I've
been very critical of them, especially
after their abandonment of the
whistleblowers because that was one of
Patel's promises was that they were
going to make the whistleblowers whole.
That was one of Bonino's promises. They
were going to make the whistleblowers.
And we're talking about the
whistleblowers that had whistleblown
about the COVID regime, about the
mandates related to that, about January
6, the the, you know, the guys that were
told to go out and swat raid grandma's,
you know, for misdemeanor offenses,
something the FBI had never done in its
100red-year career, you know, history of
the of the agency, the bureau. And and
so, um, I had become very critical. And
five times that I know of, and I only
know this because the executives at the
Blaze relay it to me. Five times
individuals from the seventh floor of
the FBI, the Hoover building, called my
bosses to try to get me fired at the
place.
>> What?
>> Yes.
>> Who do you know who called from FBI?
>> And Bonino called twice. He was the
first one that I was
>> try to get you fired.
>> Yeah. To Well, first of all, to
complain, then it escalated from there.
>> Did he call you?
>> No, didn't. No, Bonino. Uh, and I
Bino gets my DMs
because he told my bosses that he reads
my DMs. That's why I know he gets them.
And he's famously blocks people on his,
you know, exac account. He's never
blocked me, but he's criticized me. He's
the one who told Thomas Massie that he
would personally write the check for the
defamation lawsuit from Shnie Kirkoff.
How did Dan go so quickly from a critic
of the deep state to its most aggressive
defender? What what happened to Dan, do
you think?
>> I you know, I don't know, but I can tell
you that in February of 24
that and it's still on uh Dan's X page.
You can go there. February 24, he is
singing my praises. He goes, "That Baker
guy at the blaze, he is just knocking it
out of the park about the pipe bomb."
Because we were releasing videos back
then that nobody had ever seen, like,
you know, the the destruction of the
bomb by the robot. People the the fact
that that investigative cameras had been
turned away from the site, we we we not
only found that the cameras had been
turned away, we found the act of them
being turned away from the investigation
scene. And we were releasing all these
videos back then and he's singing my
praises. Well, he's complete opposite
now. I don't know. You know, look, I I
can speculate as as much as anybody. He
it feels like looks like he had a
breakdown of some sort. He's terrified.
That's obvious. Um I don't know why. I
don't know any more than that. I know
having had a lot of contact with Dam
Bonino. It he turned on a dime. You
know, something happened to him at FBI
that just broke him as a man, destroyed
his life, and certainly destroyed his
career. And I feel sorry for him. I I
just find it interesting that he was
your like greatest opponent. You're
you're just trying to find out what
happened.
>> Yeah. He tried to get he tried to call
me off of my reporting on the
whistleblower situation and then uh as
we were getting closer to this story, he
called So the first person he called was
the president of the Blaze and that was
in the summer um before I even knew who
Kirkoff was. And then later he called u
my editor-inchief. And then Ben
Williamson, the assistant u personal uh
I think uh personal affairs officer uh
in the seventh floor of the FBI. He
called my editor-inchief. Both Bino and
Williamson agreed that Bonino would sit
down with me and let me show him the
evidence we had developed on the
pipeline, which he never did.
>> No.
>> And I sent him many messages trying to
execute that
>> that opportunity, that sitdown. never
happened. And then why wouldn't he want
to see that? I wonder. I don't know.
He, you know, he famously criticized
Massie, you know, in this tirade. He
went on like a, you know, 4-day tirade
against Massie. And one of the things he
was criticizing Massie for is that
Massie wouldn't accept his invitation to
come down to the Hoover building and see
their evidence against Brian.
>> No, no. Dan is working to cover up,
right, you know, the activities of of
the permanent government. It's just I I
just I've never seen anyone change that
much or be that afraid. I mean, he
looked like he was going to have a heart
attack. He was so afraid. And I
>> I'm not saying that to attack him, but I
just wish I knew what happened to him.
You haven't heard?
>> No, I know
specifics,
>> but what I what I do know is that uh he
made two calls to my bosses. Ben
Williamson made one call. Um, Marshall
Yates, who was the congressional liaison
to the FBI, formerly general counsel
staffer for Thomas Massie before he went
to FBI, he called my bosses. He
definitely was trying to get me fired.
