If Arctic Frost Perpetrators Don’t Go To Jail, Conservatives Will
To conservatives, Arctic Frost is a scandal. To Democrats, it’s their new baseline. And the only way to stop it is to punish them.To conservatives, Arctic Frost is a scandal. To Democrats, it’s their new baseline. And the only way to stop it is to punish them.'She's one of us!' Steve Baker stuns Glenn Beck with bombshell revelation about J6 pipe-bomb suspect
Blaze News investigative reporters Steve Baker and Joseph Hanneman have spent years working to identify the masked individual who placed pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5, 2021.
Baker, whom the Biden FBI arrested over his January 6 reporting, revealed to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on Wednesday that they have finally locked in on a suspect. What's more, Baker hinted that the suspect's imminent identification will implicate and shame at least one federal agency.
'It is monstrous.'
Baker told Beck, "When I pulled this thread, I was so shocked by what I saw, I immediately took it to a source in one of the most important, highest-level investigative federal agencies in the country. I immediately took it to our sources there, and I said, 'You have to see this.'"
"After they looked at it for about two hours, the response that I got back was, 'Holy F,'" continued Baker. "And then the follow-up response was, 'She's one of us!'"
— (@)
When pressed by Beck about his confidence level in the suspect ID, Baker said, "I will tell you that from gait analysis — that's the analysis of the hoodied bomber ... compared to the gait analysis of this individual in private life and at work — that the actual software hit at a 94% accuracy."
"Human analysis from the experts in intelligence is much higher," continued Baker. "They looked at it and went, 'My God, that's it. We got it.'"
RELATED: Analysis: FBI’s Jan. 6 pipe bomb update omits key evidence, withholds video
Forensic gait analysis — the scientific study of patterns in an individual's style of movement in walking or running — is regarded as one of the most sophisticated approaches to identifying an individual from CCTV footage or video recordings and as especially valuable in the absence of other biometric identifiers.
The American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Magazine noted in 2023 that gait analysis, which has been used to help secure criminal convictions throughout the Anglosphere for decades, "can be compelling, corroborating evidence," especially since "criminals cannot hide their gait."
Baker indicated that he left some "breadcrumbs" in recent reports.
Hanneman and Baker reported last week, for instance, that the 8.5-minute video about the Jan. 6 pipe bombs released by the FBI in October contained footage edited to exclude showing a U.S. Capitol Police SUV pull up directly across the street from where the suspect stood at 8:15 p.m. on January 5, 2021.
In addition to raising suspicion about the selective edit, the investigative duo claimed that the FBI also deliberately chose not to publicly acknowledge the theory that the pipe bombs were part of a poorly timed training exercise.
Baker told Beck on Wednesday that while the FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department are offering a $500,000 reward for evidence that leads to an arrest in the case, he didn't take the new evidence implicating the yet-to-be named suspect to the agencies "because we believe that they were actively engaged in the cover-up."
Baker indicated that there are national security-related briefings under way, and Beck said that the suspect's name will be released after the relevant agencies have "battened down the hatches."
Beck said, "This is one of the biggest stories — I think it is the biggest scandal of my lifetime, maybe in the last 100 years. It is monstrous."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
BBC allegedly deceptively edited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech into riot lie
President Donald Trump was accused of inciting a riot at the Capitol during his speech to supporters on January 6, 2021. An allegedly deceptively edited clip from that address, which aired on a BBC special just a month before the 2024 presidential election, created the impression that those accusations against Trump were accurate.
The BBC's one-hour Panorama special "Trump: A Second Chance?" featured a clip where the president appeared to say, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
'As well as altering Mr. Trump's words, the documentary also showed flag-waving men marching on the Capitol in Washington, DC, on Jan. 6, 2021, after the president spoke, which created the impression Trump's supporters had taken up his "call to arms."'
However, an internal memo obtained by the Telegraph accused the BBC of heavily editing the clip by allegedly splicing segments of his speech that were nearly an hour apart.
An unedited version of Trump's speech revealed his actual words.
