All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:25:53
Did the Capitol Police KNOW About the Jan. 6 Pipe Bombs IN ADVANCE? Live with Journalist Julie Kelly
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, there is the old Japanese proverb that once you see the path broadly, you see it in all things.
Once you understand confession through projection, you understand Hakeem Jeffries.
Behold.
Comer said yesterday on the floor that you had Jeffrey Epstein over for dinner and took money from him back in 2013.
Before, you know, this was after he was on the sex offender list.
Any comment on that?
And will you be holding members accountable regardless of party affiliation if there were any misdeeds related to the Epstein files?
Was that a serious question or a serious statement from malignant clown James Comer that I had Jeffrey Epstein over for dinner, that I accepted money from Jeffrey Epstein?
What's extraordinary to me about the clown show on the other side of the aisle is that they lie with impunity on things that are objectively verifiable.
And why do they do that?
It's because for months, Republicans have been burying the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Not Democrats.
Our view continues to be the same.
We want to make sure that what the survivors have asked for, which is full and complete transparency in order to bring about accountability, actually happens.
And Congress decisively and in a bipartisan way acted yesterday with respect to the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
That's a victory for the survivors and a victory for the American people.
And Donald Trump needs to sign that bill into law expeditiously.
Once you understand that all they can do is accuse their adversaries of what they are guilty of, it all makes sense.
And you notice how immediately it's the biggest red flag of deception.
The first thing that he does in answering the question is deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.
Look at this.
Listen to that.
Is that a serious statement from malignant clown James Comer?
Is that a serious statement from malignant clown James Comer?
Now, incidentally, for what it's worth, because all shall be revealed, we're seeing what's going on behind closed doors and we're seeing what the Democrats are doing.
I think it's an amazing thing.
It is a big day for transparency to some extent.
We're going to get into the shutdown of the censure of Stacy Splaskett.
Stacy Plaskett, who was texting Chummy, it's just one of her constituents, a convicted sex offender who's got her number on speed dial.
This is from Perplexity Comet because Chat GPT is total rubbish, activist rubbish.
Hakeem Jeffries did not personally accept money from Jeffrey Epstein, nor is there evidence that Epstein donated to Jeffrey's campaign or attended any related events.
A political consultant working with Jeffries' campaign did send a 2013 fundraising email inviting Epstein to a Democratic Party event, but the message was not written or sent by Jeffries himself.
And Democrats stress he never met or had any direct contact with him.
We could steel man that a little bit.
You know, they just send out invitations to big donors, like Jeffrey Epstein, convicted sex offender that they were fraternizing with up until his alleged suicide.
So the biggest news of the day was Stacey Plaskett, at least in my view, live texting with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during congressional hearings where she was asking questions of Michael Cohen and apparently, you know, didn't know enough about what the hell was going on.
And so she had to get some clarity on some people's names from sex offender Jeffrey Epstein live on TV.
Let me see.
Well, she's come out and defending herself, doubling down like pathological narcissists do.
Oh, I don't want to play the whole thing here.
It's a long one.
Mr. Raskin, to my former professor in law school, and I want to address the body.
I first want to give you all a sense of what was happening that day.
Oh, yeah, please do.
Everyone knows at that hearing in February, the entire country was watching as Michael Cohen decided he was going to finally give up information about what was happening in the Trump, the Trump world, the Trump enterprise.
And at the beginning of the- Remember what's going on here: deny, attack, reverse victim, and offender.
She's been busted live texting a convicted sex offender getting advice while questioning a convicted perjurer, Michael Cohen.
Trump is the victimizer, and she's the victim.
This is what was going.
Let me refresh your memory.
Let me explain to you why I was seeking advice from a sex offender.
Hearing, the ranking member Jim Jordan had the disrespect to Elijah Cummings.
May he rest in peace and his name be a memory after not allowing Mr. Jordan to shut the committee hearing down.
She's a victim.
Jim Jordan's the aggressor because he disrespected Elijah Cummings.
Okay.
And I turned to Mr. Jordan and told him to have respect for the chair and to basically shut up.
And that moment went viral.
And I began to get innumerable texts from friends, from foes, from constituents about what was happening in that hearing.
And Jeffrey Epstein's, how many did she respond to that day?
You know, if she had gotten censured, I don't know what sort of examinations they can do or deposition.
How many did she respond to of all the friends?
Because Jeffrey Epstein arguably was her best friend there.
She responded to him.
She said, oh, I'm responding to foes, anybody.
I just need to go get information from anybody that I think might help me, even if it's convicted sex offenders.
And I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was my constituent, who was not public knowledge at that time that he was under federal investigation.
No, but it was public knowledge at that time.
He was a sex offender, an arguable pedophile.
It was known then.
Oh, I didn't know he was under federal investigation again.
I just knew that he got a sweetheart deal back in the day.
And who was sharing information with me?
I'll pause it right there.
He was a convicted sex offender is sharing information with Stacey Plaskett so that she can use it as extortion against Donald John Trump.
I mean, the amazing thing is she doesn't understand what she just said out loud there.
She was knowingly collaborating, colluding, and conspiring with a sex offender so that he could provide potentially arguably, allegedly incriminating information against her political adversaries.
Jeez, it's almost like that's exactly what Jeffrey Epstein was throughout his history, his MO, being used for by intelligence.
And in case you had any doubts about the intelligence aspect of this now, it's all coming out.
Everything shall come out in the wash.
Three things cannot long be hidden.
The sun, the moon, and the truth.
National security concerns, okay?
The discharge requires the attorney general to release within 30 days, quote, classified information to the maximum extent possible.
This ignores the principle that declassification should always rest and always has rested with the agency that originated the intelligence.
Why?
So that they can protect their critical sources and methods.
It is incredibly dangerous to demand that officials or employees of the DOJ declassify materials that originated in other agencies and intelligence agencies.
This is the same Speaker Johnson who accidentally outed Donald Trump as being an informant for the FBI, now confirming basically that Epstein is intelligence or was working with intelligence because there could be no real risk of revealing sources and methods of intelligence unless Epstein was intertwined with intelligence.
And without belaboring the point, yesterday, they moved to censure Stacey Plaskett for texting a convicted sex offender during congressional hearings for the purposes of obtaining potentially extortive material that she could use against her political adversary.
They refrained from censoring her because three turncoat scoundrel Republicans, I don't remember what their names are right now, voted not to censure her so that Democrats wouldn't censure an alleged sex crime individual because, you know, threatening to release revenge porn is, in my view, a sex crime, Corey Mills.
These people are criminals and they are in the government.
They control the government.
They control the levers of power.
They have the monopoly on violence and they are out there protecting themselves like the dirty, rotten scoundrels that they are.
People are saying Thomas Massey voted against the censure.
He didn't.
He voted in favor of censoring Stacey Plaskett.
It was three.
I think it was Ohio.
I forget the other two.
The gentleman of the bar protect the gentleman of the bar.
It is corruption through and through, and you should all be outraged.
We should all be outraged.
They've revealed their criminality.
They literally fraternize with and use the fruits of a convicted pedophile to get information on their political adversaries.
They work with criminals in real time.
They then double down.
They then lie about their knowledge of their connections with.
And then they argue that the person that they were trying to blackmail, arrest, jail, and then assassinate is the true victimizer and they're the victims, pulling out the race card, pulling out the woman card, pulling out whatever card they can pull out.
Everyone should be outraged.
And for those who are saying that revealing the Epstein files would reveal nothing, it's a distraction.
A, it's not.
B, my goodness, I'm going to take another victory lap.
You were wrong.
I was right.
We were all right.
Those who remained principled on this issue.
We're seeing it.
What's her face is coming out now, Pam Bondi is saying, well, there'll be some, you know, well, we're going to abide by the law.
Hold on, I just got to play this real clip real quick.
This will be the last one.
We've got to abide by the law.
Listen to this.
New investigation by the Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney.
What has passed?
By 30 days.
We will follow the law.
The law passed both chambers last evening.
It has not yet been signed, but we will continue to follow the law again while the law.
You don't need to reiterate you're going to follow the law.
This is like a Jensaki.
I'll circle back to you.
Protecting victims, but also providing maximum transparency.
Madam Attorney General, the DOJ statement information that has come for information.
There's information that new information, additional information.
And again, we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads.
If there are any victims, we encourage all victims to come forward.
And we will continue to provide maximum transparency.
Transparency, follow the law.
What was the other one?
New information.
