Steve Baker and Cynthia West expose alleged smear campaigns against Thomas Massey while detailing a whistleblower claim that Capitol Police leadership orchestrated a conspiracy to replace Chief Sund with Yogananda Pittman before January 6th. Baker alleges intentional understaffing, ignored pipe bomb intelligence, and a deliberate Democratic narrative victory where deaths like Ashley Babbitt's were framed as consequences rather than planned outcomes. The discussion further asserts that evidence destruction by the Select Committee and the "sacrificial pawn" theory of officers highlight systemic obstruction, urging investigations into whether the event was a staged political maneuver. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
A Political Relationship Ratchet00:03:18
Business trip?
I would say political.
How would you say the relationship was developing?
Was it a relationship that was either going to continue or end?
How did he put it?
Oh, well, because of my work schedule and my schedule with my kids, you know, and it was intensifying so quickly, he said, you know, we either ratchet up or we ratchet off.
And because my schedule didn't align with his, that meant that I needed to leave my job, which terrified me.
And that's when I got the promise ring and everything.
And so, yeah, there was a lot of intense pressure to move to that next level.
Did he want you to come to DC?
Yes, he did.
He wanted me to go to wherever he was.
All right.
Did you tell him you just couldn't get up and leave?
Or, I mean, did you agree to just get up and leave?
I was very scared, but it was kind of like that was my ultimatum, right?
And this was my ultimatum.
Fairytale is so I thought, right?
This was my fairytale, or so I thought.
And so he, I didn't have a job, but then he texted me and he got a job for me at another congressional office that would have allowed me to, you know, work that schedule.
So I just got a highlight here.
This is a, I'm calling it a deposition style interview because it's intended to look like a deposition.
Apparently she's under oath or, you know, has sworn testimony, but we don't know who the third party is.
To swear her in was the lawyer asking her the questions.
I just got to highlight this question because it's genius.
Breathing and, and, uh, um, well, developing was it a relationship that was either going to continue or end?
How did he put it?
Was it a relationship that was either going to continue or end?
Look, this is the interview with Cynthia West that has now served as the basis for the hit piece smear campaign wrap up smear against Thomas Massey.
And the amazing thing is, um, the moving target of What might be the misgivings of Thomas Massey?
You're going to see it in real time.
People, this is going to fizzle down into or whittle down into people criticizing Thomas Massey for potentially or seemingly apparently having gotten into a relationship too soon after his wife died.
That's what this is going to come down to.
Because what apparently seems to be the case, I'm going to talk about with Steve Baker in a few minutes after we go over his bombshell, is that Thomas Massey developed a relationship with this woman.
We don't know of what nature, because even in that 20 minute interview, they don't clarify, mention if they've ever had sexy time.
And she thought it was going to be her fairy ticket out of there.
She says she had a job, but didn't have a job by the time she was going to DC, and he got her a job.
He gets her a job, she loses the job.
In the interim, she breaks up with him.
And then when she's filing an ethics complaint against Sparks, her employer who fired her after six weeks of work, she, as a courtesy, calls up Thomas Massey and says, Hey, after I broke up with you, I'm going to name you as a witness in my ethics complaint.
And some people are going to say, Well, she's just notifying him out of courtesy.
And others are going to say that is an act of intimidation or threatening or something.
The Suit and the Road00:07:40
Hey, man.
I'm going to name you in an ethics complaint.
You're going to be a witness.
You wouldn't want that.
And then she alleges that he tried to pay her $5,000 cow money to sell.
We're going to get into it in a bit.
I encourage everybody to go watch the.
I whittled it down to a seven minute clip with six sections in it.
And they are all numbered or time stamped for the duration of each clip.
And they're very interesting.
And you go watch that and you compare it to what people are saying on the internet.
And it's quite clear people are opining without having.
Watched the actual video, or relying on the fact that other people are not going to watch the actual video.
And if I hadn't gotten so bored humiliating Will Chamberlain with his words of yesterday compared to his words of today, I would continue doing it.
But alas, we got to go live.
Now, the news of the day, by the way, is Steve Baker just dropped a bombshell.
I don't call it a bombshell.
We overuse the term, but that's what you call something that actually breaks the internet.
Steve Baker, former Blaze journalist, now on his own.
And he's got a story to tell about his most recent piece about explosive details indicating that January 6th was, at the very least, Or let it happen on purpose so that people could get promoted and others fired.
Without further ado, you remember Steve Baker from.
Well, that's not what we want to do.
We want to do it like this.
You may remember Steve Baker.
I don't know if I want to make jokes.
I won't make jokes.
You remember Steve Baker from such government conspiracies as getting fired from the blaze after putting out amazing journalism that thus far has not yet been demonstrably or definitively disproven.
The Steve Baker who's the object of a defamation suit from Shawnee Kirchhoff, him, his.
New company, your partner, Joe Hanneman, and The Blaze, no good deed goes unpunished despite them firing you and bending the knee.
They still get brought into the suit.
Steve, tell everybody who you are for those who may not know before we get into it.
I'm a former misdemeanor terrorist.
And I say former because I did receive a case dismissal with prejudice.
I did not get a pardon, by the way, from President Trump.
I got case dismissal, which is.
One step better.
It's 11.
If the pardon is a 10, you know, on the spinal tap scale, I got an 11.
By the way, so the dismissal with prejudice is better also because you don't lose your rights.
Whereas if you were a convicted felon, even with a commutation, you'd still have certain civil restrictions.
With a dismissal with prejudice, dismissed, they cannot ever bring it again, and you're sort of as innocent as the day before the charges were brought.
It's as if it never happened.
I mean, except that it did.
And that was the problem that I went through for over three years during that process.
Really, I went through the process for four years.
It took them over three years before they ever actually indicted me.
But that's another long story.
And so, well, I don't know how much I can ask you.
I don't want to ask too much, but I made the joke, you haven't been sued yet.
You haven't been sued yet.
And then the day came and you got sued.
Joe Hanneman got sued.
Your new company got sued.
The Blaze got sued.
And they go through this.
We went through that lawsuit.
In depth at the time.
Are there any developments that you are able to give us in terms of that defamation lawsuit?
The only real development, and I'm kind of giving it away right now, is because I like poking them in the eyes.
I still haven't been served yet.
So technically, I've not been sued yet.
I was on the road.
I was on the road working.
I was on the road working on stories for three weeks.
And there was an attempt to serve me, but there wasn't.
And so the clock hasn't started for me yet.
And so, you know.
Since Claire Locke, or should I say, the opposition law firm that I like to affectionately refer to as Claire Locke, Patel, Ratcliffe, and the Gray Lady, I'm notifying them right now because they do, in fact, watch every appearance that I make with Viva Fry.
And we know that from the lawsuit.
Well, my name wasn't mentioned.
They didn't mention any specific statements that I thought they would have specifically cited, which is why I said that even that lawsuit, in its all its, what was it, Civ 69, 70 page glory?