"We're gonna walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're gonna walk down. We're gonna walk down any one you want, but I think right here, we're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we're gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness; you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. ... I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said.
Approximately 54 minutes later, while discussing his concerns about election integrity, Trump said, "Most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say, 'I wanna thank you very much,' and they go off to some other life, but I said something's wrong here, something's really wrong, can't have happened, and we fight."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore," Trump added.
RELATED: Republicans enraged by weaponized FBI Arctic Frost investigation: 'Biden DOJ's Watergate'
The allegedly manipulated footage, which aired last October, made Trump "'say' things [he] never actually said," according to a 19-page dossier on the BBC's alleged bias.
"As well as altering Mr. Trump's words, the documentary also showed flag-waving men marching on the Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, after the president spoke, which created the impression Trump's supporters had taken up his 'call to arms.' In fact, the footage was shot before Mr. Trump had even started speaking," the Telegraph wrote.
When BBC managers were alerted about the misleading edits, they allegedly "refused to accept there had been a breach of standards."
RELATED: Analysis: FBI’s Jan. 6 pipe bomb update omits key evidence, withholds video
Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, wrote the bias dossier before leaving his role in June.
"While we don't comment on leaked documents, when the BBC receives feedback, it takes it seriously and considers it carefully," a BBC spokesperson told Blaze News. "Michael Prescott is a former adviser to a board committee where differing views and opinions of our coverage are routinely discussed and debated."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
DOJ pardon attorney doubts validity of Biden autopen pardons as nullification campaign picks up steam
The campaign to throw out the Biden-era pardons for Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, members of the Biden clan, former members of the House Jan. 6 select committee, and other controversial figures appears to be gaining momentum — and the Office of the Pardon Attorney made clear this week that it's onboard.
The House Oversight Committee alleged in its damning 100-page report on Tuesday that senior Biden staffers not only worked desperately to conceal the former president's rapid mental deterioration but usurped his authority with the help of the presidential autopen — a machine used to affix Biden's signature to a host of controversial executive actions and pardons.
'In theory, a court invalidation could result in restoration of penalties.'
"As President Biden was losing command of himself throughout his time in office, his executive actions — especially pardons, of which there are many — cannot all be deemed his own," said the report. "The authority to grant pardons is not provided to the president’s inner circle. Nor can it be delegated to particular staff when a president’s competency is in question."
Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) concluded that unauthorized executive actions signed by autopen were "null and void," then asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to review the validity of all executive actions taken during Biden's time in office.
Bondi confirmed on Tuesday that a review of the autopen use for pardons during the Biden era is underway.
Ed Martin, the U.S. pardon attorney at the DOJ, suggested in a letter on Monday to Comer that his investigation into the matter has turned up "disturbing findings" such that his office "cannot support the validity and ongoing legal effect of pardons and commutations issued during the Biden administration without further examination."
In the letter obtained by CNN, Martin suggested that Biden's admission to the New York Times that he "did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people" by itself "seems to raise serious questions of whether those commutations are valid."
RELATED: Biden freed killers with a pen he didn’t even hold
Martin indicated that doubt over the validity of the commutations is further compounded by the suggestion in former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer's communications with the Biden White House that the autopenned commutations issued on Jan. 17 in the former president's name were legally flawed.
The pardon attorney raised other "defects" concerning the pardon process, particularly in the final weeks of the administration.
"My office cannot support the validity of AutoPen pardons for individuals such as Anthony Fauci, Adam Schiff, Mark Milley, and many more without further examination and fact-finding," wrote Martin. "In my tenure here, I have not seen any evidence supporting the theory that President Biden was personally aware and authorized these AutoPen'd pardons."
Martin, who alluded to a court ultimately weighing in on the validity of the pardons, told Comer, "If these pardons or commutations are challenged in any way, I recognize serious difficulties in defending them."
The Oversight Committee similarly foreshadowed a court voiding the pardons in its report, stating that "the Constitution is clear: 'The President shall ... have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.'"