If you've made public statements and you're now acknowledging there's new information that you acquired in the last six months, you should not have made a premature statement when you did not have all information.
Now, you can always argue, we didn't know what information we didn't have.
That is why you might not make definitive statements based on definitive knowledge of evidence that you allegedly don't definitively have at the time.
Pam Bondi, I don't place blame.
I've said it before.
At this point, they should find a new attorney general.
The mess that she's made from the get-go.
If you make definitive statements when you don't know that you don't have additional information, you made a bed that you're going to have to sleep in, unfortunately.
The problem is, a lot of people are just not going to believe this excuse.
No, there's new information that came away in the last six months.
Gonna follow the law?
Full transparency?
These are buzzwords that are not followed by action.
And people are rightly concerned with performance and suspicious of, because you can't have this many gas without people starting to get suspicious and starting to ask their own questions.
All right, I had more on that, but it doesn't matter.
That's enough.
You've got the taste of what's going on here.
Now, the guest of the day, just bang my table.
The guest of the day, people, the subject matter of the day, we're going to talk January 6th pipe bomber talking about people making statements and other people asking questions and not being convinced.
The January 6th pipe bomb.
Julie, how goes the battle?
It's ongoing, David, as you know.
And as you know, you and I are friends.
I've been on your show before.
I will always be grateful for you telling me about that awesome meet deli in Florida off Glade Road that I've gone to.
Oh, yes.
Easy meets.
It's the best meet in all of Florida.
So good.
Yeah.
Julie, the thing is this: I can disagree with people without personalizing the debate.
People will always attack the intentions of what the person is saying, and they'll call you, you know, they'll accuse you of running cover for whatever.
And people will accuse you.
That, you know, it's the nature of the internet.
That doesn't involve someone of actually responding to the argument because someone could be running cover and they might still be right.
It's not because someone is running cover that they're necessarily wrong and that you get to, you know, cop out of having to address the idea.
So I, and I'll defend you when I think you're being attacked wrongly.
And I will, you know, yeah.
And I'll question when I think I've got questions.
So you've been following the Jan 6 stuff forever.
Lately, people have been arguing, alleging, accusing you of running cover for the FBI as relates to the January 6th pipe bomb.
Because the January 6th pipe bomb story is like the mystery that had gone unsolved.
Bongino had covered it extensively.
He had his sources at the time.
And since the new FBI has come in, we've heard not a peep about the Jan 6 pipe bomb situation.
Butler's another one.
And there was recently, you know, Steve Baker, a man who was arrested for his role in January 6th, and I guess there's no friend of the FBI, old or new, came up with what I think is a pretty groundbreaking story that he's identified the January 6th pipe bomber and that she worked for Capitol Police, was whisked off to the CIA.
And we have had neither a public disavowal or a public, not condemnation is the word, but refutal by the FBI, nor an affirmation.
And the silence has caused some people to say, what the hell's going on?
The long-winded answer.
Your position is that Steve Baker got the wrong person and/or that his theory doesn't make sense.
Well, first of all, I want to back up, and I just pulled this up.
My very first article about the January 6th pipe bomb was posted in November of 2021.
So I've been covering the story for four years now.
I've broken a lot of news on the pipe bomb.
Darren Beatty and I were the top two journalists on top of this story almost on a weekly basis.
When I got access to the January 6th footage, I was one of three journalists, me, Joe Hanneman and John Solomon.
One of the first things I did, Viva, is I went and looked for the footage outside of the DNC.
And the reason why is because former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sun had said that there were two dignitaries at the DNC that afternoon.
We knew about Kamala Harris.
I wanted to see if we could see who else it was.
And then I was the one who discovered the existence of these two teams of bomb-sniffing canines.
And I remember sitting in the viewing room and I turned to the house staff.
These guys have seen everything.
And I said, have you guys seen this?
It was like 9:30 on January, the morning of January 6th.
And they said, no.
So no one wants to know the identity of the pipe bomber, arguably more than I do.
Whereas Steve Baker's piece, I think, fell really short, is that there's no evidence that they demonstrated in that article the gate analysis that claimed this 94, 98% match.
That was not included in the story.
We don't know the credentials of the alleged expert who conducted that comparison.
And we have no access to the video samples that were used, including, it appears, a clip that was four and a half years earlier of this individual.
And I'm not naming her name, and I would strongly advise that you don't either, four and a half years earlier playing soccer.
So it was really weak sauce to begin with, just the identification.
But Viva, we were also promised this was going to be the greatest scandal of our lifetime, that this was going to implicate top government officials in the Trump administration, that this represented a huge cover-up.
We had Kyle Serafin, who changed his story almost on an hourly basis.
And we'll get to his latest version today, which is actually very dangerous and reckless what he is doing.
And so the story sort of unraveled from there.
And then it was just kind of dropped.
But they didn't come with the goods.
So that's where you and I were kind of tussling last night.
You think he's 100% right.
And I just would love to hear why.
Well, no, let's flip it.
That's the, I'd say the wrong way to go about it.
Steve Baker came out with what is a pretty decent expose.
Gate analysis.
Like you want to attack the, or you want to question the credentials of the expert and see the footage.
I'm not sure what access they have any longer to the footage, but that'll be an argument to make in court.
The bottom line is, allegedly, even according to Steve's own reporting, the person was Capitol Police.
At the very least, set aside whether or not she's the January 6th pipe bomber, at the very least, the allegations that she was firing rubber bullets into the crowd in a manner that was questionable at best is true nonetheless.
I mean, that we can agree on?
Absolutely.
Oh, absolutely.
And, you know, this is sort of, I think, one of the unfortunate aspects of Steve Baker's report is that the, and I've called January 6th the greatest example instance of police brutality since the civil rights era.
What police started that day, including this individual who's on film, recorded using pepper balls.
And we know the Capitol Police started using pepperballs on the crowd outside almost immediately.
And really, Viva provoked a lot of the confrontations that we saw with protesters and police.
That's one of the most uncovered angles of January 6th.
So it's unfortunate that this story overshadowed the really good research that I think Steve and Joe Hanneman were doing, because it's really important that that story gets out there.
So I'm not defending her actions whatsoever.
But that being said, and we can talk about this why you think that the report is accurate.
I just think it fell far short of providing all the specific evidence we need because this is such a consequential open question.
And we have to be super careful, all of us reporting on January 6th, that everything we present to the public and make allegations about, yes, an innocent person who has not been charged, we have to be super careful.
And I don't think that this report was careful or cautious.
Well, let's back it up.
And it's not because I'm an attorney that I'll pick on words, but I'll emphasize the words.
This is a woman who, by your own admission, using excessive force, trying to provoke the January 6th crowd.
Civil rights violations.
Well, one would argue that the easiest way to provoke the crowd or at least exacerbate the situation would be to plant some bombs and then blame it on far-right extremists and then go and shoot them in the face with rubber pellet bullets and pepper spray balls, whatever, in order to really provoke them.
So back it up.
First of all, it's an expose.
It's not a court where you're going to have, first of all, it wouldn't even make a difference if it were in court.
You just have your legal reality versus an argued theory.
You know, there are certain elements of Steve's report that are objective.
The height of the alleged pipe bomber, I think we can agree it's the person is five foot seven, give or take.
Correct.
That's what the FBI has said.
And we can agree.
I don't know.
Do we agree that the person had something of a limper favoring one of the legs, which I think was the right leg?
Yeah, it's hard to say because you've watched that footage and I've watched it over and over.
And the quality of the footage, at least captured and published by the FBI, is really low quality.
And this was something that even Darren Beatty tagged a few years ago: it looked like, especially the footage captured by the DNC security camera, was really low quality and appeared to have even been tampered with.
So if you look at, and everyone should go to the FBI, you know, they have given updates and they did give an update on October 22nd, the reward half a million dollars.
They showed this video again.
Anyone can see for themselves.
The video is not very good.
But then what Steve Baker said in his report is that they used a different sample from that night that was better quality and more accurate speed-wise.
Where did that come from?
I mean, that's sort of a new revelation.
And if they have it, then I think that they should have published that as well.
Okay, but see, this is where even what you're saying is going to make people think that Baker's more right.
So the FBI released shitty footage for absolutely no logical reason that they might have even tampered with.
And you're going to fault the expert report, which would be based in part on that allegedly potential tampered evidence from the old FBI to undermine the credibility.
Nobody's saying it might turn out to be wrong.
And, you know, even with his own gate report that's 94 to 98% accurate, there's a six to two percent.
