NEWS: Sparks Fly At First Republican-Controlled Jan. 6 Committee Hearing

[0:00] The hearing will now come to order. Welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Select [0:04] Subcommittee to investigate the remaining questions surrounding the January 6, 2021 [0:10] events titled Examining the Investigation into the DNC and RNC Pipe Bombs. Thank you Ranked [0:15] Member Raskin and members of the Select Committee and witnesses for joining us here today. I note [0:20] that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. [0:26] I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement. I've been investigating the [0:31] remaining questions surrounding January 6 for three years. When this particular subcommittee [0:35] was formed in September of last year, I directed my team that oversight of the FBI's investigation [0:39] to the DNC and RNC Pipe Bombs would be a top priority. In many ways, the bizarre constellation [0:46] of facts surrounding the discovery of the Pipe Bomb is emblematic of the many unresolved questions [0:51] about January 6 that remain today. What information did federal law enforcement have? When did they [0:56] have it and what did they do with it? How did the Joe Biden and Merrick Garland's Department of Justice [1:01] prioritize the apprehension and prosecution of Americans trespassing on restricted capital [1:05] grounds relative to the apprehension of the Pipe Bomber? How is it that the Biden-ray FBI was able [1:11] to flawlessly execute a cellular dragnet to capture the information and eventually apprehend those [1:16] trespassing at the Capitol, but failed to exercise the same investigative technique into the Pipe Bomber? [1:22] How is it that the Democrat-controlled Select Committee to investigate January 6 managed to write a [1:26] final report in which they cover more than 700 pages and eight chapters without ever mentioning [1:31] the Pipe Bombs until an appendix in the back of the report? Was information related to the Pipe Bombs [1:37] part of the more than one terabyte of information that the Select Committee failed to retain and in [1:41] some cases deleted from computers just days before the Republicans took over the majority in 2023? [1:47] These questions and many more remain unanswered. The significance of the Pipe Bombs [1:52] had to and how the events of January 6 unfolded cannot be overstated. The evidence suggests that [1:58] the Pipe Bombs discovery diverted significant law enforcement attention and resources away from the [2:03] Capitol the exact time they were needed most. It's hard to comprehend why both the array FBI and the [2:09] Select Committee, despite their shared zeal for bringing to justice those who trespassed at the Capitol, [2:13] have shown little effort or interest regarding the Pipe Bombs. As a quick refresher, [2:18] at 17.49 p.m. on January 5, 2021, a suspect placed a Pipe Bomb next to a bench beside the [2:25] Democrat National Committee headquarters building, then placed a second device in an alley near the RNC. [2:31] Fortunately, neither Pipe Bomb detonated. After laying in plain sight for nearly 17 hours, [2:36] both devices were independently discovered on January 6 within a few minutes of the vote to certify [2:41] the election results. On January 6 at 1.05 p.m., Capitol Police responded to a Pipe Bomb reported at the [2:47] RNC and at the same time that protesters began surging outside the Capitol and the legislators [2:54] prepared to certify the vote. The Capitol Police Chief had to split his team, sending significant [2:59] resources to handle two Pipe Bomb incidents. In addition to diverting resources away from the [3:05] Capitol, the security perimeter set up around the DNC due to the discovery of the Pipe Bomb prevented [3:09] Capitol Police from receiving the delivery of an additional 400 bike racks that have been requested [3:14] to serve as protective barriers. The urgent need for 400 bike racks arose after nearly 500 racks were [3:20] unexpectedly removed from the Capitol on the evening of January 5. The removal of these bikes were, [3:26] according to Valerie Hasberry, who was the Chief Security Officer for the Architect of the Capitol, [3:34] she said this was absolutely illogical. The discovery of the Pipe Bombs on January 6 further [3:40] disrupted efforts to establish those boundaries and strained security resources. The placement and [3:46] timing of the Pipe Bombs discovery proved critical in blurring the lines between public space and [3:53] restricted Capitol grounds and therefore made it easier for protesters to enter the Capitol building on [3:58] January 6. The Biden-Garland Department of Justice boasted that the Wray FBI pursued their investigations of [4:04] Americans following the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 with, quote, unprecedented speed and [4:12] scale, end quote. We now know that for 47 out of Joe Biden's 48 months in office, the Wray FBI held in its [4:19] possession the critical evidence identifying Brian Cole Jr. as the Pipe Bomber but failed to make any [4:24] progress on the case. In contrast, in October of 2025, the Patel FBI put together a designated red team [4:31] consisting of law enforcement officers from outside the FBI. Within six weeks of its creation, the red team [4:36] identified Brian Cole Jr. as a suspect using material evidence and material and evidence the FBI had in [4:43] its possession since February of 2021. On December 4, 2025, four years, 11 months and two days after the event, [4:51] the Patel FBI arrested Cole for allegedly planting the Pipe Bombs. FBI operational updates and internal [4:57] after-action report paint a dismal picture of the Wray FBI investigation of the bombs. While there is [5:03] evidence showing that some resources were dedicated to the investigation, there is also evidence that [5:07] critical components of the investigation were slow-walked and then resources were cut just two [5:12] months in. For example, Cass, the cell analysis team reported, quote, difficulties in getting the [5:18] Washington field office to accept help, deployment delayed, end quote. Then on February 26, 2020, [5:24] the FBI noted that the Washington field office's pipe bomb investigation team was, quote, expected to [5:29] decrease in the coming weeks, end quote. At the same time, FBI was diverting resources from the case. Given the [5:36] significant evidence against Cole in multiple categories, it is difficult to understand how he was not [5:41] identified as a suspect in the spring of 2021. Why did it take a team of non-FBI personnel who reexamined the evidence to [5:47] develop Cole as a suspect? Was this merely incompetence? If so, what can be done to better equip our FBI? [5:55] The Wray FBI's failure to act on the evidence in their possession demands thorough examination. [6:00] Additionally, there are still critical details regarding this case that must be understood. First, [6:05] what was the pipe bomb suspect doing on the phone during the course of planting the devices? Does this [6:11] activity implicate any other suspects? Second, on January of 2025, my team issued a report that discussed [6:18] the FBI's investigation into a computer search conducted after the pipe bombs were planted, but before [6:24] they were discovered, a search that read pipe bombs DC. Was this Cole? If so, this is another key piece [6:31] of evidence tied to Cole that was overlooked. If not, is the person who conducted that search tied to Cole? [6:38] Additionally, the FBI operational updates note two eyewitnesses who described the gray hoodie suspect as [6:43] a white male. Did this influence the FBI's investigation? Today, we hope our witnesses will shed light on the FBI [6:50] investigative protocol to help us begin unravel what went so wrong with the FBI's management of this [6:57] case. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement. [7:02] Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our witnesses for joining us. I'd like to begin by [7:12] offering appreciation to the men and women of the FBI who apprehended the January 6th pipe bomb suspect. [7:18] This has been a rare bright spot for federal law enforcement over the last year. I also want to [7:23] thank the Capitol officers who defended us with such valor and such courage on January 6th, who defended the [7:31] members of the House and the Senate, our staffs, and everyone else who was caught up in the siege [7:39] against the Capitol in the attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election. Those officers continue [7:45] to defend us and continue to endure the abuse of the January 6th insurrectionists. Check out this [7:51] video from what just happened last week on January 6th. [7:55] Yeah, I know you don't. Like an animal. Like a diseased animal. Like a jackass? [7:59] You diseased animal. How dare you do that to a defenseless woman? You're a fucking loser. You've [8:03] peed women. You've peed women in the face with a baton 30 times. And now you've got to protect us, [8:09] Officer Bagshot. Look at that. Pardoned by Donald Trump. They made you look like a jackass, didn't you? [8:15] So the abuse of our officers continues just as the plaque which was passed overwhelmingly by Congress [8:33] to be installed in the Capitol complex has still not been put up by Speaker Johnson. Now, of course, [8:42] the prosecution of Brian Cole, the pipe bomb suspect, remains ongoing. The full facts of the case have [8:48] not yet emerged. And under our criminal justice system, of course, he's presumed innocent until [8:54] proven guilty. And so this hearing is at best premature. I hope certainly it does nothing to [9:01] recklessly endanger the prosecution of Mr. Cole. But here's what we do know. We know that Brian Cole [9:07] voted for Donald Trump twice. We know that in his own words, he was inspired and incited by Donald [9:14] Trump's big lie, the pathetic lie that the 2020 election had been stolen, a lie that has been [9:23] debunked and repudiated by more than 60 different federal and state court decisions across the land, [9:29] and every court that's looked at it and, of course, was rejected by the Congress of the United States as [9:35] well. Mr. Cole told investigators he was in D.C. because he was going to protest in support of [9:40] Donald Trump. He told the FBI that he believed the narrative that Trump had spread and if the [9:45] election was indeed tampered with, quote, someone needs to speak up, right? Well, like the thousands [9:51] of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, Mr. Cole did something more than just [9:56] speak up. He said what the FBI concluded were viable explosive devices on Capitol Hill, [10:02] mere feet away from where thousands of people live and work and drop their kids off at daycare. [10:07] It is only due to the heroic actions of the Capitol Police and a watchful bystander that these devices [10:13] were discovered and disarmed. Make no mistake, Mr. Cole's political goals appear to have been no [10:18] different than those of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and hundreds of cop beaters and rioters who [10:24] stormed the Capitol. To foment violence on that day, to terrorize the police, but most of all, [10:31] to stop the steal and overturn the election that was certified in the United States of America [10:37] with Joe Biden defeating Donald Trump by more than seven million votes, 306 to 232 in the electoral [10:45] college. There are only two real differences between the pipe bomber and the rioters. First, unlike [10:51] so many of the rioters, Mr. Cole was thankfully unsuccessful in his efforts to injure law enforcement [10:58] and innocent people on that day. Second, unlike the other rioters, he's not yet been determined, [11:04] it's not yet been determined whether Mr. Cole actually got a pardon from Donald Trump. Trump [11:10] granted a quote, a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all individuals convicted of offenses [11:16] related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Mr. Cole's [11:22] convicted, would he be covered by this unprecedented corrupt pardon offered by Donald Trump who incited [11:30] the insurrection against the union? Well, Mr. Cole's lawyer definitely seems to think so. President [11:35] Trump and his DOJ have already attempted to legitimize violence against the police on that day. Is it their [11:42] position that the pardon extends to Mr. Cole as someone who was involved in the events that occurred near [11:50] the Capitol? Or is there a position that it's okay to beat police officers with Confederate battle flags, [11:56] Donald Trump flags, American flags, tase them, haze them, vilify them, demonize them, taunt them, trample [12:05] them, kick them, and punch them, but they draw the line at planting an explosive device? I'd be very interested [12:11] to know the answer to that. It's been obvious for quite some time the pipe bomber was motivated by the same lies and [12:18] violent rhetoric is everybody else who followed Donald Trump's orders on that day. And to avoid that reality, [12:25] Republicans have deployed conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about the pipe bomber. Donald Trump falsely claimed the FBI [12:32] knew who it was all along. Dan Bongino, the former podcaster turned former FBI deputy director who recently [12:41] quit for mysterious reasons, told us that this was a setup. He said it was an inside job. Just a few months ago, the blaze road [12:48] a ludicrous article pinning the pipe bombs on an innocent Capitol police officer on the basis of how she [12:56] walked, which unsurprisingly was quickly exposed for the pure concoction it was. But that did not stop [13:04] multiple Republican members of Congress, including I'm afraid to say you, Mr. Chairman, at least I'm told, [13:10] although I haven't seen what you said directly. But certainly multiple members of Congress promoted the [13:16] article and its authors in the false and dangerous idea that it was a former Capitol police officer who [13:23] planted those bombs, an idea that continues to fester in the deepest and darkest corners of the extremist [13:32] internet. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Capitol police officer deserves an apology from any member of [13:40] Congress who participated in that particular lie and conspiracy theory. These conspiracy theories have [13:49] finally been debunked, but they've not been put to rest. We're here as part of the select subcommittee [13:55] to investigate the remaining questions surrounding January 6 2021. Since the identity and motivation of [14:01] the pipe bomber had been long one of the last question marks remaining, I would I'm interested to know [14:08] what are the remaining questions? Because we've got a bunch of answers, but I certainly have some questions [14:16] remaining. One question I've got is why is it that those who pushed the big lie and tried to steal the election [14:28] and participated in the riots at the Capitol from Ed Martin to Heather Honey to Jared Wise, Jeffrey Clark, why are they now [14:36] holding positions of power and influence in this administration? We should also be holding a hearing [14:43] on how Donald Trump pardoned the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and other felons for violently assaulting [14:49] hundreds of police officers against the wishes of more than 80 percent of the American people who reject [14:55] those pardons. And what have been the public safety implications of those pardons? How about a hearing [15:01] on the 33 pardoned rioters who have since gone on to commit other felony crimes, [15:09] including possession of child pornography, rape, conspiracy to commit murder of FBI agents, [15:17] kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated robbery, reckless homicide, and so many more? How about a hearing on [15:25] that? How about a hearing on why the speaker refuses to put up a plaque that by law was supposed to have [15:31] been posted in 2023 in honor of the police officers who defended us? How about a hearing on why, unlike [15:40] Ashley Babbitt's family, which got a handsome $5 million payout even after two government investigations [15:48] determined that the police had acted reasonably and appropriately in her case? How about a hearing on why [15:56] the 140 officers who were injured on that day, and the five officers who died in the days that followed, [16:04] including Officer Brian Sicknick and his family? Why have they received nothing? Not one penny, not one [16:11] dollar. And Ashley Babbitt's family got $5 million, even though there was no finding of any culpability on [16:19] the part of the government. How about a hearing on that? How about a hearing on whether we've done justice [16:24] to the police officers who defended us on that day? How about a hearing on that, Mr. Chairman? Well, [16:34] nothing that nothing that can be said around the edges of this nightmare are ever going to take away [16:41] or erase the indelible truth of what happened. The president not being able to handle his loss by more [16:48] than 7 million votes in the presidential election, used every means at his disposal to try to overturn the [16:54] election, to concoct fraudulent electoral slates, to try to get the Department of Justice to just say [17:01] the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and my Republican friends in Congress, to trying to [17:07] force the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, to assert powers he didn't have to reject [17:13] electoral college votes and then to unleash a mob of thousands of people to attack Congress. That's the [17:19] reality. Nobody's laid a glove on a single sentence in the report of the January 6th Select Committee, [17:26] not one. And I defy anyone to challenge that statement. I would love to see someone show how [17:32] anything we have found has been contradicted. Nothing, not presidential firings and demotions of [17:39] devoted civil servants like all the DOJ lawyers and FBI agents who've been sacked and demoted, [17:45] not the presidential pardons, not all the tweets about how this was a day of love. Nothing will [17:51] ever whitewash the indelible facts of that day. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and I [17:58] yield back to you. The gentleman yields without objection. All other members opening statements [18:05] will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the committee clerk by 5 p.m. today. [18:10] I'd now like to introduce today's witnesses that are here to testify [18:14] on the FBI's investigation to the pipe bomb. Mr. Chris Piota is a former FBI senior executive [18:23] official serving over 25 years in the bureau in various senior positions, including as an executive [18:29] assistant director and a special agent in charge. Accordingly, he is well equipped to provide insight [18:34] into the FBI's protocol for handling cases like the investigation into the pipe bombs. Mr. Piota currently [18:41] delivers strategic guidance and advice regarding national security matters, cyber operations, [18:46] security practices, risk mitigation, and more. Mr. Thomas Speciali is a former senior advisor to the [18:58] director of national intelligence at the United States National Counterintelligence and Security Center. [19:03] Mr. Speciali has also served as senior collection strategist on domestic terrorism at the office of the [19:11] director of national intelligence. He is a career intelligence officer having served across the U.S. [19:16] intelligence community in and out of uniform for over 20 years and has a great understanding of how [19:21] intelligence is used from an operational standpoint and can help provide insight into the intelligence [19:27] failures which occurred on the 6th. Mr. John Nance is a former FBI special agent. In total, Mr. Nance has [19:35] served in the law enforcement community for 26 years. He was assigned to the Miami field office and subsequently to the [19:41] Washington field office where he finished as a supervisory special agent. Prior to his FBI career, [19:48] Mr. Nance was a deputy sheriff. Mr. Nance's combined law enforcement experiences make him well suited to [19:55] provide insight into the FBI's pot bomb investigation. Mr. Mike Romano is currently a counsel at Lichen and Lys [20:03] Riordan. Prior to his position, Romano previously served as a prosecutor at the Department of Justice for over 17 [20:11] years. We'll now begin by swearing in the witnesses. Would you please stand and raise your right hand? [20:16] Do you swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct [20:25] and to the best of your knowledge, information, and beliefs? So help you God. Let the record reflect [20:31] that the witnesses have answered. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that witnesses have answered in [20:37] the affirmative. We thank you all for being here. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into [20:44] the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you do summarize and complete your summary of your [20:50] testimony in five minutes. Please remember to turn on your microphones using the button in front of you [20:56] so that members can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light on the timer in front of you will turn [21:01] green. After four minutes, it will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes has expired, [21:07] and we ask that you please wrap up at that moment. Mr. Piotta, we'll start with you and you may begin. [21:13] Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Loudermilk, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the subcommittee. [21:21] Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its handling [21:26] of the Capitol Hill pipe bomb investigation. It's an honor to visit with the committee today. [21:30] As said, my name is Chris Piotta. I'm a retired FBI agent with nearly 25 years of experience. At the [21:36] time of my retirement, I served as an executive assistant director, one of the FBI's most senior [21:41] executive roles. Prior to this role, I served as an assistant director and before that as a special [21:47] agent in charge. During my FBI career, I was taught about and personally developed familiarity with [21:54] investigative, operational, administrative, and leadership requirements that can and should be [22:00] met during properly executed and managed FBI operations. We are here today to discuss the possible [22:08] circumstances surrounding a case that cuts to the heart of public trust in federal law enforcement, [22:14] specifically the FBI, specifically the placement of two viable pipe bombs outside the Democratic and [22:21] Republican National Committee headquarters circa January 5th, 2021. The December 4th, 2025 arrest of [22:29] Brian J. Cole Jr. was a noteworthy investigative achievement for the FBI and its law enforcement [22:35] partners. Unfortunately, this arrest alone is not the central issue before this committee. A primary [22:42] issue for discussion today is how this case remained unsolved for nearly five years despite indications that [22:49] the FBI had decisive information in its possession. There are three primary areas of consideration when [22:57] looking at the past and present FBI challenges, culture, leadership, and operational practices. We must assess the [23:07] following factors to determine the FBI's general fitness and performance in how it conducted the [23:13] Capitol Hill pipe bomb case. Culture. How did the FBI demand the fabled fidelity, bravery, and integrity in [23:22] all of its related operations? In the high-stakes environment present, it was plausible that investigators [23:28] inadvertently eliminated or disregarded possible leads due to a lack of time and resources or flawed [23:36] prioritization, a fidelity shortfall. They became overly conservative in their approaches for fear of [23:43] mistakes, a bravery shortfall, or pursued too many leads in a surface-level fashion to show urgency and [23:52] expected progress, an integrity shortfall. In the end, culture determined how the organization behaved and [24:00] performed when times were good or bad. Leadership environment. Leadership remains the lifeblood of any FBI [24:08] investigation, the kind of fearless, principled leadership that demands excellence and makes no [24:14] concessions when the safety and security of the American people are at stake. How did the FBI leadership [24:22] set expectations and maintain standards, preferred practices, and behaviors during this case? What drove [24:30] FBI leadership to set priorities, allocate resources, and motivate people in this matter? One thing I learned over the [24:38] course of my career was ultimately we lead or we fail. Operational practices, information volume can crush an [24:49] investigative team if not adequately resourced and prioritized. How did the FBI manage investigative [24:56] workloads that could have resulted in terabytes of specialized data and information and required a small [25:03] outstanding army to process investigative findings in a timely, usable manner regarding other operational impacts? The [25:13] presence of additional factors such as case ownership churn, the reassignment of case agents, insufficient [25:21] investigative skill or experience, investigative or analytic stovepipes, and overwhelmed administrative [25:29] systems could have converged to cause unforeseen and unrecognized investigative gaps. If the pipe bomb investigation [25:36] was not actively led and managed, it is no surprise that the investigation eventually stalled. In closing, this [25:45] discussion brings us to an important takeaway. The coal arrest itself appears to revalidate and remind us of the [25:54] power, effectiveness, and necessity of a skilled, objective, apolitical, well-led FBI. However, the coal arrest [26:06] was not born of a new strategy. It was the result of a salvage operation. Salvage operations and cold case [26:15] approaches will not protect America and its people. The coal arrest indicates that we still have work to do in [26:21] rebuilding an FBI that can effectively meet and defeat 21st century threats and challenges while [26:27] concurrently protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution. I look forward to your [26:33] questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Piotta. Mr. Spastiali, you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the [26:41] committee. Thank you for this invitation to speak to you and the American people. I do not sit here today to [26:51] speak for anybody other than myself and my family, but this is not about me. It's about every American. [27:00] While I have served in the military since 1987 and in the intelligence community since 2009, [27:06] I've had a unique vantage point in this country on the issue before us. In the months leading up to [27:13] January 6th, I served as the senior intelligence collection strategist for domestic terrorism at the [27:18] National Counterterrorism Center. As an intelligence collector and an analyst, I am trained to pursue [27:24] hard facts rather than political ideology or what is convenient. Everything I present here today is [27:31] available on my website, along with a more detailed statement regarding these issues. In late October 2020, [27:39] I warned the FBI Domestic Terrorism Task Force leadership that we should be thinking about potential [27:44] black swan events due to the fragility that I saw in our country, the distrust of the government, [27:51] political polarization, and an extremely volatile social environment. But my warnings were ignored, [27:59] and I was labeled a domestic extremist by my FBI Joint Duty Assignment Supervisor because I was a [28:05] supporter of President Trump. At NCTC, I was fighting back against the FBI's desire to get a federal [28:13] domestic terrorism criminal statute for deterrence purposes and to treat constitutionally protected [28:25] activities as a factor, not a constraint. That's KGB and Gestapo-like thinking. At NCTC, I authored two [28:35] highly classified documents, a collection emphasis message and a collection posture statement on domestic [28:42] extremism, which I am happy to discuss. These, if declassified by Director Gabbard, would greatly [28:49] illuminate January 6th thinking on the part of the FBI and others leading up to January 6th. [28:55] On January 5th, in my private capacity, I stopped potential violence on the Capitol and warned rally [29:01] attendees not to fall for a trap set by instigators and agitators to fight the police. On January 6th, [29:08] I warned attendees that I was afraid that there would be blood in the streets, and Ashley Babbitt and Roseanne [29:15] Boylan were both dead within hours of my warnings. When I returned to NCTC, I was terminated because my [29:23] FBI supervisor believed I was a domestic extremist simply for attending the rally on January 6th. [29:30] In July 2021, I published a white paper where I identified the actual causes of January 6th, [29:36] a distrust of the government, false narratives of gun violence, and a lack of government transparency, [29:42] leading to conspiracy theories, many of which have now been proven to be true. I have provided copies [29:47] for the congressional record three times. This is the third time. For two and a half years, the FBI, [29:53] Army Counterintelligence, and Army CID investigated me for extremist activity without any criminal predicate. [30:01] I have never even been questioned, much less charged. All across the country, many citizens faced raids and [30:08] arrests for protected activities for deterrence purposes. I have FOIAed the DOJ and the FBI for the [30:17] 89 documents in my eGuardian file, but they have ignored my FOIAs. The purpose of this hearing regarding [30:25] the pipe bomb and my core assessment regarding the FBI's failures regarding January 6th is because the FBI [30:33] was singularly focused after January 6th to prevent Donald J. Trump from becoming the president again and to [30:40] cripple, intimidate, and silence his allies and supporters. They never truly pursued the pipe bomber [30:48] because they were focusing on covering up lies, criminal misconduct, and election interference, [30:54] and they were hunting Trump supporters. In early 2022, I was a voluntary witness to the January 6th [31:00] investigative committee where I offered them classified documents, a classified briefing, [31:05] which they refused, and I provided multiple documents which they destroyed, including my report. [31:12] Regarding what happened on January 6th, a protective order has been placed on the body cam footage of [31:17] many of the officers on the Capitol that day. This must be lifted. The DOJ has marked these as [31:23] highly restricted. That's not a national security classification. Also, we need to look into the [31:30] FinCEN violations. There are people at the DOJ that I can direct you to that can speak specifically to [31:36] these abuses. I go into great detail about these classification abuses in my report. As a matter of [31:42] fact, it is against government regulation, quote, to classify or otherwise conceal information that is [31:47] a violation of the law or to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency. The FBI has been [31:54] abusing this for decades. The president issued an executive order. Reports have been made to the [32:00] president. Referrals have been made to DOJ. The result of all of this weaponization has been catastrophic [32:07] to the public trust in our government, but specifically the FBI. Without accountability and [32:12] significant reforms, many Americans will lose complete faith in you, in us. We do not want that. [32:18] The gentleman's times would fire if you could wrap up. I appreciate it. [32:20] I've made a number of suggestions regarding reforms to the White House. The hardest moment in my life was [32:27] not in a combat zone. It was in my own home, sitting with my wife and my son. At one point, [32:35] I had to sit down and tell them what to do if the FBI smashed open our door at 4 AM in the morning, [32:40] waving rifles around and pointing at them. A man having to tell your 10-year-old son that his [32:46] friends would do that. I remember him asking me, why would your friends do that? I didn't have an answer. [32:56] I have done my part. We have done our part. We have placed our careers, our lives, and our livelihood on [33:03] the line in service to this country, in service to all Americans. Red, blue, brown, white. We will [33:10] continue to serve the nation in accordance with our oaths. It is not an oath to our donors, or a man, [33:16] or a party. It is an oath to the American people. It is an oath to the Constitution. Thank you for this [33:22] opportunity. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Speciale. Mr. Nance, you may begin. [33:26] Chairman Loudermilk, ranking member Raskin, and members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for [33:35] the invitation to speak with you today. It's an honor to share my perspectives derived from 26 years [33:40] in law enforcement, 20 of those as an FBI agent. The Biden-era FBI and DOJ presided over some of the [33:47] most controversial investigations and prosecutions in modern history. From the January 6th investigations [33:54] to the Mar-a-Lago raid, Merrick Garland's DOJ, in concert with former FBI Director Christopher Wray, [34:00] has successfully tarnished our most respected institutions of justice and national security [34:06] with the odious stigmas of politicization and weaponization. American citizens have been rightly [34:12] outraged at the inexcusable malfeasance of a relatively few senior executives. A bifurcated FBI [34:19] held highly politicized investigations in the compartmentalized precincts of the Hoover Building, [34:25] while the vast investigative experience and far more rigorous oversight of field agents and division [34:31] level management was in large part circumvented, providing insulated political hacks with the [34:36] unchecked latitude to pursue political opponents. For instance, as documented by DOJ Inspector General [34:43] findings, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was predicated on a thin tissue of preposterous fictions [34:50] spun by operatives of the Clinton campaign and given the imprimatur of compromised members of the [34:56] intelligence community. What we witnessed during Biden-era weaponization was appalling. I watched [35:02] the events of January 6th unfold at a Washington field office offsite. I was initially struck by the [35:08] peaceful and civilized conduct demonstrated by the vast majority of protesters, which quickly devolved [35:14] into disgust as radical elements wearing the uniform of Antifa anarchists began a campaign of agitation and [35:21] vandalism, which drew a minority of the more gullible into criminal acts. The Biden administration and [35:27] a complicit mainstream media wasted no time in labeling it as an insurrection, an event to rival September [35:34] 11th for the Confederate insurrection of the Civil War. However, the only casualty of January 6th was an Air [35:41] Force veteran and Trump supporter, Ashley Babbitt. The objective was obvious to stigmatize Republican [35:47] protests and bludgeon President Trump and his supporters with bigoted labels such as white [35:53] supremacist, white nationalist extremist, or racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist or RMVE. [36:02] This political narrative bears directly on the issue of why Chris Ray's FBI failed to identify the [36:07] pipe bomb subject. The answer, in my opinion, isn't a sensational one. Therefore, it has eluded most of the [36:13] podcasting class. It was simply a function of good leadership or the lack thereof. Biden's FBI was [36:20] directed to conduct the most sweeping investigation in the FBI's history, absurdly, of mostly federal [36:28] trespassers. And the political narrative driven by Biden to his Attorney General Merrick Garland [36:34] was myopically focused on the unicorn of violent white extremism. In simple terms, finding the pipe bomb [36:40] subject was not a priority for Ray's FBI. The incentive structure was shifted and FBI resources were [36:46] squandered on chasing political shimmers. The obsession with persecuting Trump supporters left no [36:53] institutional impetus to get to the bottom of the pipe bomber mystery. Elections matter and the Trump [36:59] victory has paid out some unexpected dividends. The appointment and confirmation of FBI Director [37:04] Kash Patel and the appointment of former Deputy Director Dan Bongino has everything to do with [37:09] finally discovering who planted those viable pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC headquarters. In short, [37:17] Deputy Director Bongino recommitted FBI investigative resources and assigned a group of task force [37:23] officers assembled from local and state jurisdictions. Combined with a new type of FBI cast analysis, [37:29] this group of FBI agents and TFOs worked seamlessly to bring about the identification and arrest of Brian [37:35] Cole Jr. The current disposition of this case comes down to a simple matter of priorities, an election of [37:42] great consequence. Critics of Director Patel and the investigation of the pipe bomb subject have based [37:49] their allegations on conjecture, on the conjecture of internet cranks, utilizing hobbyist analysis of cell [37:55] phone tower data, among other things. Conversely, the cast and TFO professionals formulated new and [38:02] specifically tailored algorithms to demystify cell tower data that had been opaque to investigators up [38:08] to that point. In essence, we're being asked to believe that the stalwarts of the conservative movement, [38:14] Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Patel, and former Deputy Director Bongino, [38:19] and the esteemed U.S. Attorney for DC, Janine Pirro, have all colluded to railroad an innocent man. [38:25] The bottom line is this. President Trump's FBI got their man by dint of good leadership. [38:31] This bodes very good things for the American people and their FBI. [38:35] Thank you, Mr. Nance. Mr. Romano, you may begin. [38:42] Good afternoon, Chairman Loudermilk, Ranking Member Raskin, and the members of the subcommittee. [38:47] Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its handling of the [38:53] Capitol Hill pipe bomb case. It's an honor to speak with you all today. My name is Michael Romano. [38:59] I was an attorney at the Department of Justice for almost 18 years, and immediately before my [39:05] resignation, I was a deputy chief of the Capitol siege section here in Washington, D.C. [39:11] It was a great privilege to serve the United States by prosecuting crimes arising out of the [39:17] violent riot that happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. I commend the department's work [39:26] in identifying and arresting Brian Cole for planting pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic [39:32] National Committee headquarters on the evening of January 5, 2021. This was a difficult case to solve, [39:39] given the needle in a haystack nature of the evidence. But solving it was important, both because [39:45] of the harm that the pipe bombs could have caused and because of the suspect's apparent motivation, [39:50] political violence. Of course, the political violence at the Capitol did not end on January 5, [39:57] when the pipe bombs were planted, nor on January 6, when they were discovered. That same day, [40:03] a riot broke out as the president's supporters descended on the Capitol grounds, broke down barriers, [40:10] overwhelmed police, and stormed the building. This, too, was political violence. Rioters openly broke the law. In fact, [40:21] they bragged about it, in some cases filming themselves and sharing their conduct on social media. [40:28] Their willingness to self-identify made them much easier to apprehend than the pipe bomber was. Today, [40:35] I speak as a career prosecutor who oversaw hundreds of prosecutions of Capitol rioters. Every day, [40:42] for four years, I reviewed evidence of crimes committed at the Capitol. My experience helps me better [40:49] understand the political violence that day, the damage it caused to our country, and the way that [40:55] misdemeanor defendants enabled the violence by joining the mob. The evidence showed that the rioters [41:02] understood their conduct in political terms. I saw some of them circulate in advance. A picture of the [41:10] United States Capitol with the following text superimposed over it. Quote, Occupy Congress. If they [41:17] don't hear us, they will fear us. The great betrayal is over. Election fraud is treason. January 6, 2021. End quote. [41:28] Rioters sending that message planned to storm the Capitol in advance. One rioter I prosecuted, Cody [41:36] Mattice, recorded himself as he marched to the Capitol saying, quote, We're going to fuck shit up. [41:44] It's about to be nuts. End quote. He was not peacefully marching to the Capitol. Mattice recorded his [41:53] co-defendant James Malt asking officers to stand down because, quote, We had your guys back when you [42:00] were under attack. End quote. And promising that, quote, Your jobs will be here after we kick the [42:07] shit out of, end quote, members of Congress. He was not instigated by the police. The evidence showed me [42:15] that the mob shared their sentiments. Its purpose was to prevent the certification of the Electoral [42:23] College vote by violence or threats of violence. After rioters smashed their way into the building, [42:30] they demanded of Officer Goodman, quote, Where are they counting the fucking votes? End quote. [42:37] At the main door to the house, I saw rioters overwhelm police, occupy the space outside the door. [42:43] And then I saw rioters, including misdemeanor trespass defendants, urge other members of [42:49] the mob to use the helmet and use the crowbar to break down that door and get inside so they [42:55] could target members of Congress like you. Throughout the day, I witnessed rioters tell [43:01] police officers they had a right to rebel. Some compared their behavior to the Revolutionary War. [43:08] One defendant, Kevin Seyfried, carried the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol. [43:13] Capitol Police officers and others bravely stood in the way and suffered violence for it. And now the [43:20] rioters who attacked them have been pardoned. And on the five year anniversary of that riot, [43:25] the White House hosted propaganda on its official website, falsely claiming that the Capitol Police [43:31] instigated the crowd and escalated tensions, falsely claiming that the Capitol Police invited people [43:37] into the building and falsely claiming that our work represented a political weaponization of the [43:43] Department against patriotic Americans. None of that is true. The pardons are a permission for future [43:50] political violence. And the rioters understand them that way. As you can see in footage of violent [43:57] rioters who came to Washington, D.C. last week on the anniversary of the riot and taunted police officers. It is [44:05] good that the pipe bomber suspect was arrested. It is good he will face justice. But just as planting [44:11] those bombs was an act of political violence, we cannot forget the political violence committed by [44:16] hundreds and abetted by thousands on that day. I'm here and I am happy to answer any questions the [44:23] committee has remaining about what happened on January 6th and to speak to the importance of my team's [44:29] work. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Romano. We'll now begin with questions, reminding the [44:37] the members that this this hearing is about the investigation and the pipe bombs of January 6th. [44:44] We'll be the proceeding. We'll begin proceeding under the five minute rule. I would like to note for everyone [44:50] here that we may have a second round of questioning, but attending depending on time and pending votes. [44:55] We'll address this at the end of the first round. I now recognize a gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nels. [45:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all our witnesses for being here. [45:05] Let me start by explaining to the American people why we are here and why this new committee is [45:10] necessary. The previous select committee assembled by Speaker Pelosi was the sham from the start. [45:15] It was a total sham. For the first time in the history of Congress, the Speaker rejected the [45:21] minority leader selections for who would serve on a select committee. Pelosi installed two of her puppets, [45:28] Adam Kenziger and Liz Cheney. Both of they both hated Donald Trump and the mega movement. The stated [45:35] perfect purpose of that committee was to examine the security failures and events that led to the [45:41] breach of the Capitol and to provide recommendations to ensure that it never happens again. But that is [45:47] not what the previous January 6th committee did. Instead, it set out to destroy Donald Trump and the [45:53] mega movement by convincing the American people that Donald Trump coordinated a violent white supremacist [46:00] insurrection to overthrow the U.S. government. They did this to justify the prosecution of his supporters [46:07] and former administration officials and to ensure that he could never become president again. Today, [46:15] we can say they failed. And they put on a pretty good show. The first thing they did was [46:21] hire someone to produce all their televised hearings who they knew would have a knack for making the [46:27] president look bad, former president of ABC News, James Goldston. Then they set out to have a highly [46:34] pre-scripted hearing designated to play on the emotions of Americans. For example, the hearing with [46:41] Capitol Police officers Don, Gunnell, Fanon, Hodges. Four Trump haters who gave highly scripted and pre-planned [46:48] testimonies. All told, the sham committee work cost the American people $18 million. That's right, [46:55] $18 million. And in the end, they released this 845-page report that failed to achieve the stated [47:03] purpose of the committee. Instead, it sought to blame the entire event on Donald Trump, whose name was [47:10] mentioned 4,207 times. The word insurrection, which not a single person was actually charged with, [47:20] is mentioned 78 times. The Proud Boys are mentioned 218 times, while Antifa, who intelligence confirmed [47:30] planned to be present, is only mentioned 20 times. The words white supremacy and white nationalists [47:35] are mentioned 23 times, and mega is mentioned 17 times. Meanwhile, Ashley Babbitt, the only person [47:44] who died by firearm, is mentioned just five times. Oh, and remember how we found out from the December [47:51] 2024 IG report that the FBI had 26 confidential human sources, or CHSs, in the crowd that day? CHSs [48:00] are mentioned a total of zero, zero times in this report. I know it's been a long time, [48:07] but remember Ray Epps. Let me introduce you again to Ray Epps. Play the video. [48:12] Go to the Capitol! [48:14] Hang on! [48:14] Into the Capitol! [48:15] Hang on! [48:16] We are going to the Capitol, where our problems are. It's that direction. [48:26] All right, no David, one more thing. [48:27] Yeah, so can we go up there? [48:29] No? [48:29] When we go in... [48:30] Are we going to get arrested when we go up there? [48:31] Yeah. You don't need to get shot. [48:35] The night of January 5th, he is filmed yelling at the crowd that they are going to go into the [49:00] Capitol, and again on the day in question. He is filmed at the front of the crowd, at the barricades, [49:06] just before the initial breach. He whispers something into the ear of the guy next to him, [49:11] and that guy initiates the breach. Then later at 2.43 p.m., a red flare goes up. 2.45 p.m., red smoke pops, [49:19] and at 2.46 p.m. Ray Epps is in video being extracted from the crowd of an eight-man team, [49:26] even though he was allegedly alone that day. Play that clip. [49:29] Every three-letter guy I know that was at January 6th, we all saw the same things happening. [49:35] We all knew that this was an operation. Watch the footage on top of the Capitol, and if you fast [49:49] forward it and watch it, you really do see movement of individuals. You just see them moving through [49:55] the crowd. The red smoke pops, and when Epps starts to leave, he's got four people in front of him and [50:01] four people behind him, and they literally get him the hell out of there. They go behind the media, [50:06] and then just disappear. They said he was there by himself, or with his nephew also. They got separated. [50:12] You know, if he was there by himself, then why are four guys leading him out and four guys following? [50:15] It's plain to see. It's obvious. Now, despite Epps' actions on that day, and despite him being number 16 [50:22] on the January 6th most wanted page for months, his name is mentioned zero times in that 840-page document. [50:29] Zero. The previous committee's report highlights that it believes some 2,000 protesters entered the [50:35] U.S. Capitol building on that day. It's on page 77. By conservative standards, that's less than 2% [50:41] of the total estimated number of protesters present in the Capitol complex, 120,000 on January 6th. [50:48] Why didn't the other 98% of protesters rush to the Capitol if that's what Trump supposedly wanted? [50:55] Why did they not listen to Donald Trump's orders and commands? Why did the vast majority never enter [51:03] the Capitol building? The first breach occurred 20 minutes before Trump's speech ended. Why would [51:08] Trump supporters leave a Trump speech and breach the Capitol before the grounds even ended? I yield back [51:15] the balance of my time. I yield back. The gentleman yields, and obviously the chair has given some [51:22] latitude to our side on time. I'll extend the same courtesy to the members of the minority. I now [51:27] recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin. Well, I thank you for your even-handedness there, [51:32] Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate that roundup of the worst conspiracy theories of the January 6th cannon, [51:42] and I hope that this committee will help us to debunk all of them. All of them have been well [51:48] debunked and repudiated online. In any event, the gentleman does not advance any counter story to [51:58] what the January 6th committee found after more than a year of talking to more than a thousand witnesses [52:04] and looking at more than a million pages worth of documents and getting overwhelmingly testimony from [52:11] Republicans, people in Donald Trump's world. If you go and