The committee further quoted from a recent essay by constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger, a professor at Columbia Law School, which concluded, "The history confirms that the Constitution’s location of the pardon power is significant. The president must make the decisions, and the courts can hold pardons void if the decisions are made by others."
While the nullification campaign's success in the courts could spell disaster for Fauci, Milley, and others, some scholars have cast doubt on the likelihood of that outcome.
When asked whether the pardonees' convictions and legal vulnerabilities would be fully restored should their pardons be ruled invalid, Jeremy Paul, a professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law, told Blaze News, "In theory, a court invalidation could result in restoration of penalties. I see this as extremely unlikely."
"If the DOJ attempted to impose punishment upon the affected individuals, the individuals would raise the pardons as a defense in federal court," continued Paul. "Lower courts would issue rulings. The case could end up in the Supreme Court but that Court would not be required to hear the case."
Paul expressed doubt about whether the pardons could be invalidated in the first place, stating, "Unless evidence emerges that DOJ officials granted pardons in express opposition to President Biden's wishes, which seems highly unlikely, I cannot see any basis on which pardons could be deemed invalid."
Bernadette Meyler, a Stanford Law School professor, suggested to CNN that one way to go about trying to void a pardon would be for Attorney General Bondi to "sue for a declaratory judgment that the pardons were invalid because of some form of impropriety in the signing of them, or in the giving of the pardon."
Blaze News has reached out to the Office of the Pardon Attorney for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Judge allows Jan. 6 lawsuit alleging excessive force in DC jail to proceed
An excessive-force lawsuit by a pardoned former Jan. 6 defendant who was allegedly twice blasted in the face with pepper spray by a guard in the District of Columbia jail will proceed toward trial, a federal district court judge ruled on Sept. 19.
Judge Jia M. Cobb rejected a motion from lawyers for Crystal Lancaster to dismiss the excessive-force lawsuit brought against her and the District of Columbia by Ronald Colton McAbee of Unionville, Tenn.
The judge dismissed the District of Columbia as a defendant, saying McAbee’s claims of municipal liability in the case “are too conclusory for the court to allow those claims to go forward.”
‘I pray that the truth will prevail.’
Citing several U.S. Court of Appeals precedents, Judge Cobb said, “No officer confronting a person who was 1) subdued by officers, (2) had his hands behind his back, (3) was compliant, and (4) was not engaged in any threatening or assaultive conduct could possibly think it would be reasonable to spray that person in his face with a chemical agent.”
“Accordingly, McAbee’s excessive force claims can proceed against Lancaster,” she wrote in a 19-page memorandum opinion and order.
The pepper-spray incident occurred at about 9:45 a.m. on Sept. 5, 2022. McAbee left his cell in the C2B pod at the D.C. Central Treatment Facility to walk to a nearby medical cart to obtain his prescription medications. Witnesses said then-Lt. Lancaster shouted at McAbee to put on a COVID-19 mask.
After McAbee took his medication, the lawsuit alleges Lancaster sprayed him with oleoresin capsicum — a harsh chemical irritant sometimes referred to as pepper spray or pepper gel. After McAbee’s hands were cuffed behind his back, Lancaster allegedly fired another blast of OC spray in his face.
RELATED: Jan. 6 defendant Colt McAbee on presidential pardon: 'Best day of my life other than my wedding'
Sarah McAbee said her husband suffered painful aftereffects over the next several days. Even after he was allowed a brief shower, the residue on McAbee’s skin reactivated, causing a painful burning sensation. He was put into a shower with warm water, which she said was like jumping into a hot tub after a third-degree sunburn.
Sarah McAbee told Blaze News that after the spray incident, her husband was put into solitary confinement and not given access to clean clothes or a thorough decontamination for three days.
Judge Cobb allowed the lawsuit to proceed on the two counts of alleged excessive force, saying the second instance of pepper spray to McAbee’s face is a stronger candidate as a violation of constitutional rights.
“It is clear, however, that the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment,” the judge wrote.