You haven't seen the report.
And I haven't seen it.
I'm talking about.
No one has seen the video samples that are used.
That's the point.
So I don't go on someone's word.
If you're a reporter covering and you're making explosive, sorry for the pun, explosive allegations like this, you better come with the receipts.
And they have not.
Furthermore, David, aside from the size and the gait, the pipe bomber also wore glasses.
We can see that in the surveillance video, there's no indication that the person that Steve Baker identified ever wore glasses.
Also, the shoes, the FBI and media made a big deal about the shoes, those Nike pro-airs, whatever they're called.
They only come in men's sizes.
And what the FBI said is that it was a men's size nine and a half to a 12.
Now, a men's nine and a half shoe is a woman's 11 size shoe.
I only know one person, one woman in my life who wore size 11.
I used to sell shoes.
I never met a five foot seven man who had size 11 shoes.
So no, no, what?
No, you did not hear me correctly.
You said size men.
They said the women's shoe, a men's nine and a half is a woman's 11 size shoe.
I thought you said nine and a half to something.
Did you say there was a range for the size?
Nine and a half to 12.
Okay.
Men's size night.
So you're saying the FBI said.
The FBI said the size of the shoes could be a nine and a half to a size 12.
Men.
Yeah.
I've never met a five foot seven person that could possibly have a size 12 foot.
And I used to sell shoes at Sports Expert in Montreal.
Great.
Fine.
How many size 11 shoes did you sell to women?
Well, I mean, if you want a specific pair of shoes, a size nine men's for a woman is not, they're not, it's two sizes in reality.
It's not that much of a difference.
But just the back of the difference.
It's a big difference.
A size nine.
But Julie.
But now, now, wait.
Now, if you're going to have me on to explain why I have concerns and doubt the legitimacy of this report and compare it to what the FBI has said, then I would ask you to let me finish.
So there are other discrepancies in who this individual has been identified by the Blaze, 5'7, 5.
There are a lot of other things that don't add up in addition to the fact that we don't have the evidence that they claimed to have used to identify this woman.
Now, that's only one angle of it.
And of course, we have the FBI physical surveillance of the neighbor that we'll get to as well.
Yeah, but I also want to make sure we're going to cover a lot of things, and I don't want you to move on to another one until I've addressed this one.
No, the FBI telling me that the person was 5'7 and had between a size 9.5 and size 12 foot doesn't make sense to me, period.
Why?
Because I've never met a person who's 5'7 who has anywhere near a size 11 or 12 potential foot.
So that already, I'm saying that's laughably unbelievable.
Nine and a half, fine.
I'm 5'6 or 5'5'1, and I've got a 9.5 foot.
And it's mostly because it's wide and I need to expand on the width at the expense of length.
Wait, so you're saying it's impossible for a 5'7 man to have a 9.5 sized shoe?
Well, I'm saying based on your own logic, it's as possible, in fact, maybe even more possible to have a 5'7 man with a size 12 foot as it is to have a 5'7 woman with a size 9 man shoe.
I mean, though, those things are that if that's the big, I appreciate you're flipping me wrong.
You're flipping me around what I'm saying.
That's not what I said.
Well, you know, because you said, like, have you ever met a woman who would have anywhere between an 11, it would be the equivalent of 11 to whatever.
I'm saying if the FBI is suggesting it could be a 5'7 man with a size 12 foot, it could easily be a 5'7 woman with a size 11 shoe.
But so set that as, okay, fine.
We'll digest that piece of information.
The gate analysis, I mean, this is where, okay, fine.
You're going to say, unless they open up their entire expert report, show us their evidence, and that's what you would have as a voir dir in court.
You're going to, you know, you want to challenge the expertise of the expert, then you want to cross-examine all of the evidence.
The bottom line is he's either lying about his report and it's totally outlandish, or it's mildly credible.
And now the FBI has got to say how they haven't found the person, A, and B, account for the actual individual's transfer from firing pepper balls at a crowd and try to antagonize them and abusing civil rights to being missed off to the CIA.
Whereas, and I'm sure you've seen Seraphin was on the channel.
He said it's a good observation.
When you get to the CIA, it's the easiest way to scrub a social media footprint in a way that citizens do not have access to.
So, I mean, how would you account for that, which we can agree, as a matter of fact, is what happened to this individual, her career path?
Well, it appears in her testimony in the Guy Ruffett trial in the spring of 2022.
Guy Ruffitt was the first J Sixer to stand trial in Washington.
She testified as a government witness.
What she disclosed is that she had applied for the job at the CIA before January 6th.
So I guess we're supposed to believe that she knew she was going to be walking around Capitol Hill for an hour dressed in men's shoes and a hoodie, and then she would be protected after she planted these dummy devices, even though she knew that there were cameras everywhere, and then was scuttled away to the CIA.
But that's another inconsistency in the story that's very important.
What Steve Baker and Glenn Beck said in their interview on November 5th, pitching this story, is that she was at the highest level of government and suggested that she had been assigned to CIA Director John Ratcliffe's personal security detail.
CIA spokeswoman came back and the Blaze edited their report and said, no, she does campus security.
So is Capitol Police?
Now she has a background apparently in law enforcement.
That's what she studied in school.
It was, is Capitol Police a feeder?
As you know, D.C., there's more law enforcement intelligence agencies in Washington, D.C. in the greater area than anywhere else.
So was that just a feeder?
It appears to be that she already had that plan in the works to go to the CIA at some point.
And then I think she was transferred like six months later.
People are hanging their hats on the mistake that required a correction as to her position within the CIA.
Just flesh that out, what they allege, where the article initially claimed she was, or what her role was and what they had to revise it to.
So what we were told was that she was working at the highest level of government, that this report was a cover-up that would implicate everyone.
That's what Glenn Beck said during his interview with Steve Baker based on pitching the story that was published a few days later and intimating that somehow this was a massive cover-up with the intelligence agency, the FBI, the CIA, that she was being protected by someone like John Ratcliffe on his personal security detail.
So no one would, I guess, investigate her.
I'm not really sure.
That wasn't fully fleshed out.
But then it came back and there's no evidence to the contrary that she is just working campus security, apparently, at Langley.
So she's not at the highest level of government.
She is not with John Ratcliffe.
And there's still no dots connecting what the Blaze alleged she did on January 5th to this wider conspiracy and cover-up that we were promised as part of this report.
Well, I mean, some people are going to argue the fact that she is in fact CIA right now.
Apparently she does work at CIA campus security.
Yes.
Well, I mean, I'm picturing, what's the guy's name from Molkop?
Paul Bartley?
What's the guy's name?
Oh, Paul Blart.
Paul Blart.
I'm picturing Paul Blart.
She's working at the CIA.
Some people are going to tell you she's already at the highest echelons of government and the subdivisions within how high you are within the CIA is a distinction without a difference to the layperson.
That's not a high position in government.
Working campus security at the CIA is not working the highest position in government.
It's just not.
And you can argue CIA or other departments, I suppose.
But the question is, why were there so many outlandish and unfulfilled promises about this report?
And now it suddenly disappeared.
Glenn Beck himself, the Monday after the Blaze published their article on November 8th, the Monday after on his radio show, he started to walk back some of the more extreme allegations and accusations he had made.
And he refused to say her name on air.
And he said, this is not me, this is him.
He is saying that even a comparison is not evidence, that this gate analysis doesn't represent guilt.
No, not what the Blaze report had said.
Well, the Blaze report said that based on a gate analysis with an expert, it's true.
I don't know who their expert is.
And I would, you know, everyone's going to compare authorities.
And I'm sure you'll find an expert who will say they're 100% wrong.
And here's why.
It's the beauty of litigation.
Somehow the experts of the respective parties always promote the position of the respective parties.
We're dealing with, we're not mentioning her name, but I'm just reading the chat.
There's no need to mention her name, but even by your own admission, Julie, she violated civil rights, provoked the crowd, fired her gun in a reckless manner, and yet somehow gets, you won't call it a promotion, is working with the CIA, which some people are going to say, you're already in the 1% of government.
I don't care that there's another 1% within that 1%.
I get all the ties.
I understand.
I mean, but there were a lot of Capitol Police and DC Metro police who were assaulting the crowd that day.
So, and some of them quit and some of them retired and they were given big bonuses.
And some of them got their long-held job application to the CIA award.
Well, I understand, but again, going to the CIA, and this is not excusing what she did on January 6th, but did she, so let's game this out.