you read the interviews and you look at the [52:18] videos and it's all online, you can see these were Donald Trump's people who told the story. [52:24] So, you know, I don't mind any of those flights of fancy, but none of them, again, have laid a glove [52:31] on what was found by the bipartisan January 6th select committee. Now, Mr. Romano, [52:39] you ended up by talking about pardons. And I want to ask you, first of all, [52:48] well, generally what you thought about the validity and legitimacy of those pardons, [52:53] pardons generally being reserved for people who show contrition and remorse and who have been reformed [53:00] and rehabilitated and no longer are a danger to society. But secondly, I wonder if you would opine as [53:06] to whether or not Donald Trump's pardon extends to Mr. Cole if he is indeed convicted, as his lawyer is [53:14] asserting. You turn your mic on. Thank you. I thought the pardons of the January 6th defendants were [53:25] tremendously ill-advised. These were people who had been convicted after trial or after guilty plea. [53:31] Many of them, as we saw, remained proud of their conduct throughout the pendency of their case, [53:37] remained proud of their conduct at sentencing. They certainly, as a group of people broadly, [53:43] did not show remorse. And I think we can see that in the way that they have celebrated the pardons and [53:49] tried to lie about what happened on January 6th. As for Mr. Cole, it's unfortunately an open question [53:56] whether the pardon applies to him. I don't know that there's a clear yes or no, and I think that's a [54:01] problem. Certainly a pardon that was not rushed through on day one in the way that this was could [54:08] have been more targeted and could have not raised the sort of issues that are raised by this question. [54:14] Well, the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi has actually advanced a very robust understanding [54:19] of the scope of the pardon. Has the DOJ not? Isn't she taking the position it's even applied to other [54:25] criminal offenses unrelated to January 6th if there was evidence that was assembled from the [54:32] defendants after their January 6th arrests? That's true. For instance, when a home is searched [54:37] and evidence of another crime is developed during the execution of that search warrant, [54:41] the Department of Justice has taken that position. So one might expect that she could take a similarly [54:47] robust interpretation of the pardon with respect to Mr. Cole. Look, we should really have a hearing on this [54:55] subcommittee about the people who were pardoned who've gone on to commit other serious offenses [55:01] against public safety and against the people of the United States. But I wonder, is there any case in [55:07] your mind that you prosecuted or you oversaw which stands out in your mind as a particularly troubling [55:14] one from the standpoint of public safety? Absolutely. The one that stands out in my mind [55:18] is the case of Daniel Ball, who fought with officers at the Lower West Terrace tunnel, the site of some of [55:24] the worst violence that day and then threw an explosive into the tunnel. He threw an explosive [55:30] in injuring officers, causing some to lose hearing. There's no world in which a person who uses an [55:35] explosive device against police in close quarters should be pardoned. Well, and to be clear, did [55:41] President Trump investigate his file and determine that he had shown repentance and remorse, that he [55:47] would no longer be a danger to the public? I don't see how he could have given when the pardons came out. [55:51] I mean, it came out on the first day and it was all mass. It was everybody. The most serious [55:58] criminals who leveled the most egregious violence against police officers and those people who were [56:03] just mere trespassers who just went in and maybe damaged some property or something else like that. [56:10] All of them were swept in together. All of them treated exactly the same way. Well, [56:16] what do you think in general the meaning of those pardons are going to be for American public safety [56:24] and government going forward? I think the pardons are damaging to public safety. The pardons are [56:29] damaging to confidence in the rule of law and in the ability of the Justice Department to fight crime. [56:35] And I think that some of the rioters have received the message that violence done on behalf of the [56:40] President or in support of his administration is permitted and encouraged. [56:43] OK, well, finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just commend to everybody the testimony of Pamela Hemphill, [56:48] who was a convicted insurrectionist and yet was pardoned. She rejected her pardon because she said [56:56] she didn't want President Trump's filthy pardon, that she was found guilty because she'd actually [57:01] committed an offense and she wasn't going to participate in the sham of the pardons. And [57:06] her testimony, I think, is something that would pay everybody well to check out. I'd like to submit [57:12] it for the record and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. Without objection. And the gentleman yields [57:17] back. I now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Romano, did you prosecute [57:24] anyone related to January 6th for engaging in an insurrection? No, Congresswoman. I didn't think so. [57:31] So Mr. Raskin's statement that someone was a convicted insurrectionist is actually inaccurate. Isn't that [57:37] correct? I wouldn't say it's inaccurate. Well, a convicted insurrectionist. She wasn't a convicted [57:42] insurrectionist, was she? Would the gentlelady yield? No, I will not. Mr. Romano. You accept seditious [57:46] conspiracy as insurrectionist? Mr. Romano. I will reclaim my time. Mr. Romano, did you prosecute anyone [57:54] for engaging in an insurrection related to January 6th? For the crime of insurrection? You did not, did you? [58:00] Mr. Romano. This select subcommittee is committed to undertaking the investigation that the first [58:06] select committee never conducted. How did the security failure on January 6th happen and how do [58:13] we ensure it does not happen again? Since the pipe bomb split the USCP posture and thereby facilitated [58:20] the breach of the Capitol, we must begin with this issue. My first question is why did a new team under [58:27] Director Patel in just two months do what the FBI failed to do over four years with the exact same [58:33] evidence? The answer appears to be a failure from the very start of the FBI's response. As a subcommittee [58:40] of the Judiciary Committee that oversees the DOJ and FBI, it necessitates that we begin right here. [58:46] According to what we have been led to believe, the pipe bombs were placed outside the RNC and DNC on the [58:53] evening of January 5th. They allegedly sat there undetected for 17 hours before the device behind [59:00] the RNC was discovered at approximately 12.38 PM, with the device at the DNC immediately discovered [59:07] thereafter at 1.05 PM. The pipe bomb outside the RNC was discovered by Carlin Younger, who lived near [59:14] the RNC and discovered the pipe bomb in the unmarked alley between the Capitol Hill Club and RNC while doing [59:19] her laundry. She alerted the RNC security, who had then alerted the authorities. Oddly enough, no one [59:26] from the FBI contacted Ms. Younger. Two days later, on January 8th, Ms. Younger had to proactively contact [59:35] the FBI through an online tip to identify herself as the person who discovered the pipe bomb and to offer [59:41] her assistance with the case because she had not yet been contacted by the FBI. Ms. Nance, or Mr. Nance, [59:49] would you agree that it would be standard operating procedure and good investigative practice to [59:54] interview all of the eyewitnesses? Yeah, absolutely. That would be standard practice to make sure that [1:00:01] you cast a broad enough net net so that you're interviewing any witness that could possibly [1:00:07] provide information with regard to the progress of the investigation. Well, can you think of any [1:00:13] reason as to why the FBI did not seek to immediately speak to the person who actually found the bomb? [1:00:20] Well, no, that's a problem. That's a question that needs to be answered. And, you know, does it go to [1:00:26] lack of resources? I mean, that's still very, very early. So I find that to be extremely problematic. [1:00:33] Well, in her online tip, Ms. Younger stated, quote, I can confirm that the device must have been placed [1:00:40] between 12 p.m. and 12 40 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 6th, end quote, because it was not [1:00:49] there when she first passed the area around 12 p.m. So when was the bomb actually placed and by whom? [1:00:56] The FBI finally interviewed Ms. Younger three days later on January 11th, and it confirmed her testimony [1:01:02] that the device outside the RNC was not there before 12 p.m. on January 6th. This leads us to [1:01:10] three significant data points. First, the bombs had kitchen timers for 60 minutes. Second, the witnesses, [1:01:16] the witness who first discovered the bomb noted it was not there before noon, about 60 minutes before [1:01:21] the meeting of Congress. And third, if in fact the bombs were placed the night of the fifth, they sat there for [1:01:27] 17 hours in a highly trafficked area undisguised without detection until the most crucial time for [1:01:35] security that day, which was when Congress was voting to certify the election. Mr. Nance, [1:01:42] what should the FBI have done with this contradicting evidence? Well, the Bureau should have run that all [1:01:48] to ground. I mean, every resource should have been made available to make sure that those questions got [1:01:54] answered. And that simply did not happen. And I think that had to do with a less than ideal leadership [1:02:02] posture. Well, I think that's the understatement of the century, Mr. Nance, but I appreciate your [1:02:09] remarks on that. Both devices were largely undisguised and visible along heavily trafficked areas, [1:02:15] yet they allegedly undiscovered for 17 hours, a point Ms. Younger disputes, and again, which oddly [1:02:21] enough, they were not detected by the Secret Service bomb sweeps at the DNC before the arrival of then [1:02:26] Vice President of Lactarius that very morning. Does the fact that these devices were not detected for [1:02:32] 17 hours raise any questions for you? Well, of course, I think it does for everybody. You know, [1:02:39] though the January 6 investigation was just beginning, and I suppose you could make an argument that [1:02:45] resources were stretched thin. The gravity of the placement of where these pipe bombs were placed [1:02:53] suggests that that should have received at least the same or equivalent amount of resources at the [1:03:00] broader J-6 investigation. Well, then I appreciate not only did it not receive the attention, the January [1:03:06] 6 committee entirely ignored the placement of those bombs, which tells you that they had an agenda that [1:03:11] they pursued that had nothing to do with what actually happened on January 6. With that, I yield back. [1:03:16] The gentlelady's time's expired. Mr. Chair, I have a UC. The gentleman, the lady from, [1:03:23] gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Crockett, is now recognized. Thank you so much. This is from the New York Times. [1:03:28] It's dated January 13, 2021. Trump impeached for inciting insurrection. President Trump became the first [1:03:34] president to be impeached twice after the House approved a single charge citing his role in whipping up a [1:03:40] mob that stormed the Capitol. He faces a Senate trial that could disqualify him from future office. [1:03:46] There were 10 members of his party that joined the Democrats in impeaching him for insurrection. [1:03:52] Without objection. Okay. May I proceed? You've been recognized. [1:04:07] Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I don't know where I want to start. Like, I am so frustrated with this [1:04:13] country, and I don't think that I'm the only one. And to know that we have former law enforcement here, [1:04:20] as someone who worked with law enforcement consistently as a practicing lawyer, I'm quite concerned. [1:04:26] I'm alarmed by some of the things that you said. Specifically, Mr. Speciale, am I saying it correctly? [1:04:33] Okay. Mr. Speciale, you said, and I may quote you incorrectly, so correct me. You were warning your family [1:04:41] about the possibility of the FBI busting into your home. Is that correct? Close enough? [1:04:47] Yeah, because they were raiding American citizens all over the United States for trespass. [1:04:53] And you'd agree with me that that's... I mean... [1:04:56] No, I don't agree that you should use FBI tactical teams to raid people who are trespassing. [1:05:01] That's not what I was saying. I'm sorry. I was moving a little slow because I wanted to make sure [1:05:05] I quoted this correctly. Are you aware that the FBI recently executed a search warrant at a Washington [1:05:13] Post reporter's home? No, I'm not aware of that. Okay. But you'd agree with me that doing something [1:05:19] like that with the FBI sounds like what you were afraid of happening. And to be clear, that never [1:05:24] happened to you, correct? No, it didn't. But I wasn't aware of the FBI investigation for two and a half [1:05:29] years. But you did not... So they never busted into your home. But you were concerned and you felt like [1:05:35] that that would be wrong. And so what I'm trying to understand is that there's a lot of complaints about [1:05:40] the Ray FBI. And I won't opine on that, but I will make it clear. And Mr. Romano, help me out if I'm [1:05:47] wrong. But was Mr. Ray appointed by Donald J. Trump himself? Mr. Christopher Ray, who was the FBI director. [1:05:57] Okay. So he was appointed by Donald Trump. And right now, it's interesting because we sit here and we're [1:06:03] talking about domestic terrorism. And every day there are Americans concerned about ICE and what ICE is [1:06:11] doing. So let me ask you a different question that you may be familiar with. As it relates to the [1:06:19] training that the average FBI officer gets before they are admitted as officers, is it longer than 47 [1:06:28] days? Yes or no? I don't think that I'm the person that you should be asking that question. I think that [1:06:34] the retired FBI agent should be... Anybody want to answer that who's been in law enforcement? Yes, [1:06:41] ma'am. The FBI Academy ranges anywhere from... It changes in length and duration. It can go from 12, [1:06:47] 14, 16. It's up in up to 18, 20 weeks. Okay. Thank you so much. So here it is. We have people, [1:06:57] and I know that there have been conversations about political opponents. I believe it may have been [1:07:04] you, Mr. Piota, that you talked about political opponents being prosecuted. Let me ask you, Mr. Romano, [1:07:15] though, are you aware that this DOJ has gone after Jerome Powell or is going after Jerome Powell? I'm aware of [1:07:21] reporting to that effect, yes. Are you aware of this DOJ going after Tish James? Yes. Are you aware of this DOJ going after James Comey? Yes, after the president tweeted that they should. [1:07:33] And are you also aware that James Comey is not currently being prosecuted? His case was dismissed? I am. [1:07:41] Are you also aware that Tish James' case was dismissed? Yes. Are you also aware that a number of times that [1:07:50] they tried to indict Tish James, they were unsuccessful? I am. Now, as a career prosecutor, how many times did you [1:07:58] have to try to get people indicted before you could finally secure an indictment? I never had the grand jury [1:08:05] reject an indictment that I presented. Oh, okay. All right. Well, it seems like maybe they still need [1:08:09] you there because they are struggling. In addition to that, I want to talk because it like the conspiracy [1:08:18] theories are driving me insane. And maybe it is because I'm used to the law, just being the law and [1:08:23] practicing and getting into a courtroom. And maybe it's because I've been there. But I am so confused [1:08:28] about how they're like, Oh, these poor little people, they did nothing wrong. And that's why the [1:08:32] president let them all out of prison. Let's talk about the process. Okay. Because you can say that [1:08:38] an investigation has been flawed and Lord knows as a criminal defense attorney, it was my job to make [1:08:42] sure that I dug into every single flaw, because I can tell you in almost every single prosecution that I've [1:08:48] had to go up against, the only thing I was looking at is how much did you mess up so that I could represent my [1:08:53] client will, right? But it didn't mean that I would get them off. So I'm trying to figure out did these [1:08:57] people