Uh, Marshall called the White House. He
I mean, he he he called Congress
members. Uh, he did media sources,
everything they could to try. And what
was your crime again? My crime was
reporting on Kirkoff.
And I allegedly
was the person that received leaks of
both files and technologies from Joe
Kent,
the director of national
counterterrorism. Did you? No, not I
mean not in in fact in fact before
before um I left the blaze the week
before I got a call from Daily Wire
reporter Daily Wire 9:30 at night at
home and he said hey I'm calling to
comment from you on a story that I've
got. I said okay hit me. He said I have
three different sources from the
intelligence community who say you were
the recipient of leaks from Joe Kent.
And I just busted out laughing in his
face. I said, 'Well, first of all, who
are the three sources? I can't tell you
that. I said, 'You have three people
from the IC telling you that I received
technology and leaks from Joe Kent. Yes,
that's what I have. 15 minutes, I just
went off on him. And he finally went,
"Okay, okay, okay, okay. I believe you.
I believe you." And then they didn't
publish the story.
>> Yeah.
>> But everybody else did. Reuters did, you
know, New York Times, everybody else
published stories about it.
>> So, what was Kirkoff's response to your
piece?
>> Uh, was through attorneys. I mean, she
has never uh spoken herself until guess
what she got? She got the Ray Eps
treatment from the New York Times
and they did the full puff piece on her.
They made her into the sympathetic
figure that I had defamed and falsely
accused of being the bomber. And um that
reporter called me and I did an hour and
a half, the first session and 30 minutes
of follow-up with that reporter. I went
through everything. That reporter had no
idea that she had flunked, you know, the
the polygraph. I went through tons of
evidence and information that we have.
>> And so what was her what's I I read
somewhere that she said there's video of
me with my dog or my puppy during the
hours in question when the planted.
Again, we have three sources from the
FBI who called CBS and told CBS News
that they had uh an alibi video of Miss
Kirkoff on the evening of January 5th
while the bomber is running around at
RNC and DNC is that she is home and I
quote playing with her puppies. Okay.
The same three sources from the FBI who
allegedly leaked that to CBS would also
have known at the same time the same day
that she flunked the polygraph and they
conveniently left that out of the story.
>> Have you seen this video?
>> No, it doesn't exist as far as we know
because it has been under they have they
have uh request the the attorneys for
Brian Cole Jr. have requested it under
discovery and it's never been turned
over.
But Clare Lock has changed the story
twice now. Clare lock is the most uh
feared defamation law firm in the world
probably. Um they famously represented
uh uh the voting machine company against
Fox
and many other high-profile cases. Not
only did they change the story about the
puppy videos twice now because the CBS
version of the story was that she was
home playing with her puppies. three FBI
sources. Right. Then
I received the Blaze received and my
partner Joe Haniman received the demand
and preservation letter from Clare Lock
prior to the lawsuit being filed. And in
the preservation letter, they changed
the story to that the video shows her at
home caring for her dog singular. Now,
that may not seem like a significant
change except for one big reason.
Immediately after the story came out
that she was home playing with her
puppies, what they didn't know is that
we had done a dark web scrape of we
found her old social media stuff and in
that we found where she and her partner
had adopted an adult greyhound down in
Florida
and brought it home one month before
January 6th. And we also found the uh
five-star review that Miss Kirkoff had
given her dog sitter dog walker. Um and
again references only the one dog, the
one adult dog by name. And they didn't
know that we had been able to find these
things. And so as soon as that came out,
even though I was under a gag order now
from the blaze and I couldn't publish
anything about Miss Kirkoff directly, uh
I released those photos from proxies who
put it out on the web. So suddenly they
were embarrassed that it wasn't puppies
and three FBI sources, right? These are
not people that are going to get the are
going to get wrong between puppies and a
dog. So it goes from she was playing
with her puppies to caring for her dog.
And then the lawsuit comes out and the
lawsuit says, "Well, okay, it wasn't
either one of those things. There's a
video of the dog sleeping on the couch
and you can hear her voice in the
background off camera.
And we've only ever seen a screenshot of
the dog on the couch, but nobody has
seen the video.