Did she apply for the job at the CIA, go through what I assume would be sort of a rigorous clearance process, including maybe having to take a lie detector?
I don't know.
Was she going through all of that before January 6th, knowing she was going to plant the pipe bombs?
And then six months later, she was working campus security.
I mean, what is the logic behind that tie?
Well, here's the logic.
Whatever she did beforehand, the job opportunity being given afterwards.
I mean, I presume if you apply to the Capitol Police, maybe you apply to the FBI, maybe you apply to the CIA and you have aspirations and whatever.
But maybe the theory, and it's not mine, I would have never had it because I don't have sufficient knowledge to even know these details, is the CIA afterwards takes her on and then scrubs her social media footprint.
And it makes it exceedingly difficult for the Steve Bakers of the world and other journalists to do anything of a meaningful investigation, especially when, even by what you're saying, the FBI provided potentially digital altered video footage, crappy grainy quality that would not allow anybody to do any form of independent investigation.
So that would be the theory.
How would you, I mean, again, it's an argument, but what's wrong with that theory?
You can present it as a theory then.
You don't present it as almost 100% certain identification and smear this individual who has not been charged.
And you also, I want to clarify that Dan Bongino did make a statement last week that they had poured a lot of, and it seemed to suggest that they had poured a lot of resources into determining whether she could have, if she matched the suspect that we see on the video on January 5th, or if there was any evidence connecting her to the suspect on January 5th.
And they came up empty-handed.
Now, you also said that there's been, I believe you said there's been no denial from her.
Maybe I was wrong.
Maybe you just said that.
No, I don't think I said, I haven't heard her say anything.
I presume that she's obviously going to deny it one way or the other.
Well, her lawyer, she has hired a powerful, or this person is volunteering or someone's paying for him, pretty high-powered former DOJ official defense attorney.
And he has come out and given two statements, one to the Washington Post, one to NBC News.
And of course, he vehemently denies, says that they are false, reckless allegations, that they border on being defamatory.
And a lot of people I talk to are expecting some sort of lawsuit in the near future that she will be filing.
So you're right.
If it's a theory, that's fine.
Then it could be presented as a theory.
That's not how the report was structured.
And then ever since then, David, they have completely almost memory holed that.
So they published the update last night, which is how you and I started talking about it.
There's no link to the piece.
There's nothing then as they're talking about new video that they have seen of the January 5th suspect.
There's no mention of her.
It's not tied back to the story.
This is the biggest bombshell of all time and a scandal of our lifetime.
Yeah, I don't think we're getting updates and more information on a daily basis on this.
Well, you're not going to get updates from the people who don't have access to the intel other than that upon which they base their report.
I'll just disagree with one thing.
It's immaterial.
It's necessarily a theory that Baker was putting forward in his expose.
Here's the evidence.
Here's the conclusion of the gate analysis.
There was no evidence.
I'm going to stop you from saying evidence because you haven't seen it and I haven't seen that.
That's why I said the report falls short.
There is no evidence that we have seen.
They had screenshots of the individual that they identified and another screenshot of her playing collegiate soccer.
Wait a second.
So if you're, and I've done a ton of investigative reports, including on the pipe bomb, I had two big stories that we posted at the end of October about the very suspicious circumstances of the woman who found the RNC device who was also tied to law enforcement.
These reports take weeks to put together.
We looked at footage I've seen a hundred times.
We watched interviews of this woman that I've seen a hundred times over the last three years.
I mean, not a hundred, I'm exaggerating.
But it took us several weeks to put this together.
This report was done in less than two weeks.
Now, you explained to me how an identification can be made based on their report of this individual shooting pepper balls into the crowd.
All of a sudden, you get a sample of that, another gate sample from her playing soccer.
You get that to an expert within a matter of hours.
And this is from Steve Baker's interview.
Comes back and says, oh my God, you have a match.
Well, what computer program did he use?
What metrics were determined?
What metrics in this computer software algorithm, whatever they want to call it?
They call this a forensic analysis.
It's not a forensic analysis unless you did a gate comparison of the suspect and 100 other people or some sort of sample size.
I mean, you could see with your own eyes what you want to see.
You know that.
So the methodology, but so you keep saying evidence.
There is no evidence.
You just described all of the evidence.
The videos of her firing on the crowd, the fact that she's 5'7, so is the person.
The fact that they compared a video for however long ago you might not like what they're calling their evidence, that's their evidence.
And you can refute it or think it's unsubstantiated.
Well, now you say, I know you said I haven't seen it, so I don't know.
I can't see what they did.
You haven't seen it either.
But I've seen the top line conclusions and some of the hard evidence.
Why do you want to believe?
Why do you want to believe this so badly?
Why are you not, and I've followed you for years.
Why are you not using your typical spidey senses or being highly more skeptical of this report and instead just accepting what was written, what has been changed, what has been updated, the comments by her own attorneys.
And now it appears to be a big distancing by the reporter himself and others from that report to where we are now.
Why do you want to believe this report without using some healthy dose of skepticism as to the methodology?
This is a psychological manipulation tactic, Julie, which is I'm not going to say I'm surprised that you're using it because that itself would be the retort of the psychologist.
Why are you, I don't believe anything.
But what I certainly don't believe is I don't believe the story that the FBI told at the time.
I cannot believe that they haven't done anything in the meantime.
It's a compelling argument is my position.
And when you said, you know, Bongino refused, now the statement that Bongino put out when Brianna Morello retweeted it, she was taking shit because people were accusing her of running cover for Bongino.
And I'm like, she's just reporting what the statement was.
The statement was so, I say, vague and opaque that people were laughing at the statement and accusing anyone who retweeted it of running cover.
That statement, the reward is still out there.
They've investigated this woman and they allegedly cleared her, correct?
Within two weeks?
Who investigated her?
I was under the impression that she was investigated and cleared back in January 2021.
Who was cleared in January of 2021?
The woman whose name cannot be spoken, the object of the report.
She was never under investigation.
Okay, that might be a matter of fact to clarify.
My understanding is that he absolutely was never under investigation at all.
So now you're conflating.
Now you're conflating because unfortunately you're listening to Kyle Serafin.
So you're conflating his shifting stories about the surveillance of her neighbor, person of interest three, and person of interest two.
So you're conflating the investigation into those two individuals with...
No, I'm not conflating anything.
This is just a pure matter of fact and the chat can verify.
But she was never under investigation.
The question was whether or not she was, whether or not she was cleared, whether or not she was they looked at it.
How can you clear someone who's not under investigation?
Well, so this is a question then that the FBI could very easily respond to whether or not she was ultimately investigated, even at the time and cleared.
My understanding is that she was, it's a pure matter of fact.
And if she wasn't, then I'll say it's even more difficult to positively assert that Baker's out in left field.
But I'll actually, I want to double check that.
No, I want to make sure I was under the impression that she was even temporarily investigated, looked into, and ultimately cleared in early January, or sorry, early, shortly after January 6th in 2021.
If I'm wrong on that, I will absolutely correct you.
You are wrong.
And this is information that we've known that was in the report issued by Tom Massey and Barry Lautermilk.
This also involves the physical surveillance that Kyle Serafin says he was involved with in mid-January of 2021.
But that surveillance related to an Air Force employee who I've talked to twice, a man now 65, 66 years old, who had loaned his Metro card to someone who is photographing a dumpster right near the RNC on the morning of January 5th.
This is something that the FBI determined.
That friend, person of interest two, the person who loaned the Metro card, person of interest three.
What was found out and what is still true to this day, and this is what Kyle Serafin is intentionally conflating and mixing up and very recklessly now dragging at least person of interest three back into this, is that they were cleared because this person of interest two came in from out of town.
These two gentlemen had been friends for 55 years.
I talked to person of interest three last week and they were immediately cleared because there was nothing nefarious there.
So that's why the FBI surveillance was called off.
What Kyle Serafin has suggested is that they were called off because they were trying to protect this woman next door and also her boyfriend because they knew that she was the pipe bomber.
There is zero evidence that that's the case.
And Kyle Seraphin has shifted his story, even to the point where he said this man from out of town, who was at the time a 62-year-old like evangelical pastor, that he was this woman, Capitol Police Officer's boyfriend.
And that's how they all got mixed up.
Person of interest three, who I talked to, didn't even know this woman's, this Capitol Police officer's name.
Who's her boyfriend's name?
Who's the idea?
I don't even know the name.
I don't think we know the name.
Who's the identity?
