Mysterious Babbitt shooting witnesses incited rioters, met secretly with Capitol Police on January 6



Two unidentified men who incited rioters on January 6, captured video throughout the U.S. Capitol for hours, and stood feet from Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt when she was shot are drawing new attention as the fourth anniversary of the tragic day looms.

A Blaze News video investigation found that the duo assisted and shadowed a large group of protesters from the Capitol’s West Plaza to the House Speaker’s Lobby before Babbitt was fatally shot.

The pair later met secretly with U.S. Capitol Police at the edge of Capitol grounds and shared at least one video clip as evidence before the Babbitt shooting investigation was even officially under way. Capitol Police did not make a video or audio recording of their talks with the men. One of the men sat in an unmarked squad car and showed USCP special agents at least some of his video, security footage reviewed by Blaze News showed.

'What evil do you think he is up to?'

The men have been the subject of intense social media speculation for some time. They warranted just a few paragraphs in the now-closed Babbitt shooting investigation conducted by the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department.

Nicknamed “Frick and Frack” by a YouTube satirist, the men have long been considered important material witnesses in the killing of Babbitt, 35, of San Diego. They have not been publicly identified, arrested by the FBI, or charged by federal prosecutors.

As the FBI Jan. 6 arrest total heads toward 1,600, it’s not fully clear how aggressive the bureau will continue to be in the wake of former President Donald J. Trump’s landslide re-election on Nov. 5. Despite a reported DOJ decision to focus only on violent cases leading up to Jan. 20, the FBI recently arrested a 74-year-old cancer patient for nonviolent Jan. 6 misdemeanors.

Analyzing more than 22,000 hours of Capitol Police security video posted on Rumble by a U.S. House committee, Blaze News tracked the movements of Frick and Frack from the early violence on the West Plaza to their meeting with police and to them walking west away from Capitol grounds at 4 p.m.

Babbitt, an Air Force and National Guard veteran who came to Washington, D.C., to hear then-President Trump speak, was shot at nearly point-blank range at 2:44 p.m. by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd.

She died a half-hour later at a Washington hospital. The death was classified a homicide by the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to pursue charges against Byrd, who said he feared for his life when the 5'2" Babbitt began climbing into the window.

'I cannot believe I am witnessing this. A woman was shot and is dead!'

The shooting triggered a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government brought by Judicial Watch Inc. on behalf of widower Aaron Babbitt and his late wife’s estate. The DOJ secured a change of venue from Babbitt’s hometown of San Diego to the friendly confines of federal district court in Washington, D.C. Judicial Watch is appealing the change of venue. The suit is proceeding into discovery.

As that litigation and the extensive investigation that underpins it begin their long journey through the federal courts, questions have grown about the identities of more than a dozen material witnesses who either took part in rioting near the Speaker’s Lobby entrance or captured video that could be valuable evidence in the shooting. Frick and Frack are prominent on that list.

The list of unidentified material witnesses (see chart) includes #RedOnRedGlasses (second from top left), a provocateur captured on video apparently launching a long two-by-four like a javelin through a window at the Senate Wing Door at 2:12 p.m., creating the first breach of the Capitol Building.

Nearly two dozen material witnesses to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, 2021, have not been publicly identified or questioned about what they saw outside the Speaker‘s Lobby. Sam Montoya/Open Source Video

Open-source videos reviewed by Blaze News from the hallways near the main U.S. House entrance show #RedOnRed attempting to kick in heavy wooden office doors. He ended up in the front line at the Speaker’s Lobby entrance. Babbitt nearly landed on his feet when she fell back to the floor, mortally wounded. Despite ample video evidence of his acts — and clear video views of his face — the man has not been publicly identified or arrested by the FBI.

#MrFlyEyes (upper right) attempted to kick in the Speaker’s Lobby doors after three Capitol Police officers abandoned their post guarding the entrance, video showed. His phone indicated he was capturing video during the melee.

#PushyKeffiyeh and #NoProHelmet (lower left) operated at least four cameras during and after the shooting. It is not known if their video — or footage captured by potentially dozens of others — was sought or obtained by police.

Frick and Frack

The somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to the pair of key witnesses as “Frick and Frack” is drawn from 20th century American pop culture.

A world-famous comedic skating duo known as Frick and Frack performed spectacular on-ice feats for tens of millions of U.S. fans from 1939 until late 1953. Their ice-folly antics and derring-do seemed to defy the laws of physics. Their on-rink names have since become synonymous with a closely matched set or a pair of inseparable friends.