Was still more of a piece to pardon or to assuage the Capitol Police as opposed to go after you for defamation.
And they didn't include some things that I thought they might have wanted to.
But alas, they sued you.
You haven't been served.
Well, you haven't been served.
That's interesting.
And well, I won't ask, although I will ask.
Don't mention it if it's not something you can answer.
There was some discussion among lawyers that suing the Blaze might have been a problem because you might, as either former employees or agents at the time, be covered by their insurance, and in which case you might not have to go bankrupt defending yourself.
Can you elaborate on that or can you say anything to that?
Yeah, I don't look.
I had the gag order lifted.
And as you know, I'm one of those kinds of people.
You probably know this well enough about me already.
People is that you lift the gag order off of me, I'm going to talk.
Now, I may get another one put back on me as we go through this legal process.
But for right now, I'm free to talk and I'm not scared, as they say, to talk about anything.
And one of those things that I don't mind talking about is my relationship with the Blaze.
And my relationship with the Blaze right now is.
It's amicable to a certain extent.
They definitely are telling others, let's say in my circle of friends and mutual acquaintances, that they have no intention of paying and honoring that part of the lawsuit, which, of course, they should be committed to.
Let's not forget that Joe and I, we wrote a story.
We did the research, we wrote a story.
But the Blaze had four levels of editorial review over that story that went through their legal department.
And it was approved by Blaze Legal.
And this particular story also went to the C suite.
In other words, the CEO of the company also signed off on it before publication.
And so, regardless of what happened five months later in terms of the status of my employment, it was all signed off by them and by their legal covering.
So, while they may disagree with whether they're going to cover or not, I think that they are going to be.
Required to do so.
Now, then the only question is if they cover you, do they have to provide the attorneys for you or do you get to select your own attorneys?
In which case, you might or may not be happy with the attorneys that they would provide above and beyond assuming the cost of your defense.
It is interesting because it's a strategic mistake.
The Blaze retracted, I'll say retracted for lack of a better word, the article.
They distanced themselves from the article, and you'd think that they would then either not sue the Blaze or Harp on statements you made afterwards so as to create some sort of a distinction between what the Blaze authorized and what occurred after they rescinded their authorization or support for that article.
But the bottom line, the bulk of it was the article, which, as you mentioned, went through layers and layers of legal at the Blaze.
And for them to think that they're not going to have to contractually defend their agents, their employees at the time, we'll see.
Breaking the Internet Access00:02:41
So, okay, so that means if you haven't been served, there hasn't actually been any first step of any procedural aspect of this defamation suit.
Well, the blaze has been served.
Joe has been served.
I have not been served.
So I think until all parties have been served, the clock doesn't start.
So I just gave that away here.
I'm picturing someone at Claire Locke right now saying, that should be remedied Friday afternoon, good sir.
Well, probably tomorrow morning at 7 a.m., I'll get a knock on the door.
Yeah, they like to do it Friday afternoons about 5 o'clock.
Well, whatever the limit is, 4 35 o'clock.
So they can ruin your weekend, but they might just invigorate you for the weekend.
Steve, so you put out this piece today.
I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to access it from the website because it seems that you literally broke the internet.
We're under a, what do they call a denial of service attack right now?
I mean, we just confirmed that five, 10 minutes before I went on the air with you.
Our host server provider told us that there are at least two IP addresses that are bombarding our website.
It's a brand new website.
This is our third attack in six weeks, third verified attack in six weeks.
And, you know, we have purchased and paid for robust security and that sort of thing.
But, There are people who know how to do this.
Obviously, if they can take down X and they can take down the Pentagon and they can take down White House servers, they can take down little me and old Joe's Veritas Regnat site.
Well, it's amazing that I can't even access the screen to share it to show people that it's the spinning wheel of death.
And then it gives me the 404 as I brought to your attention on X.
I hate going to archive links because we can get it on an archive link.
But this was, if we go back, the error symbol that I was getting when I said you broke the internet.
Where the hell is my?
Come on, where is it?
And you broke the internet, Steve.
So I'll.
Gateway access denied or something like that is what I was.
Yeah, here we go.
Gateway timeout.
So you're on a timeout.
I don't know what it means.
Do you know?
Are you able to determine the country of origin of the attack?
Joe is actually dealing with it right now.
So he probably could answer all those questions.
But I was getting ready to come on with you right as soon as he learned that that was what was taking place.
Okay, so now bear in mind that I just hate.
Oh, oh, hold on one second.
No, you see, this will not let us get to the.
Oh, hold on.
Something might be coming up.
Add to stage.
Hey, all right.
You don't like it.
Where is it?
I don't know how far we're going to get into it.
Pension vs Five Years Later00:12:34
This, no, no, no, exclusive January 6th.
Yes, that's right.
Okay.
Capitol Police engage in an intentional and malicious Jan 6th conspiracy to create a disaster and sack Chief Steve Sund.
Whistleblower says May 13th by Joe Svan.
This is the, and Steve Baker, elements of U.S. Capitol Police knew in advance that.
I'm going to see if I can actually, you know, see more of this.
Steve.
So, tell us what, if you can't get into it, because everyone's going to get the link.
Everyone's going to go and support the work that you're doing afterwards.
To the extent now you're under DDoS attack, tell us what the nuts and bolts of this, of the whistleblower and their statements are.
Very simple.
Several weeks ago, I got a call from a known whistleblower.
This is a Capitol Police whistleblower who filed his first protected disclosure back in late 2021.
So, four and a half years ago.
The same year as the January 6th event.
And in that disclosure back then, it was about 16 pages long.
He went into a great deal of detail about what he believed, in fact, was set up cover up issues related to the leadership, going back to the leadership of the Capitol Police, the sergeants at arms, and so forth and so on, right up to the, we'll just call it, at the time it was Pelosi and McConnell were the, Speaker of the House and McConnell was ahead of the Senate at the time.
And so this is something that we've had in our back pocket for four and a half years or four years plus from his previous whistleblower statement that he had sent to Congress.
And then I developed a relationship with him about three years ago.
He has been a constant and consistent source.
So now let's bring it up to five months ago.
On or about December the 1st, either December the 1st or December 2nd, he received a phone call.
From a senior staffer in Barry Loudermilk's office.
Barry Loudermilk is the chairman of the current January 6th Select Committee to investigate J6.
And so this senior staffer called the whistleblower specifically to tell him that they had just discovered a text message that was sent on Capitol Police phones, actual departmental issued phones.
From the executive officer, Larry Cook, of then, I think he was acting deputy or acting assistant chief, Sean Gallagher.
And on this, on the morning, now this is really key for everybody to pay attention to what I'm saying right here.
On the morning of January 6th, that would be the day that the riots took place at 9 30 in the morning, hours before the breach, the first breach happened.