What was the person of interest two identified as?
He's not identified by name because he's innocent.
Why would we drag his name?
Was he described as I'm trying because there was a 60-plus-year-old man in this, and I'm trying to figure out if that's person of interest two or person of interest three.
They're both and they were both in their early 60s and now they are 65 and 66 years old.
They've been friends.
At the risk, I'm going to bring it up.
At the risk of you made decisions.
I would be real careful.
I would out of caution.
I'd be real careful using photos like that.
Okay, this is this is Kyle Serafin.
He posted all over.
And I'll break some news here because I talked to person of interest three about this this afternoon.
So what does that man look like to you?
Well, just to highlight, this is Kyle posted this because I don't know.
And how did Kyle and how did Kyle Serafin get a photo of person of interest two who was cleared, by the way?
And this is how dirty this whole operation has become and why people should be even more suspicious.
How did Serafin get a photo of this man who's person of interest two, who was cleared, who did nothing wrong?
And why is he posting it on social media?
Well, I don't, but see, that's the diversity.
You said the person of interest two was supposed to be a 60-plus-year-old man.
And I'd say this, it's a blurry picture.
Maybe this person is 60-plus years old.
But whether or not Howie-I have no idea how old he is.
Not a clue.
This person or the person of interest?
I just told you how old the person, both people of interest were.
So you're not going to tell me.
Now, this is why you are, I'm hoping you use your critical skills here.
You're not telling me you can determine the age of that individual with that quality photo, except with Kyle Serafin, his latest leap between that photo and the blaze bomber's boyfriend.
I'm just, I would say most people, if you ask, would you know, this is a good, I mean, it's tough to tell.
And it's just the curious reflex is how would he get this photo?
I don't, a whistleblower, leaker, I don't care.
If the person, person of interest two, is not a 60-plus-year-old person, then we're dealing with, again, you know, some conflicting stories here.
But you can't tell from that photo.
I would argue, I would look, I could argue that both ways as a lawyer.
It's difficult.
It's pixelated, it's compressed, and whatever.
But I would say most people might not.
But you're not showing Showing the photo, and I think this is smart, even though I will be addressing this later.
You're not showing the photo of the individual who now Kyle Seraphin claims is person of interest to, not the one who actually was person of interest to, the one that he wants you to believe is person of interest to you, because that's only one of the last remaining shards of this story and account that can make any sense.
And that is that her boyfriend, who, by the way, Seraphin didn't even know that this blaze bomber, I call that pejoratively, had a boyfriend who lived there until I reported it because I got a direct statement from her former neighbor, person of interest three, who said she lived there with her boyfriend, and they were both, he said, DC police officers.
They were both Capitol police officers.
So, how, how, in four years, Kyle Serafin, who's the big expert on the surveillance of the guy who loaned the metro card, the guy who took the picture, he never knew that there was another man that was living right next door.
But all of a sudden, after I released the statement, then suddenly we're making up all sorts of stories about now implicating a potentially other innocent person so they can keep this story alive.
Well, I try to avoid the personalizing of the things, and not that I'm not to be holier than that.
It doesn't address the substance of the expose.
You don't like the why was Kyle Serafin, unless you deny that he was in fact.
Kyle Serafin is part of the Blaze story.
No, no, my question is: why was he surveilling, even according to the story, the next door neighbor of the person that they allege is the genuine?
Just explain that.
And honestly, this is something that you should read up on.
And that is the report by Barry Lautermilk and Tom Nassey.
I've read through it.
I haven't a long report and I've nitpicked some of the what I thought were the relevant points, but just maybe I'm dense.
What was the explanation for why he, how he ended up next door?
Just pure coincidence?
That who ended up in ended up surveilling the next door to the person that the Blaze suspected or concluded based on the report was the Jan 6 pipe, likely the Jan 6 pipe bomber.
Right.
So I'm going to try to explain this again.
And I see the chat's a little confused as well.
Some people think it's getting a little muddled.
Kyle Serafin, who's arguably an FBI whistleblower, depending on who you ask, he was at the time working with the FBI and was surveilling the next door to what Baker and through the gate analysis concluded was potentially the Jan 6 pipe bomber.
The question is, how, if it's just not an astronomical coincidence or there's a connection that explains away the culpability potential of the Jan 6 suspect, according to Baker.
Okay.
So person of interest three right now is a 65, 66 year old man who is a lifetime Air Force employee.
And his friend, person of interest two, came in from out of town on January 5th to attend the Stop the Steal activities.
He was a Trump supporter.
Person of interest three has known a person of interest two since 1969.
They've been friends for 55 years, acquaintances.
They went to school together.
Person of interest three told me, and I'm not saying his name because he's innocent as well, even though he's very concerned that now his name and his friend's identity are being thrown back into the public eye or being thrown into the public eye for the first time.
Friend came in from out of town and person of interest three loaned his metro card to his friend to go to Washington on January 5th and January 6th.
Now, this metro card is something that Kyle Serafin has been talking about because it's connected to a residence and that's how they got to the residence.
Correct, exactly.
But what happened on January 5th is his friend, because there are security cameras everywhere in Washington, as you know, his friend was discovered on video on one of these cameras.
Excuse me.
On one of these cameras, taking a photograph of what appears to be the dumpster near the RNC where the pipe bomb was allegedly planted that night and discovered at about 1240 on January 6th.
And just which one is this person of interest two, who's taken the photograph of the dumpster where the pipe bomb would later be found?
Correct.
So the FBI interviewed person of interest two because they tracked the metro card who purchased the metro card, which was his friend, person of interest three.
Guy comes in from out of town.
His friend says, here, use this metro card.
It's an extra one for people, friends, whatever, takes it.
He's taking photos.
FBI interviews person of interest two, who's a 62-year-old man at the time.
Taking pictures of the dumpster near where the pipe bomb was found the next day.
Correct.
But what he said, and he showed his phone.
He said he was writing a book and he was taking pictures of numerals.
Correct.
Right.
Okay, Julie.
I'm sorry.
I'm glad you said it.
So had they had photographs of person of interest two taking pictures of a dumpster where they would later find the pipe bomb?
Who lives next door to the Jan 6 person that they've suspected in this article?
Okay, hold on.
Who's they suspected?
I'm only, I'm going to say the alleged pipe bomber.
So the person of interest two got a card, the metro card from person of interest three who lives next door to the woman identified in the Blaze article.
Person of interest two was caught, what, on camera, taking pictures of the dumpster where the pipe bomb would later be found?
He was taking a bunch of pictures and he told FBI agents and he showed his phone and said he was taking pictures of things in Washington that had numerals on them.
And so he showed his phone.
Which FBI did he show this to?
Well, it would have been Chris Ray's FBI.
Joe Biden's FBI?
yes because it was no well no it was actually chris ray don't worry That's fine.
It was Chris Ray's.
So this was the investigation at the time that this man, Julie, you're making me think, you're convincing me that they're even righter than they are.
You say this out loud and you don't find this absolutely preposterously insane.
That the next door neighbor.
You haven't even read the report.
Hold on.
I'm telling you for the first time who person of interest two and person of interest three are.
Going to tell the story all you want, but you're not familiar with it.
Okay, so let's run with that.
So what did person two do?
Did he take pictures of the dumpster and then give the pictures to the next door neighbor and said, here's where you should plant the pipe bombs tonight?
As a journalist, I'm not saying you, I would ask a whole hell of a lot of questions.
This is like Greenberry Hill level coincidence out of the beginning of Magnolia.
The next door neighbor to the person they've identified as the suspect was took a picture of the dumpster where the pipe bomb was found the next day.
Near the dumpster.
And you're relying on the FBI at the time, which you've admitted earlier on, is behind this Fed surrection, cleared him, and you've got no further questions to that.
And you think that this report is defamatorily ill-founded, in fact, and in law?
Well, because it does appear to be a coincidence, and you have not demonstrated any evidence.
So let's go with that.
So, what did person of interest two and three, who I just told you about for the first time?
So, then what happened after he took pictures of the dumpster?
I just want to make sure.
So, Julie, Julie, Viva saying there are videos.
Well, the question, first question I had is: how did they identify person of interest two as having taken pictures of the dumpsters?
They have that on video.
I never saw it.
Okay, so how did, well, no, no, forget their report, but how now all of a sudden you want like photographic evidence.
No, it's just a very lawyer.
It's just a very long, I don't even want the evidence.
I just want to know what the explanation is.
The explanation is in the report.