Comedic ice skating duo and Ice Follies touring show members Frick and Frack, circa 1950. "Frick" (Werner Groebli) is seen on the left, and "Frack" (Hans Rudolf "Hansruedi" Mauch) is on the right. Photo by European/FPG/Archive Photos/Getty Images

At the Capitol, the 21st-century Frick and Frack were always within feet of each other during a crucial two-hour span on Jan. 6, Capitol Police security video revealed. When crowds of protesters pressed around them, Frick held onto Frack’s backpack to make sure they did not get separated in Capitol hallways.

Despite their ample presence on closed-circuit security cameras and open-source video, Frick and Frack do not appear on the FBI’s Jan. 6 most-wanted page or the “Perp Sheet” page maintained by the online sleuths of Sedition Hunters. However, Frick is listed as Insider 2047 and Frack is Insider 2325 on the Sedition Hunters' list of 3,268 “Sedition Insiders” who entered the Capitol.

Sedition Hunters added a page devoted to Frack on March 4 that included nine photographs. That page, however, is not hot-linked to Frack’s thumbnail photo on the Sedition Insiders page. A reader would have to search the site by insider number or hashtag (#BehindTheLineGuy) to find the detail page.

Neither page shows that Frack has been identified by law enforcement. According to Sedition Hunters, 815 people on the insiders list have been identified but not arrested.

On social media, Sedition Hunters published Frack’s photo with a green “Identified” label on it but did not provide his name.

When questioned on July 21 by X user Silvio Costa about the identity of Frick and Frack, Sedition Hunters posted: “Why do you assume they are not Trump supporters?? I mean seriously?? The guy in the red hat is a family nurse practitioner that lives in California. What evil do you think he is up to[?]”

When Costa asked how Sedition Hunters knew the man is a “family nurse practitioner,” he did not get a response. Elsewhere in the same thread, Sedition Hunters wrote, “The FBI knows exactly who these two men are.” The post did not indicate how Sedition Hunters was aware of this.

Blaze News reached out to Sedition Hunters for more information but did not receive a reply by press time.

Based on video and photo evidence from Jan. 6, Frack appeared to be about 35 years old and 6 feet tall with a husky build, dark hair, and a thick, dark beard. Frick was about 55, 5'7" tall, balding with a grey mustache, and slimmer build but with a potbelly.

According to video, Frick threw off his primary role as an observer at the bottom of the Northwest Steps by leaning police bicycle-rack barricades against the massive balustrade to help protesters climb onto the stone railing and move up to the Capitol. This is what Jan. 6 prosecutors have typically labeled as participation in a riot or “storming the Capitol.”

The provocateur and shooting witness known only as “Frick” used bicycle racks to help protesters climb onto the balustrade of the Northwest Steps at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.U.S. Department of Justice

Video released by the U.S. Department of Justice showed Frick placing two such makeshift ladders in place. He also handed up what appeared to be a piece of lumber to rioters above.

Similar battering rams were used in various places on the Capitol grounds to smash windows on Jan. 6, including the one to the right of the Senate Wing Door just after 2:10 p.m.

Frack also apparently placed a section of bicycle rack against the side of the stairway that was used by dozens of people to climb onto the balustrade. Video shot by journalist Ford Fischer showed Frack grabbing and handing two sections of bike-rack barrier up to protesters 10 feet above him.

Frack took a long section of heavy cardboard tubing as if to hand it up to those standing above him, but he leaned the ramrod against the balustrade instead, video showed. A similar-looking tube was used to smash windows adjacent to the Lower West Terrace tunnel later that day.

Bodycam footage from an unknown MPD officer walking nearby at 2:03 p.m. showed Frick and Frack pausing their activity at the balustrade to watch brawls that broke out between rioters and police just north of the West Plaza. This included hand-to-hand combat, with some rioters trying to wrestle riot sticks from police and others discharging bear spray at officers.

The entire crowd — including provocateur witnesses Frick and Frack (inset) — watch a brawl between rioters and Metropolitan Police near the Capitol‘s West Plaza just after 2 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021.Metropolitan Police Department bodycam

A three-man undercover team from the Metropolitan Police Department’s Electronic Surveillance Unit was in this same area a short time later, according to video from one of the officers leaked on the video platform Rumble in March 2023. They walked up the Northwest Steps about 10 minutes after Frick and Frack.

Investigator Nicholas Tomasula captured video on a GoPro Hero 8 camera as he climbed onto the balustrade and went up the Northwest Steps toward the Capitol. Video shows he encouraged protesters to keep going and took part in crowd chants — so much so that federal prosecutors were later forced to admit that he acted as a provocateur in the west side crowd.

Surveillance Unit members Detective Michael Callahan and Detective Ricardo Leiva ascended the Northwest Steps just a few strides behind Babbitt, who was captured on security video nearing the Upper West Terrace at 2:21 p.m.