over 1000 people get convicted of something that they did in a criminal way on January 6? Yes or no? [1:09:05] Yes. Okay, so then you come back and they were convicted by what a jury, some of them, mostly juries, [1:09:11] some judges, and some people actually did what we call a plea bargain, correct? Correct. Meaning that they walked in and [1:09:17] they said I am guilty, correct? Yes. Okay. So the final point that I'll make, because I know I'm [1:09:23] running out of time, is there was some stuff about white supremacists and the concerns about people [1:09:29] being alleged to be white supremacists. Some of the people that got convicted were neo-Nazis. Have [1:09:34] they been clarified as white supremacists or not? Yes. Some of the people were Proud Boys. Have they been [1:09:40] declared as white supremacists or not? I believe so. Okay. And then the Confederate flag, has that [1:09:46] sometimes been associated with white supremacist groups? I would certainly say it was during the [1:09:51] Civil War and since. Okay. And then there's this sign, I'm not going to do it, but it looks like the [1:09:55] okay sign with the hand gesture. Has that been associated with white supremacy? Yes. Okay. And as one [1:10:02] of the prosecutors that prosecuted some of these cases, did you not have defendants that you felt like [1:10:09] may have been white supremacists based on the investigations? Yes. In some cases we had evidence [1:10:14] explicitly of it. Thank you so much. I'll yield. The gentlelady's time has expired. Now recognize [1:10:19] the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for five minutes. Mr. Romano, let's first clear up the okay [1:10:24] sign. The okay sign is more predominantly just used to say okay, is it not, than it is for white [1:10:28] supremacy? Sometimes it is. Historically, yes. But sometimes it's used in white supremacy. Even today, [1:10:33] a majority of the time worldwide, it's not a white supremacist sign. Wouldn't that be true? I don't know that I [1:10:39] could speak to the majority of cases now. Let's move on. I got so many things to ask. I've been [1:10:45] concerned with this whole pipe bomb situation for some time. And I want to ask you some questions [1:10:50] because as a prosecutor, I too, as Ms. Crockett just pointed out, was a criminal defense attorney. I too [1:10:56] was a criminal defense attorney. And absent a confession, would you agree with me that with [1:11:01] the evidence that we know that the pipe bombs were allegedly planted, allegedly, by Mr. Cole on [1:11:09] the night of January 5th, but we have the witness at the RNC who says they weren't there then. And we [1:11:17] have the situation where the folks came through with the explosive sniffing dogs before the pipe bombs [1:11:26] were supposed to be there, but before they were found and didn't hit on the pipe bombs. Wouldn't [1:11:33] you agree that as a prosecutor, absent the confession by Mr. Cole, you'd have a hard time [1:11:39] getting a conviction? Wouldn't you agree with that? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the rest of the [1:11:44] evidence, which I understand includes evidence of financial transactions that he engaged in, license [1:11:50] plate reader hits, that sort of thing. Yeah, but intending to do something and actually succeeding in [1:11:54] doing it are two different things. And if you've got dogs and people saying the bombs weren't there when [1:11:59] when they were supposed to have already been planted by him and he's confessed to planting them the [1:12:02] night before, I think I went that way. Now we can disagree about that and talk about it later. [1:12:07] Let me ask you some additional questions, if I might. Were you ever advised as you were doing [1:12:12] your investigations of any FBI agents on January 6th, 2021 being inside the Capitol and observing the [1:12:21] January 6th rioters? I'm not sure what you mean there. I wasn't aware of nor did I see any evidence of [1:12:29] FBI agents within the crowd or planted there, if that's what you're getting. All right. How about [1:12:33] FBI paid informants? I understand there were people who had been signed up as informants by the FBI [1:12:41] who went there, not at the direction of their FBI handlers, but individually. There were a small [1:12:45] handful of such individuals. And did you interview those individuals? No. And did anybody in your office [1:12:50] interview those individuals? They may have. I'm not certain, as I said today. And so, and you didn't call any of [1:12:55] those individuals as witnesses in any of the cases? I did not. I, again, couldn't say that it didn't [1:13:00] happen in any case, but I did not. All right. And did anyone, while you were the prosecutor and working [1:13:08] on this, did anyone bring you information regarding Congressman Barry Loudermilk? No. Did anybody bring [1:13:15] you any information of any wrongdoing ever done by Congressman Barry Loudermilk? No, I certainly didn't [1:13:20] receive any evidence of wrongdoing by the chairman. And, and if there was a thorough investigation [1:13:28] and it, and it one point mentioned that there might have been a problem, and then that final [1:13:33] report didn't have any report saying that there was no problem, that might be an issue of contention. [1:13:38] Wouldn't you agree? Not that you agree with the premise, but that there could be an issue of [1:13:42] contention there. I think I'd have to know more about the circumstances. All right. I appreciate that. [1:13:46] That being said, let me go to Mr. Piotta. We've heard all kinds of allegations, [1:13:56] but how do you explain that the Patel FBI was able to identify a pipe bomb suspect once they put [1:14:04] their attention to it within about six weeks, but the Ray FBI failed to identify a single suspect [1:14:10] or make one arrest in four years? And what does that tell you about the way the investigation was [1:14:15] handled? And why did it take so long for the rate folks to even look at doing a pipe bomb investigation? [1:14:22] Can you give me some insight on that? Certainly what you saw with the incoming leadership team [1:14:30] from director Patel was a renewed focus, renewed energy resourcing and a new perspective on what they [1:14:37] were looking for. Under the Ray FBI, this case was allowed to languish. It started to lose energy over [1:14:44] time. There was a split of resources. There was a split of attention and what happened. It looked [1:14:50] like that happened within the first couple of months. Would that be standard? The FBI in the case [1:14:53] of a pipe bomb being left outside the Republican National Committee headquarters and the Democrat [1:14:58] National Committee headquarters? Does that make sense? No, it's highly unusual, but they did have the [1:15:04] larger events that happened on January 6th that they diverted attention, energy resources to. So the [1:15:12] headquarters senior leadership and the Washington field senior leadership diverted their attention. [1:15:17] But wouldn't you have been concerned because I certainly would be as a member of the of the [1:15:23] Republican Party for the Republicans and for my friends on the other side of the aisle at the [1:15:27] Democrat headquarters, if somebody planted a bomb and they have no idea who it is, that there might be a [1:15:33] repeat offense and that we really ought to dig into that because both Republican lawmakers and Democrat [1:15:38] lawmakers were at risk. Absolutely. It was a public safety issue and they failed to do that and it [1:15:44] was a lack of focus. I think it was more than a lack of focus. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman [1:15:50] yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskovitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I [1:15:56] appreciate that. First, let me say thank you to the FBI and the Department of Justice and law enforcement for [1:16:02] catching the pipe bomber. The other side of the aisle came with videos showing the ride on on January 6th. [1:16:13] Keep keep showing those videos. We can sit here and let's watch a couple hours of that that footage. I [1:16:18] don't I don't know why you think that helps you. This reminds the American people what they saw with [1:16:22] their eyes. Thousands of people storming into a building beating police officers. So I mean, if we wanted [1:16:26] the next hearing, Mr. Chairman, for like a documentary standpoint, like maybe we should watch [1:16:31] all of the film from from that day, I think that would be good. Also, it's a weird question to ask. Why wasn't [1:16:36] the riot worse? Why didn't even more people go in? You know, why wasn't even why wasn't even worse? We had a [1:16:43] couple thousand. Why wasn't it 10,000? Why did some people decide not to break the law? It's a weird, weird [1:16:50] sort of thing to ask. Oh, and then we got Ray Epps. Love this. Ray Epps. Okay, Ray Epps told us to do it. He told [1:17:00] us to break the law and break windows and doors and beat police officers and hang Mike Pence and try [1:17:07] to break onto the floor of the House of Representatives and wipe feces on the walls. [1:17:13] We only did it because Ray Epps told us. How pathetic. Who are these lemmings that broke into [1:17:19] the Capitol because Ray Epps told them to do it? By the way, if you go to Ray Epps's Wikipedia page, [1:17:25] Ray Epps says he's an American wedding planner and Oath Keeper Chapter President. Number one wedding [1:17:31] planner to the Oath Keepers. I will say weddings are a place that you you give an oath. So that's [1:17:37] totally fair. By the way, the head of the Oath Keepers is here with us in the audience. Stuart [1:17:41] Rhodes is here here today. It's not every day, of course, not every day. Of course, you you someone [1:17:48] get to meet someone who was convicted of seditious conspiracy against the United States hasn't happened [1:17:54] in 30 years, of course, sitting in the front row in the reserved section, which is controlled by my [1:17:59] colleagues across the aisle. Not sure why he's here. I don't know if he's here to tell us about [1:18:04] the Oath Keepers secret handshake or what treehouse they meet in or whether girls are allowed in. I've [1:18:09] always wondered that about the Oath Keepers. But yeah, he's here. I mean, I don't know. You have any [1:18:15] questions, my colleagues across the aisle for the head of the Oath Keepers that's sitting in the [1:18:18] reserved section of of this hearing. I mean, he wasn't pardoned. He's still convicted of seditious [1:18:26] conspiracy. Something you guys say didn't happen. Right. There wasn't an insurrection. I don't know [1:18:32] how you get convicted of seditious conspiracy. So and then we got Mr. Speciale who says the reason [1:18:41] we didn't catch the pipe bomber is because we were so focused on trying to catch Trump people, [1:18:48] Trump supporters. Well, Mr. Speciale, breaking news, as it turns out, the pipe bomber is a Trump [1:18:53] supporter. So you're right. They were focused on trying to catch people. Turns out it's just that [1:18:59] person, the person you're talking about. And so I went to your website because you mentioned it, [1:19:05] Mr. Speciale, and you put on your website that January 6th should not be forgotten, [1:19:11] like the Holocaust and 9-11. It's interesting that you chose those two events, two events that also have [1:19:18] terrible conspiracies about them. Right. Like the Holocaust didn't happen or it wasn't as bad or [1:19:22] that 9-11 was done by the Jews or an inside job. Right. It's interesting that you lump in this one [1:19:28] with those. I find that fascinating. The Holocaust happened, Mr. Speciale? [1:19:33] That's an asinine question. Of course it did. Okay. 9-11 happened. Of course it did. [1:19:40] Was 9-11 done by the American government? I don't believe so. No. Was done by the Israelis? [1:19:45] No, I don't think so. Okay. Six million people died in the Holocaust, right? Yeah, I think that's the number. [1:19:50] I think it's actually worse than that when you think about all the consequences of all the other, [1:19:55] all the soldiers and all the innocent. Tens of millions of people died in World War II. Yeah, [1:19:58] 70 million actually I think is the number of total people that died in World War II. But this was a [1:20:07] conspiracy. Yeah, and I think that that's the frustrating part for me is that we've got Congressman [1:20:12] Raskin up there smiling while he's watching videos of one of the biggest tragedies that our country has [1:20:20] ever faced. And he's over there giggling about how and you're saying we should watch it over and over [1:20:25] again. We should watch it over and over again. We absolutely should because I think that day, [1:20:31] that day, were it not for Donald Trump saying thank you everybody, go home. It could have been worse. [1:20:37] And instead, he said go home. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no. So no, listen. Reclaiming my time. [1:20:41] Hold on, reclaiming my time. I love that. After the president told everyone to break the law, [1:20:46] mid-law breaking. He didn't tell everybody to break the law. Hold on, mid-law breaking, [1:20:50] he was like, okay, pull back, pull back. He didn't tell everybody to break the law. He said, [1:20:54] go there peacefully. The media distorted what he said. They edited the clips. Was it peaceful? [1:20:59] And then the January 6th committee distorted it for all the American people. Hold on, [1:21:02] Mr. Speciale, was it peaceful? The truth of the matter is Donald Trump said, [1:21:06] go home. You've made your point and they did. Was it peaceful? [1:21:10] No, it wasn't peaceful. Okay, okay. Hanging Mike Pence, not peaceful. [1:21:14] That's asinine. Of course not. Okay, so it wasn't peaceful. [1:21:17] But I can explain better. If you'd give me time, I would happily explain to you. [1:21:21] It wasn't peaceful because Ray Epps told people not to be peaceful. [1:21:24] No, it wasn't peaceful because the body of the... I've made this analysis over and over again, [1:21:32] and I think it's very important and it's lost on many people. The crowd of people that were there [1:21:37] in attendance that day were a vast majority of them veterans in law enforcement, retired veterans in law [1:21:42] enforcement. They were standing around, most of them, 99% were peaceful. And then the Capitol [1:21:51] Police, I believe, panicked. I believe that they lost command and control in the Capitol Police, [1:21:57] and they started CS gassing the crowd. Well, veterans are trained to do one thing and one thing [1:22:05] only, and that is fight tyranny and fight injustice. That is what we're trained to do. So when the [1:22:13] Capitol Police began CS gassing the crowd, the veterans in the law enforcement stepped forward to [1:22:19] protect the crowd. And that right there is called a black swan. It is what I warned of in October of 2020 [1:22:27] to the FBI Domestic Terrorism Task Force. That's how these things happen all around the world. They [1:22:34] happen in Iran. They happen in Syria. They happen in Saudi Arabia. They happen in Libya. That's how it's done. [1:22:40] And I was warning of that. And in this particular crowd. The gentleman's time has expired. You can [1:22:46] submit the remainder comments for the record. Now recognize a gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. [1:22:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speciale, you can take great honor to know that Mr. Moskowitz would have [1:23:05] treated you with much more kindness had you been an illegal appearing before this committee. [1:23:15] That's a lie. But Mr. Romano, Mr. Romano, have you been deposed by this committee, sir? [1:23:25] No, not by this committee. Would you be willing to participate in a deposition by this committee? [1:23:30] Absolutely. That's going to happen. Mr. Chairman, the COVID era government oppression was very real [1:23:42] and impacted American citizens. Our freedom to travel the land was greatly restricted. Our freedom to [1:23:49] congregate, our freedom to worship, our freedom to speak. The government oppression that America [1:23:56] suffered in the COVID era leading up to the November election cycle of 2020 was unprecedented. The Biden [1:24:09] FBI did penetrate legitimate First Amendment communications and groups of American patriots [1:24:17] who had the audacity to object to government oppression. The Biden FBI, trained to manipulate and agitate, [1:24:28] did foment rage within these groups of American patriots. The November 2020 election cycle [1:24:38] was compromised. The Biden FBI did have undercover agents and confidential informants embedded [1:24:49] within the rally crowds on J4, J5, and J6. The Biden FBI did conspire to entrap mega Americans prior to J6, [1:25:01] and then successfully entrapped several hundred Americans on J6. The Biden FBI and DOJ did unrighteously [1:25:11] persecute, arrest, arrest, and imprison entrapped Americans. The FBI Director Wray did lie to Congress [1:25:24] repeatedly about all of this abhorrent government oppression against the American people. President [1:25:33] Trump did rightfully pardon the Americans who fell prey to the Biden, FBI, and DOJ. And within months of his [1:25:43] inauguration, the Trump FBI did identify and arrest the J6 pipe bomber suspect using only the evidence [1:25:55] that had been in the possession of the Biden FBI since 2021. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to [1:26:09] present for the record a letter dated January 11th, 2021, to the Administrator of TSA signed by Benny [1:26:18] Thompson, then chairman of Homeland Security Committee, and John Katko, the ranking member of [1:26:26] Homeland Security Committee, a renowned moderate New York leaning liberal Republican now going from [1:26:33] Congress, identifying Trump supporters as insurrectionists and suggesting efforts by the TSA to [1:26:40] disrupt the travel of white supremacists and other domestic terrorists, to quickly deny air carrier services, [1:26:48] to individuals identified as members of those groups, and to encourage efforts to identify and add to watchlist [1:26:56] the perpetrators and members of American organizations that had the audacity to challenge the narrative [1:27:08] that was presented under the COVID era and the oppression that the American people suffered. [1:27:13] Without objection. [1:27:14] Mr. Nance, regarding drawing from your expertise longstanding with the FBI, can you find any reason, [1:27:25] good sir, that the FBI would not have solved the pipe bomber crime based upon the evidence in their [1:27:34] possession, including cellular analytics that we were advised by whistleblowers that under 200 possible cell [1:27:44] numbers were identified and presented to the FBI and the illegitimate J6 original Liz Cheney committee? [1:27:53] Why did the FBI not solve that crime? Good sir. [1:27:56] Well, I think the rapidity of the Patel administration or directorship in in solving this case demonstrates [1:28:06] exactly why the the the Ray FBI failed to do so. I mean, as has been stated before, this is a matter of [1:28:14] leadership. I think this is also a matter of messaging. I think that people need to understand [1:28:20] the relationship between DOJ and the FBI that the FBI investigates criminal activity or should be [1:28:27] and DOJ conducts prosecutions. How could the FBI be that inept? I just ask you that to me, [1:28:34] I believe it was purposeful. I believe they identified their suspects in the under 200 numbers [1:28:40] and none of them fit the profile of the so-called alleged white supremacist mega activists. So they [1:28:46] stepped away from that investigation. I believe that there's no way they could be that inept. [1:28:53] Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but my passion on this subject has not. The gentleman is yielded back. [1:29:02] The chair notes that there is a lot of passion regarding this this topic. And it is it is [1:29:09] something that's passionate on both sides of the aisle here. And our objective, my objective in [1:29:15] this committee is to get to the truth of without political bias of what happened. And there the question [1:29:21] remains, how did the previous FBI go five years without even a lead using the exact same data? [1:29:32] No exception. I talked to recently, I've talked to the FBI agents that are currently at the FBI, [1:29:39] were at the FBI before they confirmed to me there was no new evidence brought forward. New eyes were [1:29:46] brought into this process. A red team was brought in, which also included non FBI agents that come from [1:29:53] tactical teams that are out task forces. And they took a look at the same evidence. The question being, [1:30:02] and I think there's a lot of good information that's been brought up and a lot of questions. [1:30:07] Is there political bias involved in the decision? Or is it just a lower priority? This is more that we [1:30:15] know that a lot of the resources were shifted over to prosecuting those who trespassed at the Capitol. [1:30:22] But what I'd like to do for a moment is is actually look at the data that was there during the this [1:30:28] during the the Biden era FBI, the same data that was looked at by the Patel era FBI. And one of the [1:30:35] things, Mr. Payota, let me start with you. You're familiar with the cast team. Is that correct? Yes. [1:30:42] Can you briefly describe describe what the cast team is in the FBI? They're a communication analysis [1:30:49] team. They do cellular phone communication review analysis records disposition. They can tell you [1:30:56] who was where, when, and they look at the communications network and how it was leveraged [1:31:01] during certain situations. So we also have from an FBI report that the members of cast were frustrated [1:31:07] is that they were put on the back burner when it came to the pipe bomb investigation. Would that be [1:31:14] something that would normally be done within the FBI? In my experience, no. You take those [1:31:20] specialized resources as they come. Unfortunately, what they might have run into were turf battles, [1:31:26] personality issues, and things that tend to hinder investigations where that's where that engaged [1:31:31] leadership would come in and bulldoze right through those challenges and make sure that internal FBI [1:31:37] resources were properly and completely engaged, which did not happen appears across this investigation. [1:31:44] Okay. I mean, there's no doubt there was violence on January 6th. None of us have denied that. And I [1:31:48] do appreciate our Capitol Police who who defend us here and have been here to protect us and the other [1:31:55] people that are here. Now, one of my concerns I had with the select committee on January 6th is they had an [1:32:03] entire team that was supposedly dedicated to investigating how the breach happened here at the [1:32:10] Capitol. Now, there's really nothing in their their 700 page report regarding security failures. However, [1:32:17] Republicans investigating this all the way back to Representative Banks, who's now Senator Banks, [1:32:22] as well as my previous investigation uncovered what appears to be a massive intelligence failure. [1:32:27] And one of those that we're actually getting more information right now are the CHS's confidential [1:32:33] human sources, which we know that there were several embedded, which I think that's important for [1:32:38] the FBI, the FBI to have these informants embedded in extremist groups. We have multiple reports of that, [1:32:45] some even indicating that it very well could have been much worse, as I'm as I've been reading over [1:32:51] these reports, by by some reports coming in that if it was going to be armed, it was going to be a [1:32:58] takeover of the government. Fortunately, that didn't happen. But it's beyond beyond question [1:33:06] that the FBI through these reports knew that there was going to be violence at the Capitol. However, [1:33:12] we have been unable to find any evidence that that information was transferred from the FBI [1:33:18] formally to any anyone else, including the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Capitol Police [1:33:24] Intelligence Division. We're still looking at that. Is that normal operating procedures? I mean, [1:33:28] is this turf battle so tight within the FBI that they would take they would not report actionable [1:33:34] intelligence that they're very, very likely is going to be violence at the Capitol? I think what you [1:33:40] found here was a communication failure. They downplayed the information. They probably saw that it wasn't [1:33:45] actionable or it came from sources of questionable reliability. So they downgraded the veracity of [1:33:54] the information, chose not to disseminate some of it to the partners and let them make their own [1:33:58] decisions. In my opinion, it was a bad judgment call inside the Bureau not to have that pre-event call, [1:34:05] share that information with them, let the partners make their own decisions and combine it with [1:34:10] information that they may have developed separately. So I would say it was an intelligence shortfall. [1:34:15] It was clear the intelligence was there because even the Metropolitan DC, their own emergency [1:34:20] management department, ordered hospitals to double their blood supply just based on their intelligence [1:34:26] of what was coming in. So, you know, that that we would not be able to use these agencies [1:34:32] to work together to make sure that we weren't caught flat-footed as we were on January 6th. One other [1:34:38] question I have about the cast. Now, we do know that there was a, there was a data request made from [1:34:47] all the carriers and it was a huge request of cell phones that were in around the Capitol January 5th, [1:34:55] January 6th. That's the data of which the current FBI was able to narrow down with combination of the [1:35:03] videos. So they know where the suspect was, they were able to track him down and then they were also [1:35:09] able to go out and find the purchases. And this is what pulled things together. Um, it still is confusing [1:35:15] me how that could not have been done by the previous, uh, administration. I believe it could have, [1:35:20] there was just a lack of will, but there's another something else that was brought up by one of my [1:35:25] colleagues here was the gallows that were erected. Um, it appears from my previous investigation that the FBI [1:35:31] put no resources into identifying who erected the gallows. It's always bothered me that the gallows [1:35:37] were able, were allowed to stay up all day long. I mean, they weren't even taken down until late that [1:35:42] evening. Uh, they, they were erected at six o'clock in the morning when hardly anyone was around. Based on [1:35:49] this cast, uh, team and this digital data that was there, shouldn't the FBI be able to just go look at that [1:35:56] same data and identify whose phones were pinging right at that area of the, where the, the gallows [1:36:04] was erected at six o'clock in the morning. It seems like that should be an easy, the same [1:36:07] investigative model would apply. Okay. So maybe this is something the current FBI, uh, could, uh, [1:36:13] could tackle. Um, I've exceeded, uh, my time and we'll begin our second round. And, uh, the chair [1:36:19] recognizes, uh, Mr. Nels. Hey, thank you, sir. I was running out of time, but I, I finished talking [1:36:24] about that first breach. This entire document is about Donald Trump. It's about blaming Donald [1:36:30] Trump. Donald Trump commanded. He ordered his followers to go to the Capitol to storm the Capitol. [1:36:36] I find it interesting because the first breach occurred 20 minutes before Trump's speech ended. [1:36:42] Why would Trump supporters leave a Trump speech and breach the Capitol grounds before the speech ever [1:36:46] ended? I've been to rallies this and that when the boss is up there speaking, nobody leaves early. [1:36:52] Nobody leaves early. I tell you why, because there was never a call to violence. There was a never a [1:36:58] call to violence or a call to storm the Capitol. That was something the militia groups are craving [1:37:03] and created on their own. The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Tifa, three percenters, bad actors that day, [1:37:09] gotta say it, bad actors. They were acting alone and not listening to Trump. Stewart, Stewart [1:37:15] Rhodes stated that if Trump didn't do what they wanted, they would have to do it themselves. The January [1:37:21] 6th resulted from a gross failure of intelligence, not the actions of Donald Trump. Capitol Police [1:37:27] Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman was in charge of the intelligence division of the U.S. Capitol [1:37:32] Police in days leading up to January 6th and produced a report, the January 3rd special event [1:37:38] assessment, and stated, quote, Congress itself is the target on January 6th, end quote, protesters may be [1:37:44] inclined to become violent, end quote. There have been some worrisome calls for protesters to come to these [1:37:50] events armed. Another quote, the sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive [1:37:57] to become violent, end quote. Even worse, Pittman testified to the Senate that she had shared the [1:38:02] appropriate intelligence with the Assistant and Deputy Chiefs of the Capitol Police, which is [1:38:07] unconditionally false. It was never sent or shared. Why can I say that? I can say it with certainty, [1:38:14] because if you look at Harry Dunn, Officer Harry Dunn's testimony in the previous committee, he [1:38:19] states that he believed that January 6th would just be like any other day. He had no independent [1:38:25] reason to believe that there would be violence. And in his own words on July 27th, 2021 testimony, [1:38:31] Harry Dunn stated he thought there was going to be peaceful protests and received no threat warning from [1:38:37] the chain of command. So the question is, who lied? Harry Dunn, you're lying, or Yogananda Pittman, [1:38:42] who's got a nice job. Pelosi gave her a nice capital, a nice job there in California. [1:38:47] So now we know why the Capitol Police was so ill-prepared. We know why. Assistant Chief Yogananda [1:38:52] Pittman never shared the intel. Now let's talk about the deployment of the National Guard. In order for [1:38:58] the Capitol Police to request outside assistance, the three members of the Capitol Police Board must [1:39:02] declare an emergency. But this wasn't done. It went until very late. Isn't it interesting there is not a [1:39:09] single word in the report from any of the three voting members on the board. How could there not be? [1:39:15] Finally, the subject of this hearing, the pipe bomb, only mentioned, guess what, five times in this [1:39:21] appendix. It's in the appendix at the end of the report, even though the pipe bombs were by far [1:39:27] the most serious thing that occurred that day, as they could have killed many, many people, the VP, [1:39:31] the vice president-elect of the United States. The previous committee, nor the FBI cared. They didn't [1:39:37] care about it all. Understand the effect of the discovery of the pipe bombs in the timeline. [1:39:42] The first pipe bomb was reported to law enforcement at 1242 p.m., which drew half of the police, half of [1:39:47] the police away from the Capitol building. The officers began arriving two minutes later at 1244. [1:39:52] Then the bike wreck perimeter is breached minutes later at 1253. Now that security at the Capitol has [1:39:58] been softened. It's smart. This was organized. This was an operation, folks. And then at 1259, six minutes [1:40:04] later, Congress convenes to certify the election. It's very interesting that the pipe bomb is reported [1:40:10] just a minute before the joint session convenes. Here's the key the American people need to [1:40:16] understand. The FBI, Patel's FBI, didn't get any new information, no new information to find the [1:40:22] pipe bomber. They had all the evidence to identify him and had been in possession of Christopher Wray's [1:40:28] FBI for the entire Biden administration. It's extremely bizarre, folks. It's bizarre because the [1:40:34] January 6th investigation was the largest and most extensive in the history of the FBI. This is [1:40:41] the article. The Wray FBI aggressively pursued and charged nearly 1,600 individuals in all 50 states, [1:40:48] including elderly individuals who committed no acts of violence. They identified and tracked these [1:40:53] people down, breakneck speed, using every tool at their disposal, left no stone unturned when we had an [1:40:59] FBI whistleblower disclosed to us that they were even pulling agents off of porn cases, child porn cases, [1:41:06] so they could catch trespassing grandmas. But for the pipe bomber, there was comparatively no effort to [1:41:11] find this person. I asked you now to consent to enter into the record of today's hearing. The CNN article [1:41:16] titled biggest investigation in FBI history still has Merrick Garland in the hot seat without objection. [1:41:23] And I'd also like to enter into the record. This is good to help my colleague from Texas on the other [1:41:27] side that talked about impeachments, impeachments, impeachments. November 6, 2024. Trump is elected. [1:41:35] The Los Angeles Times. Trump is elected. The 47th president soundly defeating Harris to we take the [1:41:42] White House. This is a beautiful one here. Everybody read it. I yield back. The gentleman yields the [1:41:49] gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Raskin is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:41:54] So it looks like a new conspiracy theory is born. Originally, the pipe bomber was supposed to be an [1:42:02] anti-Trump person, which is why the name wasn't revealed. Then that's out the window when it turns out [1:42:08] it's a pro-Trump election denier. Well, then they were saying, no, it was an inside job. It was by a former [1:42:16] Capitol Police officer. That's out the window. That's not who the person was. So now I think the claim is, [1:42:23] well, they got the person. Yay for the FBI. Hooray for Kash Patel. They got the person, [1:42:30] but it took too long for them to do it. I mean, that's what the conspiracy theory [1:42:36] has come to. I mean, this is just pathetic. Look, let's start with this. They tried to blame [1:42:46] January 6 on Antifa on January 6. Donald Trump did it himself in a conversation with Kevin McCarthy. [1:42:52] McCarthy called him up from his office, desperate, saying, we're being overrun. [1:42:57] We're besieged here. You got to call off, you know, your people, Donald Trump. And Trump said, [1:43:02] oh, it's not my people. It's Antifa. And McCarthy said, no. Effectively, he said, no, [1:43:08] I'm paraphrasing here. He said, they're in my office. They're your people, Mr. President. And then Trump [1:43:13] said, well, maybe they just care a little bit more about a fair election than you do, Kevin. Again, [1:43:19] paraphrasing, but that's the sum and substance of the conversation. Immediately they wanted to try [1:43:24] to pin it on Antifa. I mean, that was the whole methodology. That's what Matt Gaetz did when he [1:43:30] came to the floor. Even after we were driven out of our chambers by MAGA and the Proud Boys and the [1:43:37] Oath Keepers and other extremists who'd been called to storm the Capitol, because you got to go and fight [1:43:43] like hell, Donald Trump said. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country [1:43:47] anymore. And they went to stop the steel. That was the slogan. They did exactly what they set out [1:43:54] to do. And then they tried to blame it on Antifa. What a fraud it was. Was there any evidence, [1:44:00] Mr. Romano, that Antifa was actually behind it? Did Donald Trump just pardon nearly 1600 Antifa [1:44:07] fighters? Is that what he did? No, there was no evidence of that. In the hundreds of cases that I [1:44:11] supervised, I saw no evidence that any person we charged was Antifa or was motivated or driven by [1:44:18] Antifa. Well, if it wasn't Antifa, surely it was undercover FBI agents who made all those people [1:44:24] go out there and smash police officers in the face and storm the Capitol and try to overthrow the 2020 [1:44:31] presidential election. Right. What about the theory that this was really FBI sources, undercover [1:44:40] sources who did it? I've seen no evidence of that. As I said before, there were informants who were [1:44:46] present in the crowd, not at the direction of their FBI handlers. There were no undercover FBI agents [1:44:52] directing the crowd. That is a that is false information based on a statistic taken out of [1:44:57] context. All right. So essentially, what are our colleagues inviting us to believe today? Well, [1:45:05] let's see. Ms. Hagman wants to believe there was no insurrection, despite the fact that the House of [1:45:10] Representatives voted that Donald Trump incited an insurrection. But she wants us to believe it [1:45:15] didn't happen, despite the fact that you can find calls replete throughout the crowd and throughout [1:45:20] the extremist groups calling for an overthrow of the government, calling for the assassination of Mike [1:45:25] Pence and Nancy Pelosi, calling for the killing of members of Congress. But no, that didn't happen. [1:45:31] So they want us to believe that Trump and Giuliani and Sidney Powell and their associates didn't lie [1:45:38] by claiming the elections were stolen. In other words, they want us to believe the original lie [1:45:44] that set America off on this path of chaos and division. They want us to believe that Donald [1:45:51] Trump actually won the 2020 presidential election, which he lost by more than seven million votes, [1:45:58] 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, with more than 60 federal and state court decisions, [1:46:04] including by eight judges nominated at the bench by Donald Trump, rejecting and repudiating every [1:46:10] claim of electoral fraud and corruption that Trump and his forces put forward in court. And they want [1:46:16] to go back to it. They want us to believe that January 6th was provoked by the FBI. Even director Patel [1:46:25] said that was false. Even Patel rejects that one. They want to believe that the Capitol Police are [1:46:31] responsible for hundreds of rioters attacking them. Sergeant Connell, who fought in Afghanistan and [1:46:39] said that he saw no violence abroad that remotely compared to the medieval mayhem and violence [1:46:48] unleashed on the police officers that day, that he was at fault for it. Sergeant Connell, who had to [1:46:55] resign from the force because of injuries to his rotator cuff, his shoulder and his left foot, [1:47:00] because he couldn't any longer meet the physical demands of the job, that this is something that [1:47:06] he wanted. These officers who've suffered brain contusions, heart attacks, strokes. Brian Sicknick, [1:47:17] who died the next day after injuries inflicted on him by the mob, that this was somehow their fault. [1:47:24] It's obscene. It's absurd. I certainly hope we can expect more out of this subcommittee than that, [1:47:34] Mr. Chairman. There are some lingering questions. Most of them could be answered by Donald Trump, [1:47:38] who's never once testified under oath about what he did on January 6th, other than sit on his hands [1:47:45] and probably order hamburgers and french fries while he watched the whole scene on TV unfold. Did [1:47:51] nothing to send out the National Guard under his unilateral direct control in the District of [1:47:57] Columbia. And if you don't believe me, look it up, Ms. Hagman. Look it up. The President controls the [1:48:02] National Guard in the District of Columbia. I'll bet you a lunch with your former occupant of your [1:48:08] office, your predecessor, Ms. Cheney, who's somebody who brought great honor to this institution. [1:48:14] And I'll tell you this. And I'll tell you this. The truth is a resilient thing. We're not going to put [1:48:23] up with a pack of lies in this subcommittee and a bunch of conspiracy theories. We're not. We're not. [1:48:33] So, have at it. Throw what you want against the wall. But you better learn the first lesson they [1:48:38] teach lawyers when you pass the bar. When you go to court, you better bring the evidence with you. [1:48:45] Gentleman's time's expired. A gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is now recognized. [1:48:49] And let's talk about the evidence. If you learned that you're supposed to bring the evidence with you, [1:48:55] I submit to my colleague, he should have brought the evidence on the National Guard because in our prior [1:49:00] hearings held by Mr. Loudermilk, we discovered that not only did the president authorize the National [1:49:07] Guard in advance of January 6th, but that that offer was turned down. And then there was some [1:49:14] obstruction on the National Guard getting here because he gave the order for the National Guard to [1:49:20] be brought. And the general in charge, according to four officers who were with the National Guard that [1:49:28] day with the commander of the Washington, D.C. National Guard, four of them testified under oath [1:49:35] that the general never transmitted that order for well over two hours after the president gave the order. [1:49:42] So that's the evidence that's out there. And that are those are the facts on that. Now, [1:49:47] it was made in the in the prior hearing on this. Somebody said, well, why didn't the president just call [1:49:53] directly? And we all know what would happen. I said so at the time. We all know what would happen if the [1:49:58] president had done that. They would have said he's not following the chain of command because he's [1:50:01] supposed to give the orders to the general and the general's supposed to give the order to the [1:50:04] National Guard. But there was a failure there as well. Now, that's not what we hear about today. [1:50:09] We're here about the pipe bombing. And let me say this to my colleague on the other side of the aisle. [1:50:15] It took too long to capture the pipe bomber. It took too long. He threw that in his litany of [1:50:22] conspiracies. He says it's now a conspiracy that it took too long to find the pipe bomber. I'm telling you, [1:50:28] my friend, it took too long. That's not a conspiracy. That is the evidence and the facts. [1:50:35] It took too long to find this individual. And there was sloppy work at the FBI. Now, [1:50:40] I'm concerned about our safety because there's sloppy work all around on this thing. And I don't [1:50:44] understand why. Because we saw in the previous investigation through the House Admin Subcommittee [1:50:50] on Oversight, we saw a video where they bring in the detonation robot or the robot to take apart [1:50:57] or to make sure there's not a problem with one of the pipe bombs. And they didn't secure the area [1:51:03] around it. So in the film, you see, and the chairman will agree he saw it too, you see a pedestrian [1:51:11] walking by. All the police are standing back. Here comes a pedestrian walking by where the pipe bomb is. [1:51:17] And Mr. Piota, does that make any sense? Why are you allowing pedestrians in the neighborhood where [1:51:22] you're about to try to get a robot? You've sent a robot in to detonate and you don't have the area [1:51:27] secured. Does that make any sense to you? It makes no sense. The safety of the public would be your [1:51:31] paramount objective first to secure the area, clear the area of civilians, make sure that there aren't [1:51:38] any unnecessary personnel close to the device. And it raises the issue, and I don't have any [1:51:43] conspiracy theories. I have no idea why, but it raises the question, why? And maybe it was just [1:51:48] sloppy work. I think you're looking at adrenaline, bad training, ineptitude. All right. [1:51:58] If you can do it quickly, because I only got a minute and 50 seconds left because I got wound up [1:52:02] at the National Guard. But Patello FBI created a red team. What's a red team? And what's the process [1:52:09] of setting it up? And who makes the decision to set it up? Red team, it's a term of art. It's a [1:52:14] review team. He did a case review team. He took people who had certain backgrounds and investigative [1:52:19] experience that were consistent with what he was looking to accomplish, put them together, gave them [1:52:25] resources, gave them priority, and gave them the charter to take all this information. He removed all [1:52:31] obstacles and he gave them the charter to find out what's going on, look for any investigative gaps, [1:52:36] what the boss is interested in gets done, what the boss checks gets done well. And that's what [1:52:42] you saw here. Well, they did that in 2025. Do you think that while the Ray team was focused on [1:52:49] something else, and you mentioned that earlier, do you think that by 2024 or 2023, they would have been [1:52:57] able to focus and do a red team in the Ray FBI if they had thought that there was a reason to do so, [1:53:02] or that they thought that it was important? Because I'm concerned about the safety of people who go to [1:53:06] the RNC and the DNC. The senior leadership did not make it a priority. The resources weren't [1:53:10] dedicated. It didn't happen. So the safety of members of Congress going to their respective [1:53:15] political party headquarters was not a priority for the FBI at that time? Did not appear so. [1:53:20] Thank you very much. I yield back. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized. [1:53:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter the criminal indictment of [1:53:35] Mr. Brian J. Cole as the defendant in the pipe bomb case. Without objection. Mr. Nance, the investigation [1:53:52] of the pipe bomber that commenced under the Trump administration FBI seemed to be initiated just based [1:54:07] upon a focused effort of leadership within the FBI to direct investigative assets and procedures to put, [1:54:21] quote unquote, new set of eyes on the existing evidence. That's where they intended to begin. [1:54:28] They they had they had no way of knowing that the evidence that they were already in possession of that [1:54:35] the FBI had been in possession of since 2021 would produce a relatively short list of of potential [1:54:46] suspects based upon cellular analytics of possible cell phone numbers that could that could have planted [1:54:55] these bombs. They had no way of knowing that the evidence in their possession that they were going to [1:55:01] put a fresh set of eyes on would produce a solid suspect and and ultimately probable cause for an arrest. [1:55:10] Their intention was to review the existing material so that they had a good investigative foundation to [1:55:17] move forward with with an aggressive investigation and to solve the pipe bombers case. Does that sound like the [1:55:26] kind of solid leadership you would expect out of the FBI? Yeah, absolutely. That's what you would expect from [1:55:35] you know, what we used to call the our country's leading law enforcement agency. Well, I concur. I think [1:55:43] they're they're they're reclaiming that that recognition and it's all in a pipe bomber case was was quite significant. [1:55:59] The cellular analytical data. Is it true that the FBI and our intel services [1:56:11] has contractors that specialize in the collection of that data and the analytics of that data and it's not [1:56:19] necessarily a direct cat FBI employees but that the that the FBI itself uses contractors to provide [1:56:30] some of that data as additional assets to the FBI's own cat. Is that correct? [1:56:36] Yes, to a limited degree. Yeah, to a limited degree. Would you say to a specialized degree? [1:56:42] Absolutely. Thank you. So, um, let me just clarify, Mr. Chairman and and for Americans watching [1:56:51] whistleblowers came forward. A particular whistleblower came forward in 2022. That [1:57:00] that that is a specialized contractor for cellular analytical data that had initiated his own review [1:57:11] of cell data and after J six happened and the J six pipe bomb event was revealed to America and that [1:57:21] investigation was ongoing and and this whistleblower identified telephone numbers and provided them to [1:57:31] the FBI and to the FBI and we're advised to the original J six select Liz Cheney committee subcommittee, [1:57:42] the select committee and that data went nowhere. I ask again, Mr. Nance, Mr. Speciali, good sir, [1:57:51] Mr. Pia Hoda. How is it possible that the FBI could be that inept? Would you say that it's reasonable to suspect [1:58:04] that there was a purposeful intent to to ignore the evidence that they were in possession of? Or is it [1:58:14] more likely that the FBI was that inept? Mr. Nance? I think it's a matter of narrative. I think the [1:58:21] controlling narrative at the time was that the the threat to the American people was coming from the [1:58:28] RMV threat, the the white supremacist threat. That was the constant. Well, how would they know without [1:58:35] analyzing the data if it wasn't a, you know, a mega Republican? How would they know? Because that's [1:58:43] that's how they identified alleged white supremacist domestic terrorists. If you were if you were a mega [1:58:50] guy, mega American, you were in that category. So how would they know it was not a mega guy unless they [1:58:58] had analyzed the data? Well, it's it's possible that they knew that coal perhaps in in late 2021 [1:59:06] was a black male individual from Woodbridge, Virginia that that did not fit that narrative. [1:59:12] You agree that that's possible? It is possible. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I find that to be a [1:59:18] reasonable and disturbing suspicion. And to my to my friend and colleague, [1:59:24] the ranking member, I would suggest it's not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be true. So [1:59:31] we we shall see. The gentleman yields Mr. Askins recognized for UC. Thank you very much. I've got [1:59:38] several UC requests, Mr. Chairman. Number one is Secretary Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, [1:59:46] colon Trump gave no order to prepare troops before January 6. Associated Press fact check. Pelosi did not [1:59:54] block the National Guard from the Capitol on J six. That's July 23rd, 2021. This is the decision of [2:00:04] the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and RNC versus Nancy Pelosi, rejecting all [2:00:10] of the claims of procedural irregularities in the January six committee that were voiced by the gentleman [2:00:17] from Texas. Yahoo dot com. Trump forgets he was president during Capitol riot, blames the Biden FBI [2:00:26] for placing agents in the crowd in the dead of night on January 6th. And then finally, just two others. [2:00:36] This is the staff report that we did on the minority side. Mr. Chairman, one year later, assessing the public [2:00:42] safety implications of President Trump's mass pardons of 1600 January 6 rioters and insurrectionists. [2:00:49] And then finally, from politico dot com, Trump may have accidentally pardoned the January 6th pipe [2:00:57] bomber. Without objection, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming. Ranking member indicated [2:01:05] that the first lesson that you teach lawyers is you better bring the evidence with you. But another lesson [2:01:11] that we learn is that you should also know the elements of the crime and the relevant statute [2:01:17] if you're going to claim that somebody committed a crime. It's a pretty slimy tactic to use the word [2:01:23] insurrection over and over and over and over and over again and yet try to hide the fact that the [2:01:29] gentleman who's sitting here before us today, who was responsible for prosecuting many of the people [2:01:34] on January 6th, never once charged anybody with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. You never charged [2:01:45] anybody with violating that statute. You never convicted anybody with violating that statute. So sitting [2:01:52] here and using that word over and over again means absolutely nothing. We are here today focusing on [2:01:58] the pipe bomb because of what happened that day. It clearly played a pivotal role in facilitating the [2:02:05] breach of the Capitol and we need to get to the bottom of what happened there. These devices were [2:02:10] discovered outside the RNC and DNC within 20 minutes of the joint session and the U.S. Capitol Police were [2:02:16] forced to defy the forces while a crowd of protesters moved towards the Capitol. The U.S. Capitol Police was [2:02:23] not dealing with just the force division but also with the fact that 500 bike racks had been removed [2:02:29] the night before. Who ordered the removal of the 500 bike racks and why? The staff of the architect of [2:02:37] the Capitol testified that the evening of January 5th, roughly around the time the pipe bombs were [2:02:42] allegedly planted, the order came down to remove 500 bike racks from around the Capitol. Mr. Paihoda, [2:02:49] can bike racks help law enforcement with crowd control and deterrence? Absolutely. They form a physical [2:02:55] barrier between the crowd and a protected location or they can be used to help funnel a crowd to or from [2:03:02] a location. Well, can they also serve as a visual cue for non-law enforcement personnel about what lines [2:03:09] they are not allowed to cross? And could removing them spell legal jeopardy for protesters who cannot [2:03:15] identify what is the line of trespass? It creates ambiguity for the public. They don't know where [2:03:21] those barriers are. And did this actually result in legal jeopardy for many of the people who were on [2:03:26] the Capitol grounds on January 6th? It ended up that way. Okay. According to the select January 6th [2:03:34] committee's final report, quote, at 1 28 p.m., the U.S. Capitol Police requested the AOC to deliver 400 [2:03:42] additional bike racks to the east front to serve as protected barriers. Even though rioters were using [2:03:47] bike racks as weapons, the pipe bomb discovery at the DNC prevented the AOC from delivering them, [2:03:55] end quote. Clearly, the Capitol Police viewed the bike racks as a necessary tool for that day and their [2:04:01] removal is absolutely baffling. And this subcommittee should focus on identifying who gave that order, [2:04:09] why, when, who was involved. We need to get to the bottom of this. And the previous January 6th [2:04:16] committee didn't look into it. They're not the ones who actually investigated what happened here and why. [2:04:23] This statement is also clear that the impacts of the pipe bombs continue to be felt by the U.S. [2:04:27] Capitol Police officers responding to the incident. And Mr. Paihoda, does this raise even more questions [2:04:34] about why the Ray FBI did not take this pipe bomb investigation seriously? The Ray FBI [2:04:40] did not prioritize this investigation. Again, I think their resources and their attention was split [2:04:47] into the other events of January 6th. And over time, what we saw was in, I would say, a weak or inept [2:04:55] case management approach where this investigation eventually stalled. Okay. Mr. Especial, do you have [2:05:02] anything that you would like to briefly add to the discussion today? I think that the probably the [2:05:08] biggest takeaway in all of this is that there are 1600 American citizens that were baited into [2:05:17] a trespass trap to a great extent. Yes, certainly, absolutely. Some of them were violent and and and [2:05:24] investigations and prosecutions were warranted. But we're I have an estimate that it was almost a billion [2:05:32] dollars that was spent on prosecuting American citizens. It's a lot of money that we spent on [2:05:37] trying to prosecute patriotic American citizens. And then you add on top of that, the thousands of [2:05:44] American citizens that like like myself, that were also weaponized against in order for deterrence [2:05:51] purposes, all the tactical resources. It was really a terror campaign. You know, I would refer you to the [2:05:59] national counterterrorism reports available on my website. And it's highlighted where they want an [2:06:05] FBI domestic terrorism statute, quote, for deterrence purposes, they want to be able to silence free [2:06:13] speech. They did that with all of this. And you know, the cause, the cause bottom line is 51 intelligence [2:06:22] officers memo, Hunter Biden laptop, it's all these things where the the the American citizens that showed up [2:06:29] that day were at their wit's end on having faith in their government. And they were vulnerable. As I [2:06:37] warned, they were vulnerable. Well, and I think Hunter Biden is a good name to bring forward with you talk [2:06:41] to with Mr. Romano here when we talk about the appropriateness of pardons. Mr. Nance, do you have [2:06:48] anything to very briefly add? I think one of the biggest things that the American people need to take away [2:06:54] from this is the understanding that how how dangerous narrative led investigations can be, [2:07:01] because I think what we have going on here in large measure are narratives driven by the Biden White [2:07:08] House through the Garland DOJ. And these are, of course, communications happening, you know, headquarters [2:07:15] to headquarters. And Director Wray, as any leader can, can present the commander's intent without [2:07:21] explicitly doing so. So if if he if he's getting communications from his boss, who is the attorney [2:07:30] general, that the narrative needs to be we need to prioritize and stick with the J6 insurrection [2:07:37] narrative of the pipe bomber narrative or the pipe bomber investigation could, in my opinion, [2:07:44] was deprioritized because of that narrative coming from potentially the White House. [2:07:51] Well, I appreciate your testimony. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being willing to expose [2:07:55] this. With that, I yield back. A gentleman from Maryland is recognized for UC. [2:07:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is just the the website from the District of Columbia National Guard [2:08:06] stating the D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit which reports only to the president. [2:08:11] And then I'd like to submit for the record also under UC 18 U.S. Code 2384, defining conspiracy to [2:08:19] overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States, or opposed by force the [2:08:24] authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States [2:08:29] as seditious conspiracy, which is synonymous with insurrection. Without objection. I now recognize [2:08:36] myself for the final few moments of questioning. Mr. Romano, you had mentioned to Mr. Griffith earlier, [2:08:47] correct me if I'm wrong, that you were not aware of FBI agents being inside the Capitol during the [2:08:54] violence of January 2. I think what I said was that I wasn't aware of FBI agents being undercover in the [2:09:00] crowd or inciting action of the crowd. I know that FBI agents went to the Capitol as part of the law [2:09:04] enforcement response. Okay. Yeah. So we've just found that out recently in the last few months that [2:09:10] over 100 FBI agents were put deployed as crowd control, which is something that they're really [2:09:17] not supposed to do, according to after action reports that we've read. That apparently was never [2:09:25] made public during the trials. Did you ever have an FBI agent, one of those agents there testify [2:09:31] on behalf of the defense or the prosecution? I had FBI agents testify. Typically, they were case [2:09:37] agents who were part of the investigative team. These agents would have been witnesses. Oh, no. [2:09:43] Because they were in the crowd, but nobody knew they were in the crowd. The witnesses who testified in [2:09:47] my cases were typically Capitol Police and MPD officers. Okay. What I'm getting at is, why would they be [2:09:54] someone who could be compelled to testify as a witness had it been known that they were there witnessing some of [2:10:01] this? If they were used for crowd control, I'd be skeptical. If they were inside the Capitol, [2:10:07] when things were going on, would they not be a witness either for defense or prosecution? It's [2:10:12] possible. And if the FBI held that back that they were there, is that not withholding evidence? It [2:10:17] could be exculpatory. I would struggle to think how it's exculpatory. Most things in the Capitol were [2:10:23] recorded by cameras, which we produce. But there are plenty of areas that are not covered by cameras. [2:10:27] I've watched most of the footage. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Let me clear something regarding the [2:10:35] DC National Guard before I move on to my final question. The gentleman from Maryland is right. [2:10:40] The president does have the power to deploy the DC National Guard, but there is something that is more [2:10:45] powerful than the president, and that is the Constitution of the United States and the separation [2:10:48] of powers. He cannot just send the National Guard unless the National Guard is requested by the [2:10:53] legislative branch. There were multiple requests made by the former chief of police for National Guard [2:11:00] before the request to call them was given, and that was only after shots were fired in the Capitol. [2:11:08] That request was made to the Department of Defense in the one o'clock hour on January 6th. However, [2:11:16] the DC National Guard was not deployed. The order was not given to them for more than three and a half [2:11:22] hours after the request was made. On January 3rd, according to General Milley's own testimony, [2:11:31] which I have not only his testimony that he gave to the DC National Guard or to the Department of [2:11:38] Defense IG, but also in his daily log that we've had for some time. On January 3rd, he reported that [2:11:44] President Donald J. Trump told him to have the DC Guard ready to deploy to keep the people safe, [2:11:52] and what other resources he may need to keep the people safe on January 6th. That was delegating to [2:12:00] the Department of Defense. There was no question that that was done because there were plenty of [2:12:04] discussions, which we have the evidence through depositions and transcribed interviews between the [2:12:10] officials who were there and the DODIG. The discussion was whether or not we should go ahead and deploy [2:12:17] them. They knew that they had the the authority to deploy the DC National Guard. One of the there was [2:12:24] a lot of concern over optics and one of the TIs, one of the DOD officials said, we did not want it to [2:12:31] appear that we were participating in an insurrection. If you believe it was an insurrection by holding the [2:12:37] DC National Guard back there before you participated, right? Because they were there to help. [2:12:43] They were they would have been a huge deterrent had they been there when Chief Sun originally requested [2:12:50] them. So I just wanted to clear the record on that. And there is evidence to that. Mr. Nance, [2:12:59] is it plausible given the high profile nature of this case that the Biden DOJ influenced how the FBI [2:13:06] prioritized the pipe bombers apprehension? Yeah, I think that's the point that I've been making [2:13:10] throughout this proceeding is that there's a there was a narrative that was being pushed by the Garland [2:13:18] DOJ. And, you know, when you have a careerist like Director Wray, individuals like that aren't really [2:13:27] motivated to push back on narratives that they disagree with. So I think in large part that's what [2:13:32] happened. I think you had a narrative that was being presented by the Attorney General and was [2:13:38] communicated to the the FBI director. And I think therefore that led to the depriorization of the [2:13:46] pipe bomb case. Well, thank you for that. There is evidence pointing that Brian Cole Jr. was present [2:13:53] in all three of the FBI's most obvious evidentiary buckets. Cell phone data, license plate reader data, [2:14:00] and financial transactions. Is it plausible that FBI investigators knew Cole's identity as early as [2:14:06] February 2021? I think it's not just plausible. I think it's likely. And if you could remind us, [2:14:12] what's your experience with the FBI? Well, 20 year veteran with the FBI, I started out in the Miami [2:14:19] field office working counterintelligence and moved on to dignitary protection. And then finally, [2:14:25] as a supervisory special agent over the ground surveillance and aviation assets. [2:14:32] So there's been a lot of talk about conspiracy theories and narratives, and quite often they [2:14:38] can interconnect right to what to one person is a conspiracy theory to another could be defined as [2:14:44] a narrative. I would submit that there is plenty of narrative that came out of the former select [2:14:49] committee on January 6 that just is not factual, such as the DC National Guard. In fact, they reported, [2:14:54] they took what the DOD IG at the time told them that the DC National Guard was not ready. However, [2:15:02] they were sitting ready at the armory as early as daybreak because they mustered and they were [2:15:11] recalled ready to deploy because of Donald Trump's order. The handwriting of a note that the select [2:15:18] committee attributed to one of the witnesses, which a handwriting analysis clearly defined and [2:15:25] identified, and a nine year old could look at the handwriting of this note and identify that it was [2:15:30] one of the counsels at the White House. There are a number of statements, blatant statements made in [2:15:37] the January select committee's report that just aren't, they just don't pass the evidentiary test because [2:15:45] the evidence is opposite. But it still confounds my wisdom is why was no one on that side interested in [2:15:55] the pipe bomb when it was a Democrat vice president elect who was within feet of the pipe bomb. [2:16:05] And there's, there's very, there's basically no reference to that in the report. Before we adjourn, [2:16:12] I do want to submit a couple of things for the record. Governor Pitzker Sanctuary Illinois released more [2:16:22] than 1700 criminal aliens, including murders, pedophiles and kidnappers. An article Sanctuary [2:16:29] New York released nearly 7000 criminal illegal aliens, including murders, terrorists and sexual [2:16:35] predators. I think that's evidence. There's been a lot of talk about pardons in here. I think there's, [2:16:43] there's definitely evidence here that violent offenders are regularly being released back into the [2:16:47] community by some of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle. Transcripts show President [2:16:52] Trump's directives to, this is a press release from September 20, 2024. Transcripts show President [2:16:58] Trump's directives to Pentagon leadership to keep January 6th safe were deliberately ignored. And also [2:17:04] an article from August 28, 2024, Pelosi blames, Pelosi admits blame for stupidity and January 6th security [2:17:14] failures and new release video. I take full responsibility without objection. This concludes today's [2:17:20] hearing. We thank the witnesses for appearing before the select committee. Without objection, [2:17:25] all members will have five legislative days to submit additional writing and question forms for the [2:17:30] witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.