Judge Cobb deferred ruling on which clause — the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment or the Fourth Amendment — applies to each of McAbee’s allegations. She asked both sides to prepare briefs on the issue.
The litmus tests for excessive force are “substantially similar” under both the Fourth Amendment and the 14th Amendment, Judge Cobb wrote.
“Both tests focus on objective reasonableness and direct lower courts to consider factors in assessing reasonableness, including ‘the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used, the extent of the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force, the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting,” Cobb wrote.
Judge Cobb said she will “allow McAbee’s claims that Lancaster used unconstitutionally excessive force against him.” McAbee “has pled a plausible excessive force claim against Lancaster.”
Judge Cobb rejected Lancaster’s claim of qualified immunity, saying the affirmative defense that shields officers from liability applies only if the conduct in question “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law.”
McAbee told Blaze News he was encouraged by the judge’s ruling.
“I think it’s very exciting and telling that maybe we can go through with this case in D.C., where there is a bias against people like me,” he said.
“In reality this is about right vs. wrong. Going forward will bring justice and closure,” McAbee said. “I pray that the truth will prevail and the people that orchestrated this years-long delay and attack on me are put to justice, whatever that may look like.”
The District of Columbia Department of Corrections defied demands from U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) that security camera footage and Lancaster’s bodycam footage be released to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary. Eventually Nehls was allowed to watch the video at the DOC offices but did not receive a copy.
Now McAbee will have opportunities to obtain the video as the case proceeds to the discovery phase.
RELATED: Tennessee sheriff's deputy became a January 6 trophy in a lie-filled 'manifest injustice'
McAbee was prosecuted by the Biden Department of Justice for alleged actions on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol. Despite bodycam and other video showing he never assaulted Metropolitan Police Department Officer Andrew Wayte, a jury found him guilty of that count and six other criminal charges.
The case was marred by lies, manipulated evidence, and a possibly tainted jury to such a degree that defense attorney and former veteran DOJ prosecutor William Shipley called the result a “manifest injustice.”
McAbee was sentenced in late February 2024 to 70 months in prison. He was serving that sentence at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minn., when President Donald J. Trump signed a pardon declaration that set him free after 1,252 days in government custody.
He walked out of FMC Rochester into minus-18-degree weather and into the arms of his wife, Sarah. “Best day of my life other than my wedding,” he told Blaze News at the time.
McAbee appealed his conviction in March 2024. On March 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated his criminal conviction and remanded the case to the district court, which dismissed it as moot.
Blaze News reached out to the District of Columbia Office of Attorney General for comment on Judge Cobb’s opinion.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The New York Times rewrites history while Jan. 6 families pay the price
The New York Times recently published an article attempting to recast the events of Jan. 6, 2021, through the lens of prosecutors who lost their jobs following President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office. The piece depicts these lawyers as martyrs in a political purge, forced to leave behind diplomas and personal items as though they were casualties of injustice.
Yet this framing fundamentally ignores the real devastation that flowed from the government's handling of January 6: families destroyed, children traumatized, and ordinary Americans subjected to years of aggressive and politicized prosecution.
Prosecutors were not martyrs. They were the instruments of a system that made martyrs out of ordinary citizens.
Those of us who have worked directly with these families have seen firsthand the long-term impact of the Department of Justice's unprecedented approach. History cannot be rewritten to cast prosecutors as victims while erasing the lives they targeted from public memory.
The forgotten victims
The most overlooked victims of January 6 have been the children of defendants. These young people endured traumatic government raids that remain etched into their memories. Many remember predawn operations when flash-bang devices exploded inside their homes.
They recall doors being battered down, glass shattering, and heavily armed agents entering their bedrooms. They watched their mothers cry, attempting to hold families together as fathers were taken away in handcuffs. In certain cases, both parents were removed, leaving children to wonder if they would ever see their families whole again.
This was not a foreign dictatorship. It happened in the United States. These tactics, carried out against families who posed no threat, inflicted deep and lasting harm on innocent children. Yet the prosecutors who initiated these cases are now presented as political casualties.