Okay, so how did this report is by Tom Massey and by Barry Lautermilk?
So, you should go read the report.
No, but Julie, this is defensive accuse.
Just do you want, do you know how they identified person of interest two as having taken the pictures?
Was it video or surveillance?
No, it well, no, it was my understanding, security cameras around the area as part of the investigation into the pipe bomb.
So, they looked for security cameras near the vicinity of where both devices were found.
And my understanding is that's how they identified this person of interest two, and then traced him back to person of interest three and the metro card.
So, that's where that came from.
Okay, so there's definitive evidence that the at least their argument.
They investigated this guy because person of interest two just randomly, haphazardly happened to take a picture of the dumpster where the pipe bomb would be found the next day.
And Christopher Ray's FBI, that we believe was at the heart of this Fed surrection, cleared the person such that they're no longer a person of interest.
Okay, and that person of interest two was staying at person of interest three's place, who's the next door neighbor of the person the Blaze article identified as their suspect based on height and gait.
Correct.
Okay.
I'll let the children.
So, so I'm going to ask you what no one has put together.
So, now connect the dots.
So, you have this, what appears to be a coincidence.
You have an explanation from person three, who I've talked to twice.
You have the explanation of his friend.
Now, you just showed a photograph of him.
Now, we're not supposed to believe, is that person of interest two, who's 60, some odd years old at the time, is that a younger person?
So, now you go ahead and connect the dots between those two men and the next door neighbor.
Well, I don't, I'm going to tell you, Julie, and I'll ask the chat if they think I'm connecting.
I don't think anybody needs to really connect any more dots above and beyond thinking there's some legitimacy to this story that requires more than an opaque response to the $500,000 is still out there.
And Christopher Ray's FBI cleared person of interest two, who was staying next door to person of interest, sorry, who was staying next door to the person they suspect planted the bombs and took a picture of the dumpster.
No one, okay, stop saying that she's suspected of planting the bombs.
The only people who have said that are Steve Baker and Kyle Seraphin.
The only people those are the only people I'm suggesting said.
Definitionally, for the purposes of this discussion, when I say the person suspected, it's obviously the subject of the article, the Blaze.
For the purposes of here, in perpetuity of this discussion, so that woman that the Blaze identified is the next door neighbor of person of interest three who gave his Metro pass to person of interest two, who took a picture of the dumpster where the bomb was later found.
Yes, and he took other pictures as well.
So, you're isolating, that's the reason why he was questioned.
He was taking other pictures.
He showed his phone to the agents.
This is all in the Massey Lautermil report.
I don't know what else to tell you about it except what I know.
That's fine.
And would we like just to get back?
And we're going to get to the point.
Okay, so did person of interest two plant the pipe bombs?
Then you have to, so it appears to be a coincidence.
Maybe it's not.
Maybe this is part of the Fed surrection, as you have indicated.
So then what happened with person of interest two tie that to the blaze person that the blaze identified to be determined, but if it was just one coincidence.
No, now you're you're acting as if I'm stupid for explaining to you the situation and implying that there's something more sinister to it.
So I'm asking you then what happened.
Well, I'll just ask, the crowd has heard what you've said here.
And then the question is going to be, do they have, are they more, do they think there's something sinister or not anymore?
Have they been convinced that the explanation to the untenability of the theory that was put forward by the Blaze is patently absurd.
But so let's back this up a little bit because, you know, when we said it was a Fed surrection, we believe it was.
And you concur that it was that this woman, whether or not she turns out to be the pipe bomber, violated civil rights, provoked the crowd, shot recklessly, then gets hired by the CIA.
If it was a Fed surrection, you do not concede it would be the same Fed who allegedly cleared person of interest two that would be responsible for what you yourself have referred to as a Fed surrection.
Well, here's what I've said all along.
I don't even believe that the devices that were found were planted on January 5th.
I have a lot of reporting.
Now, I haven't identified or specifically said this because I wanted to be careful in my reporting.
The very suspicious circumstances of the woman who discovered the pipe bomb outside of the RNC, who was just doing her laundry that day, and then all of a sudden saw that device.
Also, very sketchy circumstances about the discovery of the DNC device.
We were supposed to believe that 17, 18 hours went by from the time that the Blaze bomber set the device there to when it was discovered by Plainclothes Capitol police officer at about 1.05 that afternoon, even though there was Secret Service there.
Kamala Harris's detail was there.
DC Metro, Capitol Police, dozens of passersby, two bomb-sniffing canine units, all of that.
No one detected this device sitting outside right by the garage of the DNC.
But there was also a part where the cameras go out of this police officer, Capitol Police Officer, goes out of the line of sight from security cameras across the street from about 1253 to about 12.58.
Then the device is suddenly discovered, you know, less than 10 minutes later.
Yeah, well, because I wanted to get to that.
That was one where I could be prepared to concede that there's an alternative plausible explanation.
But hold on, let me share something here because I got the report.
It doesn't even seem like if I'll bring it up just so that people know that I'm not making this stuff up here.
Hold on one second.
How do I do this?
Like this, I think.
If I move this over here.
Yeah, I think I can bring this up.
Okay, hold up.
This is the report.
We're looking at the document and our faces are going to cover the bottom.
But the bottom paragraph says on January 19, 2021, FBI agents interviewed person of interest.
It's not PO12.
It's person of interest two.
Ultimately, eliminated that individual.
This is January 19, 2021, as a person of interest.
According to a summary of the interview obtained by the subcommittee, the FBI learned that person of interest two traveled to Washington, D.C. to attend First Amendment activities on Capitol Hill, yada yada.
And throughout the day, person of interest two photographed objects bearing numerals, including doors, dumpsters, and other objects, and intended to use the photographs in a book he was writing.
The FBI's review of person of interest cell phones and photographs appear to corroborate his story.
However, the interview summary does not elaborate further on how the case team verified person of interest 2's story following the interview with the person of interest 2.
The FBI ruled out both person of interest 2 and person of interest 2.
So I guess I would hang the hat on the FBI's review, yada, yada, yada.
However, the interview summary does not elaborate further on how the case team verified the person of interest too.
So you could take that for what it's worth.
I just think it's so insane.
It's a coincidence.
Discovering the pipe bombs.
I tweeted out yesterday that apparently they discovered the second pipe bomb within two minutes of discovering the first, within 15 minutes of having been notified that there was a bomb at the DNC.
I might be making a mistake on the timeline there.
My understanding is they were notified that there was a bomb.
Someone said there's a bomb here.
They show up and within two minutes of discovering the first bomb, they discover the second bomb, pipe, whatever it is, under a bush.
No.
Okay, so correct me because that's what I might have made a mistake on.
That's okay.
Timeline's very confusing.
So the RNC device was discovered by this woman who's tied to FirstNet law enforcement agency, happened to do her laundry.
She discovers it at 12:40 outside the RNC.
She alerts security outside of Capitol Hill Club.
And then the RNC, they notify Capitol Police.
Then this kind of search, it goes over the wires.
You know, a device was found.
And that's when they started looking for other devices.
The weird part is the reaction by the officers who are outside of the DNC, that they just like casually stumbled upon it.
You see one Capitol Police officer take a picture of it.
It's between two benches outside of this entryway.
The garage where Secret Service SUVs had brought Kamala Harris at about 11:25 a.m.
So it's kind of sitting there under a bush.
It's almost impossible to believe that it went that long all day with all the police activity around the DNC without being detected.
So, no, it was more like 25 minutes between the discovery of the RNC and the DNC device.
The RNC, okay.
I think I did clarify that yesterday.
But so then, and then the argument was that how did they know to go right to that bush to look for the second pipe bomb?
And the argument that was posited was that in that 15 minutes, give or take, they had time to go check surveillance, go through it fast forward and see where the hoodie person put the second pipe bomb?
No, I think you're referring to the Blaze report last night about outside of the Congressional Black Caucus.
And there was a new video that they had released that showed this hoodie individual on January 5th apparently sitting outside of this Congressional Black Caucus Institute by this bush that was then later the next day on January 6th searched by it looked like Capitol Police counter surveillance team.
So I think that's the that's the bush that you're referring to.
So hold on, let me pull up the report here.
We're going to give the, I'll share the link with everybody.
We're not going to read the whole thing here.
Hold on one second.
Okay.
Continue without supporting.
Where was it in this article?
Okay, here in a matter of seven minutes earlier.
No, no, no.
Sorry, I should have had this.
Let me see here.