Meanwhile, uh you know, there a bunch of
news stories attacking you for impuging
her character when there's video
evidence proving her innocence, but it
turns out to be a little bit more
complicated than that. I guess
>> it's much more complicated than that. I
mean, f first of all, um Brian Cole is
not the bomber. Brian Cole cannot be the
bomber. Uh we have a we we there's a
we've made famous by his uh his
pseudonym. His name is Armmitus and he
is uh a um
also an individual on the spectrum,
highly motivated on the pipe bomb story.
He and I met a couple of years ago
through this story and then he began
working with our team on the video
examination and he's obsessed with this.
And one of the things that he has been
able to discover, and I love his quote,
is he says that he says that Brian Cole
Jr.'s body is his alibi.
We know because I've been on my hands
and knees inside Rumsy Court, measured
the bricks in the alleyway behind the
the RNC.
We have a clear shot of the shoe, the
foot that the hoodie bomber is wearing.
The heel is on the line of a brick. That
shoe crosses the first brick, the second
brick, and less than half of the third
brick.
That's a nine to a 9 and a half at the
most of that particular shoe. Now, why
do I know that? It's because I purchased
three pairs of that Nike Air Max speed
turf shoe. I purchased a 9 and a half,
10 and a half, and a 12. Why did I
purchase a 12? Because Brian Cole Jr.
wears a 12.
Brian Cole Jr.
by his mother's own statement could not
I showed his mother the nine and a half
of that shoe. She goes, "Brian ain't
squeezing his big fat foot in that shoe.
I have held Brian Cole's shoes in my
hands. He wears all of his shoes are
size 12."
>> So why did he he confessed though?
As I as I mentioned earlier, the the the
demographic known for giving the highest
rate of false confessions to law
enforcement are autistic individuals.
They had him in an interrogation for 2
hours with no attorney present.
An autistic they've just scooped him off
the street. He was walking his dog or he
was he was walking to the 7-Eleven. Not
Not the dog had just recently passed
away. He was walking to the 7-Eleven
down the front of his neighborhood. The
FBI scooped him up off the street, uh,
arrested him, took him in, put him under
interrogation. Now, this is a highly OCD
kid with I mean, he's 5 minutes to
Wapner.
That's who he is. Okay. Very smart, very
bright, but very much a creature of
habit and routine.
>> Does Does he have some political motive?
Like, what are they saying moved him to
do this? Well, what they're saying is is
that is in conf in his confession that
he um had taken his cues from the Irish
troubles.
>> I'm sorry.
>> I
that's reaction.
>> Yes. The Irish troubles was where he was
motivated. And he says or they say that
he said in the confession that he hated
both the left and the right. he hated
the both parties and that that's why he
planted the devices at the RNC and the
DNC. There's one problem with that is
that there were two other potential drop
sites because we know from the video
evidence that one of those sites was the
Congressional Black Caucus Institute and
the bomber changed their mind. Another
site was an actual housing unit that
houses
uh Congress members and Congress staff
members. Those were the two other
locations where the bomber stopped and
chose not to and then eventually settled
on the DNC and the RNC.
Um,
as I said, there's so many details and
they're all running through my mind, but
I want I want to give you something that
we've never released before and I got
permission from the attorneys to give
this to you. This was something that
Armatas, our video examiner, found
is after thousands of hours of watching
these videos of the bomber
walking through Rumsy Court
for the first time because this this kid
he our guy he watches you know the first
time he watches a pixel set then the
next time he watches another pixel set
and then he's just he's that obsessed
with the videos but that that um
obsession led him to finally see a
smartwatch flash on the bomber's wrist
after years of watching the same video
over and over and over again and never
noticed it all of a sudden
the smartwatch flashes.
This is the January 5th hooded pipe
bomber. It flashes again.
He tells us about it. So me and now my
whole team, we go all all of us go all
in back to the videos again. And
suddenly, what we thought were arm
stretches and, you know, other motions
that the bomber was just making during
the stroll,
the bomber's talking into their wrist
at least five times that we can count.
It's one problem with that is Brian Cole
Jr. has never owned a watch, never worn
a watch, much less acquired a smartwatch
and learned to talk into it on the night
of the distribution of the pipe bombs.