Larry Cook, executive officer for acting chief or assistant chief Sean Gallagher, sends Sean Gallagher a text that basically says something to the effect of, and I'm paraphrasing, that Yogananda Pittman will be fine by the end of the day when she has Stephen Sund's job.
Now, Yogananda Pittman was unit number two, she was second in command.
She was the assistant chief of police under chief of police Stephen Sund.
We know from Previous prior testimony going back five years, early testimony from Capitol Police leadership that Stephen's son was purposefully, deliberately withheld from learning about the intelligence of what was coming that day.
And in fact, the head intelligence analyst, her name is Julie Farnham.
Now, Julie, interesting character, she is politically, you know, left of Mal, probably.
She's definitely a Democrat left wing.
In her worldview, but she honestly, under oath, even before Nancy Pelosi's original January 6th select committee, she actually testified that not only was Chief Sun not invited to the January 3rd intelligence briefing for the leadership, but that he was purposefully not invited, that she learned later.
She testified to this under oath.
Fast forward here.
Well, if I may ask you, when did she testify to that under oath?
Like four years ago.
Yeah, this is back in 21.
When did we?
122.
When, if ever, did we become aware of that testimony or the content of that testimony?
You would only know it because you would have heard me or somebody like me that would have talked about it.
And I have talked about that before.
Okay, so the idea is some would have been excluded from the meetings for what purpose?
I mean, they just, Yogananda's eventually going to take over and they don't want him there because he doesn't, he's no longer on a need to know basis or because they're going to actively and overtly sabotage him and they want him to be.
Ill prepared to deal with it so that he can then be removed more easily.
Well, first of all, he had no desire and no intention to leave the Capitol Police to resign or quit or otherwise depart because he was only five days away from his pension.
Listen to what I'm saying.
He was five days away from his pension, and now five years later, he's still being denied his federal pension because he was fired by Pelosi the next day on January 7th.
But the point of this article that we've written keys in on the fact that.
The executive officer to the acting assistant chief of police, Sean Gallagher, knew that something was happening on January 6th that was going to result in the replacement of Chief Sund with then assistant chief Yogananda Pittman.
Okay, but now, so I got questions to this.
I won't say everybody knew.
It was known.
Yogananda Pittman had that memo.
I forget how Tarek Johnson described it.
There was a memo that they had from December.
They knew that there were going to be protests, they knew that there were going to be Let's say riots.
They knew that people petitioned for protest permits.
They knew there were plans, online discussions, rumorings of storming the Capitol, whatever.
So they knew something was up, which only explains or adds more questions to why they were so ill prepared the moment of hierarchy between Sund and Yogananda Pittman.
If she had that memo from December indicating there were going to be protests, people were petitioning for permits, did Sund also have that information?
I don't know if Sund ever saw those permits.
That's something I don't know if that was withheld from him or not, but I can tell you who signed those.
Six permits.
It was Yogananda Pittman.
I have them.
Yogananda Pittman, I'm not sure that I ever knew this, signed the permits that served as the basis, basically notifying them.
There's going to be a lot of people on the Capitol on January 6th.
You might want to be prepared.
She signs off on the permits.
It ends up being whether or not it was deliberate or happenstance, it ends up ending Sund five days before his pension.
What was the, do you know of any pre existing, Tension or pre existing conflict between Sund, Yogananda, Sund, and anyone else.
Like, why not just let him serve out his five days, give him his pension, and be done with him forever, as opposed to potentially creating a controversy that will last five years later?
Viva, as opposed to the comparison of Yogananda Pittman being allowed to be on leave for six months before she went to take the chief's job at the University of California, Berkeley, at Berkeley.
And that way, she could double dip and accrue her six additional months she needed to achieve and earn her Capitol Police federal pension before she went to work for the state college.
They gave her Chief Manger, who took over after her, broke the law very controversially.
A lot of press, even legacy media, covered this.
Is that the law was broken, actual federal law, because this is a federal agency, the United States Capitol Police.
And they allowed her to take six months of leave so that she could accrue her remaining months of pension while she was already an employee at $270,000 a year ish as the chief of University of California, Berkeley.
Is there any ideas to why?
I mean, it's.
If you want to have a lee hop and you need, I don't know, your useful idiots who are going to be the ones to fall on the sword while you get to milk this incident for all of its political juice, why Sund?
Like, why was he the target of this?
Sund, the biggest criticism of Sund from everyone that I've spoken to.
Now, by the way, when I say everyone, I'm talking about a very large sample of Capitol Police officers.
We're talking about Capitol Police officers at the lowest ranks.
Frontline, what they call their first responder units.
We're talking about CDU officers.
That's their civil disturbance units.
I'm talking about sergeants, lieutenants, inspectors, deputy chiefs, all the way up, even to the point where you get to the chairman of the Capitol Police Union.
All say that Chief Sund was the Boy Scout of Boy Scouts.
He was the good cop of good cops.
And everybody in the department loved him except for.
The leadership that I've named off thus far, Yogananda Pittman and Sean Gallagher, because of their.
Well, look, we've done stories two and a half years ago on Gallagher.
I mean, Gallagher is a criminal.
You think I'm afraid of defamation and saying that right now?
No.
The guy had multiple, multiple investigations internally against him, and he was found, quote unquote, guilty, or as they say in their parlance, the investigations into him were sustained.
For being involved in a payroll fraud scheme with some other officers.
He was the one that actually put it together.
He was forging signatures, forging his own supervisor's signature on multiple occasions, he would use different color inks as he forged different names.
And then he was put up for disciplinary review and what they call an OPR, or maybe back then it was still internal.
What's the?
I'm blanking.
Anyway, you know, the bottom line is that he was under investigation.
He was found guilty by the department.
He was recommended for termination.
And then the acting or the chief at the time, I believe it was Chief Dine, actually intervened.
He ended up getting a 10 day suspension for stealing thousands of dollars directly from the department, forgery, and.
Then, as soon as he had a 10 day suspension and he wasn't allowed to be promoted for two years, he was a captain when this happened.
He did not lose rank.
The day he was no longer suspended, two years later, he was promoted to inspector, immediately rose to deputy chief, became assistant chief, and then when Chief Manger resigned a few months ago, He became the acting chief for two days before they hired their current new chief.
Who's the new chief now?
Secret Service Text Messages00:14:37
Oh, God.
Okay, so just refresh my memory on the hierarchy of the names you got Sund, Yogananda Pitman, Gallagher, respective positions in the hierarchy.
Correct.
Yogananda Pitman was head of the intelligence, and that was where, of course, the breakdown was happening.
That's where the one thing that has been honestly conveyed through transcripted interviews, through testimonies, even to both committees, both Pelosi's committee and Loudermilk's committees, have been that the breakdown was in intelligence.
What we're learning now is that the breakdown was on purpose.
Okay.
That's, I mean, it's not that anything that we didn't already believe, but then you have to be weary about getting information that confirms what you already believe.