Minutes.
That should get us the search under a shrub at the Congressional Black Caucus.
It happened two minutes before one of the officers discovered a pipe bomb.
Okay, so here it is.
Somehow escaped notice.
U.S. Capitol Police officers walked right past it in 15 minutes after the dispatch warrant of a pipe bomb.
Plainclothes counter surveillance officers instead proceeded straight to the Congressional Black Caucus Institute a few hundred feet east of the DNC.
One of them stopped at a large bush along the alley that led to New Jersey Avenue at 103.
The officer backed up, Duck, peered under the shrub.
After a brief pause, he stood up and continued.
That's when he discovered the second pipe bomb just two minutes later.
Okay, so what's what's the some people are going to say just by virtue of how quickly they found that they knew where to look.
I'm trying to the steel man from what I could surmise is what that they had the time to check surveillance video or they used a dog like what's the steel man argument for how they found that within two minutes and knew exactly under which bush to look well they didn't find anything by that bush there was nothing there the congressional black caucus there was nothing under that bush it was under the dnc the bushes by the dnc at like 105.
okay so now now i might be i want to make sure that we're clear on let me bring the article back up they stopped at large bush under the that's where he discovered the second pipe bomb two minutes later what am i what am i two minutes later from when they were back up i believe it's two minutes after someone was looking at the shrub outside of the congressional black caucus building Okay, i'll have to get.
I'll have to get clarify.
My understanding is that they found that second pipe bomb I that was my understanding from the article within a time frame, which would suggest the article is kind of hard to follow.
Well, but what was the time frame within which they found the first bomb, the first pipe thing, and the second?
15 to 25 minutes, 25 minutes okay, and they found it by where.
Where was the second pipe bomb?
The first was behind the dumpster or near the dumpster.
It was near dumpster by, in this alleyway between the Capitol Hill CLUB and the RNC, where this woman was going to do her laundry.
It's like a communal laundry room that her building has access to.
So it was sitting there next to this dumpster in like a rat trap, rat trap, um.
Now she told the FBI however, that the device had to have been planted between noon and 1240, because when she did her first trip to do laundry at the uh at that location at noon, the device was not there.
So that's like that's another interesting wrinkle to this whole account.
Uh, and I think again just kind of gives me more pause that this individual seen on january 5th was actually the person who set the devices that were found the following day, because she insists that the devices were set between 12 and 1240 on january 6th, not the night before.
But am I not mistaken that the FBI has whether or not it's the same person?
The FBI has said that the hoodie person is a suspect, or did they conclude that the that is the person?
That's what the FBI says?
Okay, so so the FBI says that was the person.
They're seen in the both locations the night before you're suggesting or casting doubt.
They're seen.
They're seen at the DNC but not specifically seen at this location outside the RNC um.
The individual does walk through like a court um near that area and then people can go to the FBI website and they can see the most updated video as to.
You know this jot that this individual took for like 45 minutes around the RNC, specifically in front of the DNC, and the route that this person took um, But I've never thought that that was the person.
So, like I said, I always thought that the circumstances, especially once we got access to the surveillance video, both, and there isn't really any outside of the RNC that we could see.
We can see, and I have a ton of reporting in my substant declassified with Julie Kelly at the end of October with new video showing this woman, Carlin Younger, who found the RNC device, interviews that she gave, and then newly released FBI documents of her two engagements with the FBI in early January 2021, explaining that there's a lot of inconsistencies to her account of what she was doing that day, the discovery, et cetera.
So that's always been a little bit suspicious to me.
Very suspicious to me, actually.
I'm reluctant to say this because I'm not trying to throw the, you know, the accusation of muddying the waters back at you, but you're officially casting doubt on the FBI's official suspect in this case.
Yes.
And then the question is, because I don't think you'll have an answer because I'm not sure we have an answer to this.
The person planted the pipe bomb near the dumpster.
They identified the guy taking pictures near the dumpster.
And yet, do they have the footage of the suspect planting the bomb or planting whatever it was near the dumpster?
Were they identify the other guy as having taken pictures of the dumpster?
Not that I've ever seen.
And the areas, one of the things that was mentioned in the Blaze article is that the areas that this hoodie person had access to, was it open to the general public?
Which area?
The areas where the individual was seen walking around.
It was outside.
I mean, they were outside.
They didn't go inside any building.
It was all outside where this person was walking around.
It's very, it's very, well, it's interesting because now you, after all of this, are saying that the FBI, for whatever the reason, has misidentified the person or you don't trust who the FBI has identified as the suspect, the person in the hoodie.
I have said, and I continue to say, regardless of who's at the FBI, so you could tell your friend Robert Barnes this, I do not believe that the person in that video is the person who set the devices.
I never have thought that.
There are too many weird angles to that.
The degraded quality of the video, the tampered with video that Darren Beatty actually tagged a few years of the DNC, the whole narrative, we're supposed to believe that those devices both sat there for 17 hours until they were coincidentally discovered at the same time that the joint session of Congress was convening at 1 p.m. that day,
redirected resources away from the Capitol, which is what former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund has said, and kind of initiated the first panic wave that day.
Nearby congressional offices were evacuated.
Democratic lawmakers were saying, oh my God, I can't believe this is happening.
I'm being evacuated.
There's a bomb, you know, from a MAGA person, and we have to leave.
So all of that is very suspicious to me.
Now, Kash Patel said over the weekend that they're getting closer to releasing some more information, perhaps the name of that person on January 5th.
I guess I will be open-minded as to what evidence they have that that individual did plant the devices, because like I said, we have this real weird video outside the DNC where this individual bends over and maybe looks like it's planted there.
The Blaze has said that it was planted there outside the DNC, but then somebody else went to retrieve it at like 4.30 in the morning on January 6th.
I don't know if that's true or not.
I haven't seen any video evidence of that.
So that's kind of interesting if that's the case.
There is no video or photographic evidence of this person setting the device by the RNC.
Maybe the FBI has some of that now.
Maybe that's going to be part of the disclosures or updates into this investigation.
So, yeah, so I mean, this is part of the whole January 5th hoodie person.
I just think the whole narrative around that is extremely suspicious.
And the evidence about the discoveries at the RNC and DNC far more strongly point to that they were set within moments of their discovery than 17 hours earlier the night before and both went undetected for that amount of time.
I want to get to, do you have time for all of the questions I'm going to read in the chat?
A couple.
Okay.
There's a fundamental logical inconsistency in you're saying they cleared person of interest two and three, but you don't trust that you believe it was a fed surreptitious.
You don't believe that they, their identification of the person.
So you choose to believe when it's you choose to believe the feds in some conclusions and then don't believe them on the most fundamental, which is, I mean, it's interesting.
It's not, it doesn't invalidate your position, but it is curious to say, like, I don't, I, I don't, I trust that they cleared person of interest two legitimately based on that absolutely insane story, but I don't believe they've identified the bomber properly.
And I don't believe them at all and believe it was a fed surreptitium.
I don't know how you reconcile some trust with no.
I already have, because honestly, I've done more research on this than probably anyone.
I've explained repeatedly what my position is.
I've explained to you person three and two.
I've talked to person of interest three.
I know that his story is sincere in his explanation about what his friend did.
There's no evidence that person of interest two was involved in the pipe bomb.
You have not been able to explain by taking pictures there what he did with the picture afterwards.
Did he go back and plant the pipe bomb?
Did he show the neighbor who he never saw or met?
Yeah, but you're trusting the feds that are behind what you call the fed surrection to have appropriately cleared him.
I mean, that's, I mean, but this is the impasse.
I mean, I just, I'm not trying to get the last word.
It's just like, that's the impasse.
I think we'll not get past that.
Let me read these real quick.
If you don't leave a few, I want to make sure I get them.
Viva Kyle.
Oh, five calls in the chat.
Julie, I'm not reading those.
Okay, let me go to locals.
Well, there's King of Bill Tongs in the house, but I'll read that one when Julie's not here because I'll thank him afterwards.
Okay, in our locals chat.
Question.
Oh, that I already got that.
Roosting, Julie Kelly is holding Viva's shoe salesman feet to the fire.
That is at least as much evidence as a statement from Bongino.
Is there evidence that it's not right?
Most stories are here, say, says Dredd Robert.
Is there more credible explanation?
This seems like a great time for the feds to reveal who it was.
Well, first of all, if the Fed said, I agree.
If I was wrong that they had cleared the person that the Blaze identified, if she's not a suspect, they could identify that now.