We know that for a fact.
>> Is he pleading guilty in this case?
>> Uh, no. Oh, no. In fact, uh, just three
or four weeks ago, there was a
superseding indictment where they jacked
it up, trying to force them into a plea
deal. They jacked it up. Uh, they
charged him with terrorism and planting
weapons of mass destruction. Basically,
charges that would get him life in
prison if he was convicted, thinking
that they would scare him, the family
into a plea deal. Because that's
>> even though they weren't bombs. even
though they weren't bombs.
>> And it doesn't seem like he did it.
>> And he could not he could not physically
have been the person that did it. He's
the wrong shoe size. He's the wrong body
shape. Um he
>> can gate recognition tell a man from a
woman.
>> Absolutely. Well, it No, it it it can
tell the gate and then you can surmise.
But you know, most people that have
viewed the videos for years have thought
that it was a female that
>> that's what I thought looking at it. But
what do I know? But his, you talk about
a guy who we've got video of him walking
his gate could not be more antithetical
to the bombers's gate. It's highly, he
walks almost like a duckw walk. Yeah.
>> With his butt out and you know he walks
which is typical of an autistic person,
you know, placing heel first.
>> Yeah. Right. and or toe first and you
know and with but but with the feet out
like this whereas the bomber walks like
this with a pigeon toed right foot
circumduction
planting it in front of the left foot.
That's the way the bomber walks.
That's the way Shnie Kirkoff walks.
So what is the Okay, so now you're being
sued. Okay, I'm sorry. I don't want to
get ahead. So uh Bryan Jr. had. Now,
there's a super superseding indictment
threatening him with life in prison
trying to get him to plea. Is he going
to plea?
>> No. As a matter of fact, at that exact
hearing, status hearing, uh the defense
attorneys demanded a trial date.
>> Is he in jail?
>> He's in jail. He's been held in
pre-trial detention. He's in the general
population. I thought for sure that they
would have him in uh isolation for his
own benefit.
I don't think I don't think his own
benefit plays a role in their
calculations. But but he he actually has
a cellmate.
Um he is granted access several hours a
day to a tablet. So he is able to
communicate with his family through the
tablet. Uh he calls all of his family
members twice a day on, you know, in a
in a rigid schedule. Um uh it's just
bonkers that there have to be I know the
people I've spoken to in the federal
government believe that he's falsely
charged.
>> Yeah.
>> And these are sober, you know, these are
real people. um this is not on Twitter,
this is real life and they think he's
falsely charged. But it's there have to
be people in federal law enforcement who
agree with that and yet they're going
along with it anyway.
>> Well, they're not. As a matter of fact,
the there was a new whistleblower that
came forward as direct result of this
case,
an FBI whistleblower that I mentioned
earlier. This whistleblower FBI agent
lives
just down the street from the Cole
family.
This whistleblower has lived in the
neighborhood for 10 years. Has seen
Brian Cole Jr. walking his dog twice a
day, three times a day, him and his
wife, hundreds, thousands of times over
10 years.
He and he came forward because of this
case. I've interviewed the
whistleblower. He told me, and I quote,
he said, "Nobody in my shop is buying
this arrest."
>> What are they suing you for?
>> Uh, well, defamation,
>> right? But what what are the damages?
>> The No, there's been no stated number
yet uh at all. I mean, to be honest with
you, the 127 page lawsuit, I got through
30 pages with my highlighter
and I had to stop. I I mean, I just gave
up. It's one lie, falsehood after the
other. In fact, they are making stuff
up. I mean, making stuff up that don't
that doesn't exist. And see, I haven't
we haven't gotten to the part part yet
where I get to see discovery, where we
get to subpoena information. We haven't
got there yet. It's all brand new. Um,
but the law firm that represents coal
is now representing me.
So, they have the coal discovery. I
still can't see it, but what they have
informed me is is that we have nothing
to worry about.