That is an inversion of reality. They were not martyrs. They were the instruments of a system that made martyrs out of ordinary citizens.
The tragedy of Matthew Perna
The case of Matthew Perna illustrates the human toll of this prosecutorial overreach. Perna entered the Capitol, recorded video, and left without committing violence or destruction. Nevertheless, prosecutors pursued severe charges against him, including the application of a "terrorism enhancement" that would have drastically increased his sentence. Media outlets amplified the narrative, branding him as a threat to the nation.
The weight of this combined persecution proved too much for Perna. Before sentencing, he took his own life. His story exposes both the cruelty of the government’s approach and the complicity of media institutions that reinforced it. Today, prosecutors involved in such cases seek sympathy for their professional losses, while families like Matthew's continue to grieve irreparable personal losses.
An egregious double standard
The broader context highlights a political double standard. Democrats describe January 6 as one of the darkest days in American history. Yet the riots of 2020 — federal courthouses attacked, businesses destroyed, police assaulted, communities set ablaze — are routinely called “mostly peaceful.”
The murder of retired police captain David Dorn, killed on livestream while defending his community, generated little lasting outrage. Entire cities endured months of chaos, but few faced consequences comparable to the sweeping prosecutions unleashed against January 6 participants. Where were the terrorism enhancements then? Where were the years-long investigations, the solitary confinement, the relentless media coverage?
The truth is straightforward: Unrest associated with the political left is minimized or excused. Protests involving Trump supporters are magnified into terrorism. This inconsistency erodes public trust in equal justice under the law.
A critical course correction
Against this backdrop, the decisions by Attorney General Pam Bondi and special prosecutor Ed Martin should be recognized for what they are: efforts to restore fairness to a corrupt system. Bondi took decisive action to remove prosecutors who had shown an inability to separate justice from politics.
Martin, who himself witnessed the events of January 6, understood that Americans cannot be criminalized simply for supporting a particular political movement. His leadership in ending the ongoing persecution of defendants brought accountability to those who had turned prosecutions into a political weapon.
The New York Times calls this a "purge." A more accurate description is a course correction — an attempt to re-establish integrity in the Department of Justice and reaffirm that justice must not serve partisan ends.
The true victims of January 6 were not federal prosecutors. They were the more than 1,500 Americans caught in the dragnet of politicized charges. They were the families left bankrupt and broken. They were the children who still wake with nightmares of flash-bangs and broken doors. They were people like Matthew Perna, who lost hope under the crushing weight of unjust treatment.
They were also President Trump, the first lady, their son Barron, and allies who endured years of politicized investigations, predawn raids, tanks in neighborhoods, and heavily armed SWAT teams at their doors. These were the consequences of a government determined to use its vast powers not against criminals, but against political opponents.
Setting history straight
We must ensure that these truths are not forgotten. We cannot allow prosecutors to rewrite history by presenting themselves as martyrs. We cannot permit the suffering of families, the cries of children separated from their parents, or the suicide of Matthew Perna to be erased from public consciousness.
Justice in America must return to its foundational principle: fairness for all citizens, regardless of political affiliation. Until that principle is restored, we must continue to speak out and to stand with those whose lives were devastated by the misuse of government power.
This is not about revenge. It is about truth. It is not about politics. It is about families. And it is not about power. It is about ensuring that no American child ever again experiences the terror of waking to flash-bangs, shattered doors, and the loss of their parents over politics.
The First Amendment Does Not Protect Media Matters From Breaking The Law
For a left-wing advocacy group, certain courts will bend over backwards to block investigations based on plausible allegations of wrongdoing.
New Jan. 6 subcommittee empaneled to tackle pipe bombs, fed-surrection, other issues
After nearly eight months of wrangling over jurisdictional and turf issues, a new Jan. 6 select subcommittee will begin oversight and investigation work on Sept. 2, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced Wednesday.
The new investigation panel will be a subgroup of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who did extensive investigative work on Jan. 6 issues during the 118th Congress that closed on Jan. 3, 2025.