'Chill out! Chill the f**k out, bro! Hey, chill out!'

Earlier, Leiva was heard on video predicting that someone would get shot that afternoon, according to an August 2023 court filing by Jan. 6 defendant William Pope. According to Pope’s court filing, Leiva’s five-minute cellphone video from his walk up the Northwest Steps was blacked out and the audio was garbled.

Leiva told MPD internal affairs investigators that when he saw a rioter breaking a Capitol window, he approached him and said, “Hey, what’s up, man, you’re doing an amazing job, awesome, awesome, awesome,” Pope’s court filing said.

On their journey from the West Plaza to the Capitol, Frick and Frack proceeded to the nearby scaffolding erected to support seating for the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration. Open-source video used in a Jan. 6 criminal case and reviewed by Blaze News showed the men shielding their eyes from tear gas that swirled around them on the plaza at around 2 p.m.

Moments later, video shot by convicted Jan. 6 provocateur John Sullivan showed the men climbing the steps under the scaffolding.

Northwest Steps

Eventually, two streams of protesters inside and outside the scaffolding coalesced into a kinetic force that rolled through the police line on the upper Northwest Steps at 2:09 p.m., security video showed. After the initial wave of protesters cleared the way, Frick and Frack walked onto the Upper West Terrace at 2:10 p.m.

Capitol Police security video from camera 0925 — Upper Terrace West — showed Frack and Frick walked through the field of view at 2:12 p.m.

While Frack walked out of camera view and proceeded to a sub-terrace that overlooks the Capitol lawn, Frick threw his arms up in the air as if celebrating the huge crowds approaching the Capitol from the west, video showed. The pair’s movements were also captured from above by camera 0908 — West Dome.

The men entered the Senate Wing Door at 2:13:54 p.m., making them among the first protesters to breach the Capitol Building.

Frick almost immediately moved to the right and stooped down to pick up a heavy wooden stand that the first rioters kicked over before they jumped through a window into the lobby, security video showed.

Frick and Frack joined the quickly growing crowd in the Crypt at the U.S. Capitol before moving up a level to the Speaker‘s Lobby.Photo by Sam Montoya, used with permission

The men joined a stream of protesters heading south toward the Crypt. The tightly packed group stood off against a thin line of Capitol Police in the Crypt, chanting slogans and berating officers for not moving out of the way. After about 10 minutes, protesters plowed past the overwhelmed officers to the other side of the Crypt.

The group eventually ascended one level via a winding staircase and continued toward Statuary Hall, the Great Rotunda, and, eventually, the U.S. House of Representatives, video showed. The large group included dozens of protesters who eventually ended up in the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby.

Toward the Speaker’s Lobby

Frick and Frack shadowed the crowd from the Crypt and eventually reached the Will Rogers corridor near the main House door. En route, they filmed protesters in the Great Rotunda, Statuary Hall, and the jam-packed Statuary Hall Connector.

The unruly crowd in the Will Rogers corridor pushed through the police line at 2:36 p.m. and filled in the small hallway directly outside the House Chamber. Babbitt lingered along one wall, checking her phone but staying out of the fray.

Just around the corner, Frack physically intercepted Zachary Alam, who would shortly lead a rioting and vandalism spree just outside the Speaker’s Lobby. Alam broke away from the crowd and approached Capitol Police Sgt. Nelson Vargas, according to video captured by protester and Jan. 6 defendant Paul Kovacik.

“Hey! Hey! Hey, buddy,” Alam shouted as he leaned in to read the officer’s name tag. “Nelson Vargas, where is the bathroom?”

Frack placed his right hand on Alam’s upper chest and led him away from Sgt. Vargas, the video showed. An audible off-camera voice said, “I don’t think we will.”

Alam continued down the hallway toward the Speaker’s Lobby, while Frick and Frack walked into the Sam Rayburn Room on a brief detour. Video shot by independent journalist Tayler Hansen showed Frick taking Frack’s photograph standing next to a giant painting of President George Washington.

'We don‘t want to hurt nobody. We just want to go into the House!'

The men then trailed Babbitt past the East Stairs and down the hallway toward the Speaker’s Lobby.

Babbitt and Hansen were the first protesters to turn the final corner and approach the double doors at the Speaker’s Lobby entrance. They were preceded just minutes before by Capitol Police Sgt. Timothy Lively and Capitol Police Officers Kyle Yetter and Christopher Lanciano, the trio who took up guarding the doors to the Speaker’s Lobby.

Frack entered the hallway with Frick holding on to the bottom strap of his tan backpack. They positioned themselves near the front of the crowd as dozens of protesters quickly packed the small hallway. Frack held up a cell phone — first in his left hand and later switched between hands — and trained it on the USCP officers as the crowd’s behavior turned bellicose and ugly.