I want to ask you one last question. Um,
it came to my attention several months
ago when I was hearing this story from
someone in the from a couple people in
the US government who are very upset
about it. Uh, not because they're
partisans one way or the other, but
because they're human beings who are
decent people and believe in justice and
like
not hurting the innocent. um that there
there were people in the government who
believed, career people including who
believed that this was totally crazy,
that you were right, that you're you're
the one being defamed and um that Brian
Cole has been falsely charged and one of
them worked for the Department of
Homeland Security and is now dead.
Uh this is a story that I heard from a
couple of different people who were very
upset about it. I don't think this has
ever been written about in public. No.
>> Are you familiar with what I'm talking
about? And if so, tell me what you know
about this.
>> Uh, we've are deeply involved in the
investigation. We have not written about
it yet because we don't have final um
conclusions, but this
>> we don't use names and you can just I I
won't I won't mention his name. Um, so
you may not know this, but I had acute
heart failure the Sunday before
Christmas the Friday.
>> No, I didn't know that. The Friday. So,
this was the Sunday before Christmas. On
Friday,
that night, I was in Rumsy Court on my
hands and knees with a tape measure
measuring those bricks, the very bricks
that the hooded bomber stepped on. I'm
measuring that uh the bricks. Saturday
morning, I'm over at the DNC measuring
the sidewalk and the pavement there to
compare so we could establish an exact
or as close to an exact shoe size as we
could of the hooded bomber.
At lunchtime on Friday, before I did
that, I got a call from a member of the
intelligence community
decades.
He said, "We have to meet. We have to
meet now." Okay. So, we met. He picked a
place and I met him there. First thing
he did is he took my phone away and
threw it in his briefcase, which is a
Faraday cage briefcase.
And then he slid a card across the
table. He said, "Do you know who that
is?" And I looked at the name on the
card. I said, "Yeah, of course." And he
grabbed the card back and he said, "Um,
he was found dead the day before
Thanksgiving."
Now, my last conversation with the name
on that card was October 29th.
And when I took this case to ODNI,
as we said before, because OD and I and
the members of the dig who were going to
look into this had determined that they
didn't trust the FBI either on this
case, especially this case. And so they
were going to take it to HSI, Homeland
Security Investigations. The
relationships that they had is they had
a liaison partnership with all of the
intellig That's what the dig is. The dig
had reached out to all of the 18 federal
intelligence agency. Yeah.
>> And and got one of the good guys or two
of the good guys from each, you know,
agency to come in and work with them.
Not deep stator vetted in that manner.
This is an individual who was vetted to
not be a deep stater.
>> 19 years career with HSI, senior agent
over there. They called him in. They
briefed him on the entire case.
Introduced me to him.
Then in late October, early November, he
sat down with a team again of
individuals that I will not name. I know
who they were and I knew who was I know
who was at the conference table and he
briefed them on how he was going to
pursue this case,
what technologies he was going to use,
um the other personnel that he was going
to bring into this to pursue this case.
And as I said, my last conversation with
him was on the um 29th of October. One
of these people that I know of had their
last confir conversation with him on
November 10th. And then his girlfriend
found him dead in his condo on the 26th
of November, the day before
Thanksgiving.
And this longtime IC
um
operative had tears streaming down his
face as he's talking about this and
explaining to me what they've heard. And
he said, "Of course, the rumor is
obviously that he committed suicide."
And he said, "None of us believe it.
None of us that knew him and were close
to him, were friends with him, believe
that this was a suicide."
And uh
>> what did the medical examiner say?
>> Still no report from the medical
examiner. We actually on our team
>> was over six 7 months ago. Yeah, we we
have a we have a um uh a member of my
you know my team who is a uh retired
25-y year FBI vet and a veteran and he
uh uh now private investigator who we
retained and he actually went to the
Fairfax County Police Department and
spoke to the lead detective on this case
and in that situation the detective
didn't give up anything any information
whatsoever except that there still was
no report from the medical examiner And
uh that was back in February. And then
more recently, just in the last few
days, we have it confirmed. There's
still no report. We have foyed that
information. It they've ignored it.
Fairfax County Police Department has
completely ignored us on that foyer. Um
are they allowed to do that?