Tell me if this sounds right.
I'm just double checking as we go live because, as we're live, because there was a Question in the chat, which was Viva, which groups, this is from Lucy the dog, did Yogananda sign permits for?
Are they associated with deep state ops?
Now, what I can find online, it seems One Nation Under God.
You'll tell me if this sounds right.
Brian Lewis urged Congress to nullify votes.
Virginia Freedom Keepers rallied for health freedom.
Women for a Great America, also referred to as Women for America in some contexts, and Rock Ministries Church International and Jesus Lives event.
Is there any idea, any conspiracy theorizing that any of the six groups that Yogananda signed off on were agitator organizations and not bona fide, call it MAGA protesters?
Are there conspiracies in that regard?
Yes.
Do we have proof of that?
No.
I mean, do we have characters that got permits that we don't like?
Yes.
Do we have proof that they were associated with Deep State andor FBI, CIA, Fed's direction, General Mark Milley, or anything like that?
No.
We don't have that connective tissue.
And now, of the six that Yogananda signed off on, did any of those organizations actually show up, or do we know if they actually showed up on January 6th?
Well, they all showed up, but by the time they were scheduled to begin, as they say, everything went to hell in a handbasket.
Okay, that's interesting.
So, yeah, because the idea is not necessarily even that these organizations came and caused the problems that was January 6th.
It's that they knew that it was going to be a big day, a big event, and yet somehow Yogananda, who signed off on all of these, knowing what would be on January 6th, they were ill equipped, understaffed, and, um, The shit hit the fan, and the person to get the better part of the splatter was sunned.
Yeah, let's do a quick, quick lightning round review of the time schedules here that we're talking about, because all of these permits, I should say, not all of these permits were issued after Trump's rally at the ellipse was scheduled, because that actually was not scheduled until December 19th.
So just a couple of weeks, three weeks out, all right, before that was actually on the calendar, and Trump himself.
Tweeted out saying, you know, that you got to come to D.C. 19th.
It's going to be wild.
Yeah.
Right.
Okay.
So that happens on the 19th.
Some of these permits had already been applied for before Trump announced that he was going to be holding a rally or that there would be a rally that he would be speaking at the White House or at the ellipse.
And so why is that?
It's because January 6th is a, every four years, it's a very special constitutional day in the United States of America.
It's a protest day.
It's an all boots on the ground day for the Capitol Police, just like July 4th is every year, just like every inauguration is.
But for some reason, because of COVID being the excuse, it was not an all boots on the ground.
And some 70% of the uniformed Capitol Police officers were on administrative leave on January 6th.
Yeah, it's nuts.
The question is going to be we're going to get back to the whistleblower saying Yogananda was giddy.
That she was going to have Officer Sun's position by the end of the day.
Sun gets fired by Pelosi on January 7th?
Correct.
Okay.
And was the reason given was he was.
Oh, I mean, he had to fall on his sword because, you know, he was the chief.
He, you know, the buck stops here.
He was the chief of police.
The Capitol was breached.
There was, you know, $24 million worth of damage, whatever the.
I think I may be a little high there.
May have been only $2.4 million.
I can't remember the numbers.
I think you might be low.
Let me see here.
No, it's not that much.
It is substantially lower than what the total of damage was done in the Summer of Love 2020.
That was like $3 billion worth of damage done in those riots.
So, the bottom line is that, and this is where we get everything really needs to be focused here, is that these six permits that were issued, some before the president announced, some after the president announced, a couple of them were last minute approvals.
All, every one of them, because I have copies of them, were signed off on by then Unit 2.
Second in command, assistant chief, Yogananda Pittman.
So she knew that people were coming to the Capitol.
In addition to those permits, there was in the entire DC area, there were 82 First Amendment protest permits issued to various groups all over town, over the fifth and the sixth.
Because this is a, like I said, this is a spot on the calendar that's an important.
Part of our history.
And we remember what happened in 2017 when they had violent riots and protests and burnt out a limousine and people went nuts.
I mean, that part, we don't think anybody needs convincing that they were criminally negligently understaffed.
And the only question is was it because of COVID or from the whistleblower?
It seems like there might have been some internal strategizing to get sunned out so that Yogananda Pittman can get a bump up.
Well, let's talk about that.
All right.
70, roughly, start over here.
The Capitol Police had roughly at that time 2,000 uniformed officers.
All right.
Then you've got, you know, plain clothes.
You've got the dignitary protection detail, all of the guys that wear suits and ties with little ear pieces in.
Those look like Secret Service.
And in fact, they call them special agents.
So you have a bunch of people that are not uniformed officers, as well as, you know, administrative staff, that sort of thing.
About 2,500 employees.
In total.
And so, out of the 2,000 officers, when I was there that day, the first article I wrote, I said and I estimated that there were probably only about 200 that were actually deployed on site that day.
And that was my estimate just from my own eyes and from my own camera.
As we learned later, there was less than 250 actually there.
So, we had almost only one tenth, one eighth of the entire department was there that day.
And on a First Amendment protest day, A, they call it, this is their terminology, it's supposed to be an all boots on the ground day.
That means everybody's there.
It means that all of them work double shifts.
So if you're working the graveyard shift from 11 to 7 in the morning, you work through to the next shift, unless you'd have done a double the day before.
So they schedule it that way.
So technically, working two shifts, you should have two thirds of the entire uniformed officer corps.
On deployment during that riot.
As it happened, though, that day, those who got off at seven in the morning said, Hasla Vista.
They left.
And those who arrived at seven were not given their morning roll call briefings.
Now, how do we know that?
Did that because I went to Harry Dunn's book, and Harry Dunn said in his book that they had their morning roll call at 7 30.
He described exactly which theater that was in in the Capitol.
And the problem with Harry's testimony or his statements in his book was that there's two cameras inside that theater and there was never a roll call briefing that day.
Could it have been somewhere else?
No, because we have multiple, multiple, multiple, multiple United States Capitol police officers telling us that they were not briefed that day whatsoever.
They had no briefing.
We had commanders testify, whistleblowers who actually would have led briefings that day who had no briefings.
We do know of a couple of squads that did.
Like, for instance, I did interview a civil disturbance unit whistleblower.
By the way, this guy has never come forward as an official whistleblower, but he's always been a background source.
And his squad did, in fact, have a morning roll call briefing, but they were not told what was coming that day.
I'm actually shocked.
I double checked on a few sources.
2.73 million is the revised aggregate damage done on January 6th.
Yeah.
That's what I don't think.
I'd be curious to know what everyone would have said in the chat.
I would have said 100 million easily.
I just remembered it being 224.
Then I went, wait a minute.
I had to mentally check myself.
No, I think there's a decimal in there, 2.4.
Yeah, update 2.7.
That's right.
Wow.
Okay, so now the aggregate negligence, understaffed.