'January 6th was the fulcrum event for the weaponization of government.'
The subcommittee, which will have full subpoena power, will be known as the Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding Jan. 6, 2021. During the previous legislative session, Loudermilk’s Jan. 6 work was under the auspices of the Committee on House Administration and its chairman, Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.).
Establishment of a Jan. 6 committee was a high priority of President Donald J. Trump, and it took the president’s persuasive skills to smooth over the disputes that delayed formation of the subcommittee. Final details were hashed out during recent meetings at the White House, senior officials told Blaze News.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Blaze News that establishment of the committee is a milestone.
RELATED: Metropolitan Police Department refuses public access to Jan. 6 use-of-force reports
“This is an important development,” Fitton said. “The challenge is the investigation must turn inward on the House! Who protected [Lt. Michael] Byrd? Who made decisions and when about U.S. Capitol security measures? What about collusion with Biden DOJ, Fani Willis, etc., to jail Trump and other Americans?"
“There is no comparable congressional corruption and abuse in American history,” Fitton said.
Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, said establishment of the J6 committee is long overdue.
“January 6th was the fulcrum event for the weaponization of government,” Howell told Blaze News. “It provided the supposed moral cover and justification for some of the worst abuses by law enforcement and the intelligence community in United States history.
Long overdue
“This committee should have been stood up long ago, particularly when it became evident that the supposed Weaponization Subcommittee was an unserious exercise, but better late than never,” Howell said. “There is much work ahead, and I expect there to be many fights over the enforcement of subpoenas. The Oversight Project stands ready to assist in any way we can.”
Although the subcommittee won’t officially begin work until after the August recess, some key staff are expected to remain in Washington setting the foundation for the first investigations to launch once the House is back in September.
The new Select Subcommittee comes into being amid a very different atmosphere in Washington than during the previous Congress, thanks to the election of President Trump last November.
Lack of cooperation from the Biden Department of Justice and FBI stymied the work of the former Subcommittee on Oversight that ceased operation with the closing of the 118th Congress.
The subcommittee has its work cut out on major Jan. 6 issues, including identifying the pipe bomber, exposing how many federal agents and informants were involved in the crowds at the U.S. Capitol, weaponization of the FBI and DOJ against more than 1,600 now-former Jan. 6 defendants, and public release of the rest of the Capitol Police CCTV security video.
The panel will also be tasked with investigating the killing of protester Ashli Babbitt and the questions that still surround former Capitol Police Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd.
Recently departed Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger apparently ignored November 2024 demands from Loudermilk’s subcommittee for more details on Byrd’s significant disciplinary history and efforts by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to financially help the man who gunned down the 14-year Air Force veteran.
RELATED: Feds settle multimillion-dollar lawsuit in the death of Ashli Babbitt
Loudermilk revealed in a Nov. 20, 2024, letter that the Office of Professional Responsibility files on three incidents involving Byrd were somehow missing. Manger was asked to explain that, but sources told Blaze News that Manger never responded to Loudermilk’s letter.
Blaze News reached out to USCP for comment. The story will be updated if we receive a response.
Serious questions remain about the DOJ report that cleared Byrd in the Babbitt shooting. The Biden DOJ used the wrong legal standard to justify not pursuing charges of excessive force against the 30-year Capitol Police veteran.
The death of protester Rosanne Boyland has also not been given attention by Congress in its work to date.
There are also many loose ends that were left behind by the Democrat-controlled Jan. 6 Select Committee empaneled by Pelosi in 2022. Witness transcripts, videos, and other materials that should have been preserved by the committee were destroyed. No one has been held to account for the destruction of legislative investigative records.
Loudermilk’s new subcommittee could also examine the apparently perjured testimony given by two former Capitol Police officers in the 2022 trial of the first group of Oath Keepers prosecuted by the Biden regime.
A Blaze News investigation proved that Officer Harry Dunn and Special Agent David Lazarus gave false and conflicting testimony on the witness stand regarding an alleged confrontation between a group of Oath Keepers and Dunn.
Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com