But then maybe, I don't know if they can't comment because it's an ongoing investigation, even if it's to definitively rule out someone who's been allegedly wrongly identified, which they have.
She has an attorney.
She's got an attorney.
So the cash 22 to that is if she's not the person, she'd sue.
And if she is the person, she'll sue harder.
I mean, that's so the fact that she's threatening suits.
And if she is the person, she's going to sue for what?
Oh, she's going to sue twice as hard to try to make them shut up so that they stop.
I mean, that's my own personal joke is that one way or another, they're going to threaten lawsuits.
If she is the person, she's not going to not threaten the lawsuit, Julie.
That's par for the course.
Viva, just ask her if she thinks this was the government or a private citizen.
I suspect you think it was something of, you think it was part and parcel of the Fed surrection.
I don't know.
The pipe bombs.
Yeah, I've already said this.
Oh, you're not a singer.
I've already said the suspicious circumstances around the woman who discovered the RNC.
She's tied to law enforcement.
She worked for the Department of Commerce for FirstNet.
There's also FirstNet angles to the pipe bomb story.
A FirstNet spokesperson told either the FBI or Congress that all the data files from January 5th, the cell phone data files, had been corrupted.
Why is that coming from FirstNet?
I don't know.
So I've already said that, and I've already explained the Capitol Police Officer who went out of the frame of the security video across from the DNC suspiciously out of the frame between 1253 and 1257, 1258.
And then it was discovered at 105.
I don't know how much harder I can explain that.
Now, I know you're going to not answer because I suspect you won't.
Julie, who, no, that's it.
Julie, who told you she was never under investigation?
Who's feeding you information with evidence you're not publishing?
That would ask for sources.
So that's not a fair question, Ginger.
Okay, well, I'll get the rest afterwards.
Julie, you have fleshed out the steel man attempt to rebut the proposed theory by the Blaze.
I think we'll see what the update is.
I appreciate that the update that they were going to publish last night has been postponed.
We can disagree on a bunch of stuff, but the chat has heard the rebuttal to the Blaze and Baker's theory.
They will come to their own conclusions.
I know I have a few more questions now than I did before, but Julie, thank you for coming on.
And I don't take it personally.
I don't think you should.
I don't think you do.
And this is how it should be done.
Everybody out there now has heard the other side and they can come to their own conclusions.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me on.
I appreciate it.
I'm going to read the rest, and some of them are not nice, but don't take it personally.
I'm just going to read the chat.
Don't read the chat, Julie.
I'm on Twitter.
I'm on X.
I get this stuff up.
I'm not going to be upset at, you know, what Rouse Tang has to say about me or, you know, MAGA hat 1024.
MAGA HAT 1024.
He's good.
I don't know who these people are, so I don't care.
All right, Julie, thank you very much.
All right.
Thanks.
All right.
Have a good one.
All right.
Now I'm going to go through the other ones, which are not polite to read when the guest is there.
And shame on all of you in the crowd who do that.
What has Julie ever declassified?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
Oh my God.
He was the dumpster pictures, man.
I'll tell you one thing.
That was when I first read that section of the report back in the day that the person of interest too took a picture.
You guys remember the intro scene to Magnolia?
The kid who jumps off the roof because his parents are fighting all the time.
And the mother always pulls the shotgun out on the father.
And the kid wanted the mother to shoot the father.
So he put a real shotgun in the gun.
And then as he's passing by the window, she does actually fire for the first time ever and kills her son who jumped off the building.
Then there was Greenberry Hill, the three criminals who killed some guy on a street called Greenberry Hill.
The other one, the blackjack dealer who gave the bad beat to the blackjack guy who was, was he the firefighter?
He was, which one was it?
Where the guy got scooped up in the firefighting plane and ended up in the tree.
There are some coincidences that are just, but Julie's, if she just doesn't think it's that person, maybe it fits into the Fed surrection elsewhere.
Ginger, I will also just not read.
If she can't do this now, she may stop.
She may stop getting paid if she blows these cover up into.
Okay, King of Bill Tong says premium Bill Tong from Bill Tong USA, high protein, keto-friendly, no additives, U.S. source beef, authentic South African flavor.
Get some at Bill Tong USA, Code Viva for 10% off.
Oh my God, he was taking dumpster pictures.
Ginger Ninjas, why do you want so hard to believe this confession through rejection?
Ginger.
Viva, Kyle is in the chat.
She should be brought to the table.
He should brought if he's arguing against his narrative.
Also, ask if she had regular CIA screenings.
I know Kyle's in the chat.
I could see that as well.
Ginger, I'm from the CIA and I need to do something on January 6th when I already have 250 FBI agents going to show up.
And I have an applicant from the Capitol Police initiation operation.
I've never been able to put glasses on or wear shoes larger than my feet.
It all falls short of all the evidence we need.
So what do you want to wait until they get information?
Okay.
And then, okay, fine.
Ginger, thank you.
Now, what we're going to do, we're going to take the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
That was good.
I don't think that that does not do that does not do enough to quell what I think is the plausibility of the theory put forward by the Blaze.
I have to get clear on the person of interest too in that photograph that Kyle Perlst posted to Twitter.
But yeah.
Okay, what was I going to say?
If you want to support the channel, everybody, we're going to have a new merch design out very shortly, but you can get some stuff at vivafry.com.
If you want to support the work that we do at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, come on over.
I forgot to mention two things.
Nate, the lawyer, I call him Nate the Great, the lawyer, is, as far as I know, still under surgery for the brain tumor and removal.
If you didn't know, Nate the lawyer got diagnosed with a rather large brain tumor and had to go through basically emergency surgery.
And it was, he went to the hospital Saturday and it was emergency.
And then they had to put a team together because of the situation.
And he was under the knife.
He went under the knife today, relatively early this morning.
And I don't know that he's that there's any update yet.
So thoughts and prayers, please, for Nate.
And the other thing that I was going to say that I always forget to say on the main channel, I forget, whatever it is.
All right.
Come on over to locals if you're so inclined.
Locals, I think that's it.
Did I just do it there?
Yep.
Okay.
And now we're going to go raid redacted.
Make sure I don't put the raid in their chat and get swiftly.
And I'll take a few, I'll take some questions from the Rumble chat before we head on over.
So confirm the raid.
Thank you all for being here.
Tomorrow is Thursday.
Tyler Fisher is coming over for dinner tonight.
Tie the Fish in the neighborhood.
We're going to introduce him to the world of Viva Barbecue and it's going to be delish.
And I'll send everybody some pictures over on Locals and maybe we'll do a little something.
Oh, I'm going to be on the Matt Gates show.
I don't know when they air it, but I'm going to record a hit with Matt Gates about the ostrich farm.
Not yet done putting that on blast.
So go raid redacted.
Godspeed, Rumble.
Thank you for being here.
Come on over to Locals.
And the raid has been initiated.
And I will say this: Viva Raid Booyah.
Before you go, I don't know how to phrase the question so it'll be clear.
Did Julie's explanation satisfy you?
I'll save it like that.
One, yes, it did.
Two, no, it didn't.
Did Julie's explanation to question the Baker's article was it satisfactory to you?
One, yes.
Two, no.
And at the risk of raid rating, at the risk of poisoning the well, I will not tell you what I think.
I just don't expect to see any ones except by the feds.
I'm joking.
I'm not joking.
Let's just see here.
So far, I only see three twos, four twos.
And I expect now there'll be blowing up with the twos.
All right.
All right.
Let's go to locals, everybody.
Thank you for being here.
Godspeed and updating now.
Locals.
Hold on.
I said I would take some of the chat is what I said I would do.
I seen on a buffoon.
Lots of twos.
Never give up until home alive.
Her logic was infantile.
I don't know if totally trust Baker either.
He might be wrong.
Baker might be wrong, but you know, he might, first of all, there's a even according to his own expert, whatever the credentials are, he's got a 2% to 6% chance of being wrong on the gate analysis.
F you, Viva and Barnes.
That means, that means, hold on, hold on.
Fuel up.
Fuel up on Viva and Barnes.
I agree with you, Sunday 2020.
She just disrespected you.
That's fine.
First of all, that's fine.
And you don't need to respond to it when you, if, if indeed it was, you could let the crowd say, okay, I just saw it.
And now I'm going to, you know, reassess accordingly.
All right.
Well, that's it.
That's good enough.
All right.
Let's go over to locals.
Rumble.
Peace out.
▲
Export Selection