They knew something big was coming.
They knew that Trump, three weeks now, they knew that Trump was there.
They had infiltrated the Proud Boys, they had infiltrated the Oath Keepers.
It's actually astonishing.
If I may ask, and the whistleblower has not been identified, the one that you're relying on.
I will say this he's known to Congress.
He did submit this new disclosure.
To multiple Congress members.
The ones that he named were Loudermilk, Jordan Johnson, Speaker Johnson on the House side.
I know that Massey also got it on the Senate side.
It was Senator Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley, I think.
So there's at least seven Congress members I know that got it.
And we've heard through the grapevine since that it had obviously been shared with others.
And he did sign it.
So he is known to Congress who he is.
Okay.
And now it pertained to text messages.
We have heard the news and how all of the cell phones were either the data was the messages were wiped.
Was his cell phone one of the cell phones that were all wiped by some technical error on January?
What was it, January 7th?
We don't know that, but we did learn something new in our investigation about this story.
And that is that on January 6th, If you were a sergeant or above, all the way up to the chief, you had a department issued telephone.
Now, if you were a private, you didn't have one.
And some people are going to go, what about corporals?
Well, they're in the Capitol Police.
You go from private to sergeant.
So if you're a sergeant and above, you had a cell phone.
After January 6th, very short, I don't have the date yet.
We're trying to figure this out.
Shortly after January 6th, Everyone in the department was required to turn in their phones and get a replacement.
We have verified that.
We have verified that now through multiple sources just in the last two weeks.
And by the way, Congress didn't know about that.
I found out about that through another unnamed source that I learned about from this whistleblower.
And I thought that was mind boggling.
I went straight to Congress with that piece of information.
And you know what they said?
No way.
They said, we could not have gone over five years and not known that most important piece of information that the Capitol Police were required to turn in their phones and exchange them for new devices.
And I said, that's what I'm hearing.
This was after January 6th.
Turn in your devices and they turn them in.
I'm just double checking as to whether or not the ones that they turned in were somehow glitchy, deleted, or the ones that they gave back.
Refresh our memory as to which cell phones were accidentally, conveniently so.
Subjecting an error.
That story has to do with the pipe bomb.
So, this is the original story that the FBI put out that the phone tracking, the geofencing type of data that they use, was corrupted from the providers themselves on the evening of January 5th when the pipe bombs were being planted.
That's where that story came from.
And then, after the arrest of Brian Cole Jr., they backtracked on that story.
He goes, No, actually, we do have cell phone pings.
No, I think I'm double checking.
I think it was many Secret Service agents, January 5th.
That's a different story.
That's their email.
It was Secret Service email, not phone, if I remember correctly.
Most text messages from many Secret Service agents.
It's worth what it's worth.
I'm just doing a quick Google.
January 5th, January 6th.
It says text messages were erased during a pre planned agency wide device replacement program.
Text.
All right.
Okay.
So now you get this guy.
This guy's on the record to the government.
He comes to you now.
He's basically saying, You've seen these text messages where.
How was it expressed that Yogananda was giddy?
Was it her responding?
Or is it people discussing it?
Was it someone relaying how she was reacting to what was transpiring that day?
Erased Devices on January 6th00:07:24
Yeah.
Well, here's what she was worried about there were intelligence reports that Soleimani was going to fly an airplane into the Capitol during the joint session of Congress that day.
And so she was apparently all, you know, nervous and.
And actually put off by having to deal with it, having to chase down something that really was not very likely, to the extreme, not very likely.
And so she was disconcerted about having to deal with that problem.
And then it was conveyed to Sean Gallagher, the acting chief, assistant chief at the time, from his ex-O, Larry Cook, that morning on her about 9:30 a.m.
She'll be fine.
She'll be happy by the end of the day when she has Chief Sun's job.
I'm paraphrasing, but that's.
All right.
And now hold on.
I want to bring back up the article and we're going to get to some of the other elements of the whistleblower in there.
Sergeant Cook's January 6th message fundamentally alters the understanding of responsibility for January 6th, presenting what I believe is direct evidence of a conspiracy involving United States Capitol Police personnel and the Democratic staff, the whistleblower wrote.
This is in December 2025.
Yep.
And the, I don't remember, I guess we're going to go through the whole thing.
People should still go read it.
But that pertains to what now?
Because this was, they say again discovered in 2025.
So it's not clear what was known four years earlier and what's being just disclosed to the public now.
Okay, let me kind of explain that.
All right, so these documents were a treasure trove of documents that the previous committee, that would be Pelosi's select committee, or as Trump likes to refer to it, as Pelosi's unselect committee, is that we all know famously that a bunch of documents were purged, deleted.
Millions of pages or a million, whatever it is.
But there were also dozens and dozens of boxes of hard copies, file boxes that were recovered by the Loudermilk's committee, the first committee that he had right after the GOP took the house back in 23.
Okay.
So GOP now has it.
They discover it's like 80 to 100 boxes of files.
And so it's taken them, look, it takes years to get through this stuff.
Well, the actual guy who found this text message.
He works for Loudermilk.
His name is Brandon Cockerham.
He's named in the story.
Normally, I would not name him in the story.
The only reason we have named him in the story is he's the guy who called me in a panic and said, Hey, hey, hey, hey, please, please don't go public with this information.
Okay.
Why is that?
He said, Because we need time to get the characters involved in this text exchange and peripherally.
To come in for transcripted interviews under oath.
Well, look, I know I've gotten a lot of criticism today because I, you know, once again, I teased that this story was coming out and people said, you sat on something for five months or five weeks or whatever it was, you know, shame on you, blah, They don't know what is involved here.
And I thought, okay, that's a reasonable request.
We don't want to scare off guys that possibly could be flipped and turned, reveal the, you know, the origins of January 6th.
I thought that was a reasonable request.
So, right at the two, now this is a phone call that I received from Brandon Cockerham.
At the two week mark, I was sitting in his office in the Rayburn building, in Loudermoke's office, just me and him, for an hour and a half.
During this hour and a half meeting, he said, Hey, I just, you know, I just, I hope that you and I can develop the same level of trust that you had with my predecessor on the committee, who's, who has left, left Loudermoke's staff this year.
And I'm just hoping we can develop the same level of trust.
And I said, Yeah, I'm, That's optimal.
That's what I would like as well.
And I said, okay, I said, let's be honest.
I said, your two weeks expire like tomorrow.
I said, have the transcribed interviews happened or do you have them scheduled?
And he said, we hope to have them scheduled in a couple of days or a few days.
Okay.
Well, what the hell were they doing for the last two weeks?
It's weird because I appreciate what you're saying.
On the one hand, you want to protect the whistleblowers and you want to do what you need to protect the information.
Flip side, I don't trust a damn person in this.
That's two weeks' head start that they get to either recraft narratives or destroy potentially other incriminating evidence, or God forbid, take out or take care of some of the whistleblowers that they now know are going to be very.