Technically, no, but you know, they do
it all the time. Law enforcement
agencies around DC. They're famous for
that. That's why like Judicial Watch has
to sue them. And then you get you get
the body cams like you know Tom Fitton
just got the body cams from uh January 6
5 years five and a half years later but
he had to wait you know 3 years or two
years of lawsuits to get certain of
these body cams released. And that's
just the way they are. They they
stonewall you until you have to beat
them in court. And so, um,
here's what we also know about this
because we have done a tremendous amount
of investigation ourselves into this
HSI, uh, agent's death. Uh,
in January,
I'm only 3 weeks after my acute heart
failure, and I call up my cardiologist
and say, "I got to go to DC."
He's like, "I don't want you traveling
yet." He said, "You're not flying
there?" I said, "No, I'm on the drive."
He said, 'All right, be careful. Take it
easy, whatever. I beline it straight to
the condo where
this individual was found dead.
As I get there, I'm pretending like I'm
a real estate buyer. I'm pretending like
I'm interested in purchasing this condo.
As I get there and going through the
sherrod of being, you know, somebody in
the market for a house, I walk up on the
guy that's moving into the condo where
this agent had died. They they've sold
it. The house has been the condo has
been sold. So, the guy's move he's
carrying boxes in. And I said, "Oh,
you're moving into unit blah blah blah."
And he said, "Yeah." He goes, "I just
closed on it last week." I said, "Oh,
darn it." You know, I was looking at
that. I was here a couple weeks ago. And
uh he he said, "Yeah." So he said,
"There's a unit below me, you know." He
said, "So he took me down there. He
showed me another one that was on the
market right there." And he said, "I
think it's the same agent." Said, "Thank
you." So we shook hands. And then as
we're going, he's going back to the
parking lot to get another uh load of
boxes. And I'm going to my car. I pulled
the Columbbo on him and I went, "Oh, oh,
by the way, I got one more question for
you." And I walked over to him again and
I said, 'I heard when I was here a
couple of weeks ago that there was
something weird that happened in that
unit. He goes, "Yeah." He said, 'I was
told that the previous owner was
murdered.
I was told he was murdered. And that's
an exact quote.
I was not expecting to hear that. And he
caught me off guard. I mean, I was I was
like, I
that answer took me off my game. And so
I didn't ask the obvious follow-up
question was, "Who told you that?" Now,
I would imagine it was a neighbor.
Obviously, there's a death in there,
suspicious death. They're going to tape
off the scene. These condos are very
close and tightly wrapped, you know,
around each other. Uh they would have
interviewed all of the neighbors for,
you know, to see who they heard
anything, saw anything. All of that
would have happened. So, I can only
imagine and surmise that one of the
neighbors probably was told by a young
cop doing the, you know, surveillance
that this guy's over here was killed or
murdered or whatever. Um, we know, we
have learned since then that it was a
gunshot to the head and um, it was his
girlfriend that found the body. There's
been no publicity. There's never been
anything on the police about this. The
family did not issue an obituary. The
only thing that I have in my possession
of evidence, solid evidence of his death
or two things actually, is that the his
body was cremated on December 19th, 3
weeks later
before
the medical examiner's report, before
cause of death is issued.
And so there's a cremation report. We
found that. And then we also found the
or I was given the internal memo that
HSI put out to all of their employees,
you know, talking about the, you know,
their colleague who had passed away
suddenly and that there were going to be
a memorial, you know, get together at a
bar for, you know, celebration of life
memorial. And um then since then, I have
also uh through my other sources in the
IC have had questions asked within the
Fairfax County Department. They've all
been stonewalled. they've all been, you
know, stiff armed away from this
discussion. Nobody will talk to them
about it. And um we don't know. So the
reason why we've not gone forward with a
story about this is there's just way too
many things to, you know, there elements
missing from this to make a conclusion.
But the bottom line is is the guy within
the community with the power and the
investigative authority and the tools
and the personnel to investigate this
case
is dead.
That's the facts.
What a story.
I appreciate you taking all this time to
tell it. I think it's important to get
it on tape.
>> We needed to.
>> Yep.
>> It's like a dead man switch if you know
what I mean. Yeah, I do. Steve Baker,
thank you very much and Godspeed.
>> Thank you, Tucker.
>> Thanks for joining us tonight. See you
next Wednesday.