Yeah, but let's be clear.
The reason why I believe it was a reasonable request to delay was because the participants did not yet know we had this text message.
They didn't know.
So.
If I had gone public, Joe and I had gone public at the time with a story about it, then they would have gotten the advance warning and then they would have scrambled to try and cover their ass.
And so what the committee was saying is wait, give us time to get these guys in and then the story's yours and you can run with it.
And I told him, I said, okay, that's fine.
It's a reasonable request.
And I actually said this.
I said, but a week and a half from now, I said, if John Solomon suddenly posts a story on this, your ass is mine.
Now, that did not happen.
And we waited five weeks.
And then once we got kind of into the three week mark, we were learning that this was a much bigger story with a lot more detail, a lot more spider webs out into the hierarchy of the Democratic Party and such as that, particularly with appointees within the sergeant at arms office, et cetera, et cetera.
And that we needed to do, Joe and I needed to do more work.
So ultimately, it took us five weeks to put this entire story together.
A lot of emails.
We have multiple confirmations on this.
We have confirmations from four different Congress staffers, congressmen as well, who have confirmed this.
Chief Sun has confirmed this.
The whistleblower has confirmed this.
And so it's a real thing and it's out there.
What is important for everybody to know yeah, go to the story and read the details, send us questions online.
We'll answer the questions.
But the most important thing to know is that.
On the morning of January 6th, near 9 30, the executive officer, that guy you just showed a photo of right there, scroll down.
This is Gallagher.
Yeah.
That's.
He's also known among the Capitol Police as Caligula, but that's another story.
Is that a sexy, sexual thing, or is that just because he's.
I'm just saying that there's a large number of officers that call him Caligula.
That's all.
That's all.
Caligula and Expected Deaths00:14:42
That's all I got right now.
All right.
Sorry, what were you saying about him?
So, yeah.
So, what I'm saying is that the important thing to key in upon is that he, that guy right there, got a message from his executive officer saying, hey, you know, Yogi's going to be fine.
Yogananda Pittman, she's going to be fine by the end of the day when she has Chief Son's job.
They knew that something was coming big enough, and he was certain enough about it that he knew that this was going to be the end of.
Son's career or his job, certainly.
And the reason why this is so important, Viva, is the other work we've been doing on the pipe bomber.
What is the one thing that we have irrefutably shown and proved is that two intelligence officers, plain clothes, counter surveillance officers, Capitol Police, were informed on the radio that we've got bombs in the area.
They go park their car, walk straight to, without looking anywhere else under anything else.
Behind any other bush whatsoever, they walked to the only two places that the bomber sat down at the night before, and they discovered the second bomb at 1 05 p.m., five minutes after the start time, by the way, of not only when the gavel dropped for the joint session of Congress to confirm the Electoral College vote, but also the scheduled time for all six of those permits.
And the previous bomb at the RNC was found 25 minutes before that.
On the other side of one o'clock.
And this is after 17 hours later, both bombs are discovered either side of one o'clock.
What was happening at one o'clock?
Gavel drop, joint session of Congress, six permits.
Protest events were to begin on the Capitol grounds.
So, what's stunning is let me just see if there's other highlights that we wanted to get to in terms of the whistleblowing.
So, it's going to show.
If not foreknowledge, at least it's going to show basically that people knew something was going to happen.
There was going to be a change in power within Capitol Police.
It also shows advanced knowledge that something was going to happen.
Which is there any lingering dispute as to whether or not Pelosi overtly declined the National Guard offer from Trump or whether or not Trump actually made the offer for National Guard or whoever declined it?
Is there any lingering doubt about that now among people who are remotely educated?
You used two different words.
You said lingering dispute and then you said lingering doubt.
There is no lingering doubt.
There's only lingering dispute by the apologists on Pelosi's side and on Mayor Bowser's side.
You said, no, no, no, no, that never happened.
No, it happened.
And that's another extensive story that Joe and I have done, bigger, more in depth than anybody else.
We have actually had, I've sat down, done a tabletop podcast interview with former Assistant Secretary of the Army, Wardinsky, who was on the actual Zoom call with all of the generals, Mark Milley's sycophants, that said and birthed the phrase, we don't like the optics.
That phrase got passed to Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, who answers to Nancy Pelosi.
And he relayed that exact phrase to Chief Sund when Sund was requesting National Guard.
And he said, We're not comfortable with the optics.
Am I going crazy, or do I remember Kash Patel testifying roughly to that effect that I want to say was in the Colorado case?
I'm not sure, though.
Okay, so this is it's amazing.
It basically sounds like it might not have been a.
From what you're saying and from what I've read very, very briefly before you came on, because it was still under a DDoS attack, that whether or not this was a deliberate attempt to take out Sund, it was understood that it was likely going to be the consequence resulting in Yogananda Pittman being promoted.
You get all of the political capital out of the January 6th insurrection that Pelosi and her gang wanted, and everybody's happy except for half of America.
Yeah.
Well, look, what happened, and I've said it a thousand times, We don't need to beat this dead horse.
But what happened on January 6th was the largest political narrative victory by any one party in the history of the Union.
And that happened that day.
It was a gigantic narrative victory for the left, against the right, against Trump, against Trump's followers, against MAGA, against Republicans, against conservatives in general.
And that's what they won that day.
And the one thing that they did not win that I personally believe they expected to happen.
And there's intel chatter on this.
Is see, they knew they actually believed from their own intelligence that MAGA was going to show up armed, that there were going to be a lot of Yahoos in that crowd armed, and they believed that some of those weapons would be used.
I actually said, and I wrote it my second article, I said that the Capitol Police were set up and that they were sacrificial pawns or sacrificial pawns that day.
I believe they expected gunfire to happen.
To be exchanged, not just one shot taking out Ashley Babbitt.
They expected a gunfire exchange that day at the Capitol.
And viva had that happened, both parties would have come together and we would have no Second Amendment today.
Thank God.
You said you thank God it didn't happen.
It is wild.
I mean, we said that they needed someone to die that day.
So I say they deliberately killed Ashley Babbitt, arguably, but not arguably, killed Roseanne Boylan.
Tried to pass off Brian Sickman, his death as a murder by Trump supporters.
And I get the theoretical question is this: like, what would you be looking for?
What would we want to find right now above and beyond the deleted text messages?
It's an amazing thing where you talk about the boxes of evidence that they got through their January 6th unselect committee, and we were all making hay over the fact that they're destroying it like they're destroying the scene of a crime.
And when you understand now that there were, you know, if there are internal messages that show that it was understood this was going to happen, and there might have been even more political internal reasons why they allowed it to happen, they destroyed that.
In their committee hearings.
And so I don't know if you can reconstitute that, if there's even the possibility, but of these boxes that they did find that they thought they had destroyed, we still haven't even gotten through all of that through Louder Milk's subcommittee.
No, and we've volunteered to bring in a team to assist in that.
In fact, I will tell you that even a division of the Heritage Foundation, specifically through me, delivered a message to Louder Milk's previous committee that they would volunteer and ask.
Actually, that they would take all 100 boxes and that they themselves would digitize it.
Now, the Heritage, if anybody knows anything about it, it's a very large, very wealthy political think tank, and they have the resources to do something like that, and that they were going to digitize all that for the committee, but that was also turned down.
They don't want anybody else getting to any potentially damning information that they might have to mitigate before it hits the public.
Yep.
So, I mean, that's the gist of the article.
I don't think we missed it.
Without reading through it word by word, everyone should go check it out.
Let me give you a quick editorialized comment here.
And that is this.
And this is very important to understand.
Again, people are hung up over the five years it was missing.
It was found five months ago and nobody went public with it.
Finally, the whistleblower, he had had enough.
I'm just telling you, from a personal standpoint, he was a very, and by the way, we're not talking about, he was not a private.
He was a very high ranking individual at the Capitol Police on January 6th.
He was what they call a white shirt.
This guy's in command.
All right.
And he had great personal disgust with leadership, not only because of what they allowed to happen, but because people died that day, because others died afterwards by suicide that were friends of his under his command.
Multiple.
Individuals under his command lost their jobs, were fired, lost their security clearances, were forced into NDAs that they did not want to sign.
All manner of things and punishments were put upon people.
And of course, a ton of them just couldn't take it and left the department.
So he's losing 20 plus years of relationships that he had developed as a Capitol Police officer.
And again, one of the good cops.
And so this was what motivated him to do this.
And he couldn't handle it anymore, which is the reason why he called me and said, okay.
I got a story for you.
And then we went into, you know, Hyperdrive and started validating and checking and making the calls necessary, getting verifications.
Yep, it does exist, even down to the point of me speaking to the very guy who discovered the document himself.
Let me bring this up.
I know I've mentioned it to you, I've asked it before.
Mighty Pay in our locals community says suicide or murder.
You know, when enough people allegedly take their own lives, I mean, people start to question whether or not it's suicide or people being taken out.
But the less conspiratorial question I ask is operating on the basis that it is, in fact, Capitol police officers and Metro officers taking their lives afterwards, the argument could be made that whether or not it was the result of the treatment that many of them got in the wake of sanctions, dismissals, people who were complaining felt like they'd been abandoned by their own teams.
Have you done any deeper dive into the circumstances of, I think it's seven.
Capitol police officers and Metro who took their own lives up in the month of May.
It's only a couple of Capitol police and like three Metro.
There's been rumors of a couple of others that might have been associated, but this was, you know, substantially longer than just within the first few weeks or months after January 6th.
But there were also deaths that happened by suicide, but by people that were charged with, you know, people that did nothing more than, as I like to refer to it, glorified trespassing of the Capitol that day that were not involved in any violence, did not break down any doors, bash in any windows.
Didn't turn over any statues inside.
They didn't ship on the walls, which is a lie that nobody ever smeared human feces on the walls in the Capitol.
That's a complete and total lie.
But people that never did any of that committed suicide because of what the DOJ was doing to them and what they were being charged with, particularly those felony conspiracy charges and obstruction charges that could have resulted in anywhere from five to 20 years in prison for somebody who literally went in, took a few selfies, and got out of there.
Yeah, no, that is the next level of the atrocity, and they will never talk about it.
And if they do, they're going to rejoice in the fact that they killed people through the process, not even necessarily with the punishment.
Those guys never got their pardons.
All right, well, this is what I dare I ask what you have next.
And actually, just to highlight something so the whistleblower, they discovered this internally five months ago.
And do I draw negative inferences from the subcommittees dragging their feet on this, or is it administrative delays that are just to be expected by nature of the bureaucracy?
A lot of people do not want me to give the subcommittee any grace at all in this.
I'm going to continue to do so only because I've developed what I thought was a very good relationship with Congressman Loudermilk over the last three and a half, four years.
Where the biggest hang up is, and this is what I told them on the very day that they asked me, give us two more weeks, give us two more weeks to get those transcribed interviews.
I said, bullshit, it's not going to happen because they're.
Obstacle goes up much higher up the food chain.
The Capitol Police, as you and I have talked about before, they have outsized power for who they are.
Everybody wants to ridicule them as mall cops.
And okay, that's fine.
Glorified tour guides, whatever you want to say about the frontline officers, that's fine.
But up at the top, these people know where all the bodies are buried.
They know where the skeletons are in the closets of the Congress members.
And they are the Praetorian Guard and they report back to the deep state, they report back to CIA, FBI, et cetera, et cetera.
And because of their outsized power, they can control.
They are kingmakers.
They can control who the Speaker of the House is or isn't.
And with a thin majority that Speaker Johnson has right now, the biggest obstructionist in the House against getting to the bottom of January 6th for the last two years plus has been Speaker Johnson, Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and because they are answering to the powers that be at the Capitol Police.
Now, Whether or not Loudermilk has caved to that pressure or not, I don't want to believe it because I never ever saw it before.
But in the last three weeks, Joe and I have been cut off.
And the reason given that we were cut off was because of this civil lawsuit against us.
Now, there is no house rule preventing them from continuing their relationship with us because we got a civil lawsuit.
If they cut off their relationship with every news and media organization that had a lawsuit against them, everybody is single.
Well, not just that, then everybody gets sued as a matter of strategy so that they can no longer collaborate or cooperate.
Operate or work with.
It's great.
Sue your enemies and then they can't work with their friends or your other enemies.
Yeah.
Cut Off by Civil Lawsuit00:03:25
It's bullshit.
Total bullshit.
Let me see if, how much time do you have left?
I'll tell you what, I've got plenty of time, but because of the meds that I'm on, you need to do a break.
Do it.
I'll plug myself.
I'll bring you back in in two minutes.
Speaking of plugging myself, people, if you're watching on Rumble, be a deer and make sure that you go hit subscribe.
We're still just a few away from 500,000, but over on Rumble, Let me show it here.
We got two tipped questions, Rumble Rants, and I'm going to get to the other ones, but those were specific for Steve.
We got Loose the Dog.
Who?
Which groups did she sign permits for?
We got to that one already.
And King of Biltong says, turn up the flavor with Peri Peri Biltong, mild heat, big flavor at 50% protein to keep you going.
Try the full Peri Peri range at BiltongUSA.com.
Code VIVA for 10% off.
And if you're, let me see, oh, I didn't do it yet.
Hit the thumbs up button, people.
Let's see.
Are we at.
If you're watching, go hit subscribe.
If you haven't already subscribed, turn on notifications and let's get to 500,000 on Rumble.
If you want to support the channel, I'll show you how you do it.
Are we watching the same thing here?
We are.
You go here.
You see now?
You watch me flailing my hands around.
You go to tip, download Rumble Wallet if you're so inclined.
If you want to invest in Bitcoin at your own risks and perils, do so.
It's an amazing app, it's an amazing platform, it's an amazing way to protect your assets and make sure that they are always mobile.
Regardless of government, unseizable because they're not under the control of the government.
And if you want to tip with crypto, you can go here, click on the Bitcoin, scan the QR code.
You can do it.
Have we got the infinite cascading windows?
And if you want to tip with XAUT, which is gold backed crypto, thanks to the partnership with Tether, you can do it right there.
Tomorrow, people, tomorrow on Lord Buckley, I shall give everyone the channel because we're going to be doing Deer Hunter, reviewing Deer Hunter, the all time classic, tomorrow.
On Lord Buckley.
Where is Lord Buckley?
I'm going to give everybody the website.
Last week we had a great episode where we did Citizen Kane, which was not quite as boring as I remembered it, but still pretty boring.
Hilarious thing.
My kid asks, you know, was the world black and white back then?
I say, well, they, you know, the movies were black and white.
It's like, no, was the world black and white?
And it's a funny question to ask.
That is Lord Buckley with my lisp, loud and present.
Go check it out.
And we've got a bunch of classics up there for everyone to look at.
Now, we're going to go raid in a second.
Before we do that, make sure that you come on over to Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
We're going to have the locals after party.
Here's the link to locals.
I see Steve is back in the backdrop.
I'm going to bring him back in right now by doing add to stage.
And there we go.
Steve, we got a couple of tip questions over on Rumble, on Viva Barnes.
And then we're going to talk about Massey when we go to the Rumble Premium.
Because, holy shit, that's one hell of a story.
I saw you.
Getting the, you know, you got everyone's got their, what's it called?
Their beat.
But I saw you dabbling a little bit into the, into the massy stuff.
Mr. Mike, Mr. Mike says, Viva, I find it odd that with six weeks of employment, Cynthia West is already speaking to House ethics, maybe after six months, but six weeks.
She's still in a probationary period.
We'll get there in a second, Mr. Mike.
Evoke the Insurrection Act00:02:43
It doesn't make any sense, but it makes a little sense.
We'll see what Steve has to think about it.
I find it odd that within six weeks.
Okay, we got that one.
And then Viva says, F. Chartron, is this timeline true?
I've never seen this before.
Steve, you'll tell me this.
Chief Sons requests for National Guard support January 3rd.
Pelosi says, don't like the optics.
Oh, Steve, you can see this, right?
Let me see if I can.
So tell me if this looks familiar.
I wouldn't be able to field this.
So he says January 3rd, he asked twice, and then he asked throughout January 6th.
And it's denied all up until 208.
Let me see if I can move our faces out of here.
Does this timeline look reasonable to you, Steve?
It is a reasonable timeline, even though it's maybe not precise.
The most important thing to know is that.
First of all, yes, the president did authorize troops ahead of time.
The second most important thing to note is that Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, said there would be no fucking way he would allow the president to be in charge of the National Guard at the Capitol.
I always said, had he done it by force, like say, forget your rejection, I'm going to do it, I'm going to bring it in myself.
Well, then they would say that is the military coup to take over D.C.
They almost wanted him to do it despite their opposition so they could claim military coup.
Do you put any weight into that theory?
Well, there was the concern that the president was going to evoke the Insurrection Act on January 6th and stop the certification, basically taking over the government himself.
So there was that concern.
And because of the generals that were, you know, look, these were his generals.
It was his, you know.
But nevertheless, the hierarchy in command would have stopped the president from doing that.
And the president didn't do it anyway and made no attempts to do so.
In fact, it was one of the things that Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, had done.
He had written two open letters to the president prior to January 6th, imploring the president and giving him the legal reasons why he could and should evoke the Insurrection Act because of the stolen election.
And that if he would do that, Stuart Rhodes would activate his 35,000 to 40,000 oath keepers.
They would come defend the White House.
It's funny because, look, I'm.
That's when I thought Rhodes might have been an agent or an agent provocateur when he was saying, when he was trying to get Trump to invoke the martial law, whatever, or the insurrection acts.
Oath Keepers Defend White House00:03:06
And I was saying, at the time, it's a bad idea.
It'll backfire.
And the theory is you always have to say anybody who promotes that is obviously some sort of saboteur.
I remember thinking it was a bad strategy and that pushing it would have been totally counterproductive.
But I also was a victim of thinking that the oath keepers and Stuart Rhodes and Enrique Tario.
And the Proud Boys were public enemy number one, which you live and you learn.
Okay, what we're going to do right now go to update.
It's going to go to Rumble Premium.
You're going to raid redact it.
If you don't want to go, people, you could stay here if you're in Rumble Premium, or you can come over to Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
But Steve, you've got to start.
I'm pushing everybody to your website as much as possible.
How can people support the work that you're doing?
Because you're on your own business right now.
We're on our own now.
Joe and I are on our own, and we're not alone.
We do have people that are assisting us in these investigations.
We are.
There's not enough hours in the day for Joe and I to do this on our own.
And so we do need funding, and people were very generous in the first week or two when we launched six weeks ago.
It's tapered off.
We need another good tranche of funds coming in very quickly, and they can go to our website.
I'm sure you have it up there, and you'll have it up there.
Well, I do, but you can't go to it now because it seems that it's under attack.
But it's Veritas, it's Veritas Regnat.
So Veritas, like Project Veritas, R E G N A T dot com.
Is it as simple as forward slash donate, or is there a specific link in there that's?
Well, then you'll find the link that takes you to our GiveSendGo page.
You can just go there, GiveSendGo forward slash VeritasRegNot.
Now, that's probably up.
They're probably not under attack right now.
So if you could put that up, that would be great for everybody to do that.
And look, the $5, $25 donations are fantastic and just as appreciated as the big ones.
But we do need a couple of large ones coming up because we've got projects coming up.
And look, it's not inexpensive to do what we do.
Either.
I mean, not only did Joe and I have to pay our bills, and now we're covering our own insurance.
I just had heart failure four months ago.
So I've had to take on a little extra there in terms of that expense.
It's no longer being covered by the blaze.
And so, but then we have to travel.
I have to travel.
I do most of the legwork, I do most of the groundwork.
And so I can't wait to tell you what our next big thing is.
And I'm headed to DC probably tomorrow to accomplish that.
Very nice one.
I'll ask you offline afterwards.
So, everybody, you got the links right there.
I'm going to put them in the pinned comment when this process is right now.
I'm going to go hit raid and you're going to go to redact it.
If you don't like it, there's other people live or come on over to Viva Barnes or just the Rumble Premium side.
Let me just go and say here Viva Raid Booyah.
And now we're going to update and we're going to talk about Thomas Massey because I know you've got stuff to say and I'm going to pick your brain for some insights that I might not know myself.