Alam — who was recently sentenced to eight years in prison on Jan. 6 convictions — placed himself front and center in the bedlam, punching the glass in between Lively and Yetter. Babbitt — a former military policewoman in the Air Force and Air National Guard — seemed to sense the brewing trouble and shouted at the police trio to “call f*****g help!”

After Alam punched the door between Lively and Lanciano, Lanciano shoved him backward. Hansen shouted at Alam, “Chill out! Chill the f**k out, bro! Hey, chill out!”

An unidentified man known only by the hashtag #HuskyMario pleaded with the officers to let the crowd pass. “We don’t want to hurt nobody. We just want to go into the House!” he shouted. Another rioter known by the hashtag #2BlueJacket got within inches of Lanciano’s face with a two-handed middle-finger taunt.

The crowd was out of control.

Taking a black helmet handed to him by rioter Christopher Grider, Alam began smashing the windows of the entrance. In the far left hallway corner, Sullivan lobbied one of the USCP officers to leave the area. Babbitt tried to confront the violent Alam, but he brushed her aside, video showed.

Frack appeared to make several hand gestures at the officers. His gaze seemed to focus on Lanciano on the right. Frack’s right hand made a sweeping motion and pointed down to the stairway behind them along the wall. It is difficult to hear whether he said anything to the officers because a nearby rioter kept bellowing, “Break it down!”

Frack filmed the violence by rioter Zachary Alam at the Speaker‘s Lobby entrance.Sam Montoya, used with permission

Frick grabbed the arm of protester Linwood Robinson Sr. and appeared to motion for him to step back and switch places, video showed. Shortly after, Frick led Frack down the stairs to a landing, almost colliding with a four-man Capitol Police Containment and Emergency Response Team ascending from the Hall of Columns.

The CERT unit — similar to a SWAT team — was responding to a radio call of “shots fired, House floor,” broadcast just before 2:43 p.m. That call was later determined to be a false alarm.

It does not appear that Frack communicated with the first CERT member, Steven Robbs, except to put his hands up. He spoke to the next two officers — CERT leader Don Smith and Officer Brandon Sikes, video showed.

'If they encountered anyone hostile, they would not bypass that threat.'

Frack pointed up to someone in the crowd while addressing Smith. On video shot by Frack, a voice was heard saying, “Watch the fuzzy-hat guy” — a reference to Alam and his floppy-ear Canada Goose cap.

As Officers Lanciano, Lively, and Yetter descended the stairs, Frack twice put his hand on Yetter’s back in an apparent show of support, video showed. Frack wore a wedding ring on his left hand and a Punisher pinky ring on his right hand. Punisher is a Marvel character popular in comics, military, and law enforcement circles.

As the three officers passed Frack, the sound of a shot rang out when Babbitt was gunned down at 2:44 p.m. The officers began going back up the stairs.

Video shot by Montoya and Frack showed that Alam bolted down the stairs after the gunshot. After briefly grabbing Alam by the arm, Robbs let him go and moved up the stairs to render medical aid to Babbitt.

For a time, Frack, Frick, and Alam stood behind the police line as the CERT officers scanned the crowd for possible threats. Alam was seen on video going through his backpack, although he did not change his outfit as some on social media have claimed.

Frack puts his hands up at the approach of Steven Robbs of the Capitol Police Containment and Emergency Response Team, then tells CERT team leader Don Smith, “Watch the fuzzy-hat guy.”Sam Montoya/used with permission

In a transcribed interview with the FBI in January 2022, CERT leader Smith described two men on the landing who kept “trying to get my attention.”

“He goes, ‘Keep an eye on this guy.’ The guy that I had brought down, and he had glasses like that, he’s a skinny dude, um, short hair,” Smith said. “And he said ... ‘Looks like he’s trying to grab, get ready to grab — stuff off your vest.’”

The scene on the stairs just before and after the shooting was dangerous and tactically unsound, according to former FBI Special Agent Steve Friend, who spent five years on an FBI SWAT team.

“You never want anyone who hasn’t been vetted as a friendly behind you,” Friend told Blaze News. “And even then, you leave someone with them."

'You’re protecting the real monsters and you’re shooting the people!'

“They deployed a tactical team in a crowd-control situation. That’s not something they train [for],” Friend said. “But even if that’s deemed appropriate — such as an active-shooter scenario — the team would stick together and clear areas piece by piece. If they encountered anyone hostile, they would not bypass that threat.”

Smith said he asked the two men to help control the crowd and keep a watchful eye on Alam.

“I turned to these two guys, I said, ‘Look, they’re going to listen to you more than they are going to listen to me,'” Smith told the FBI. “I said, ‘Please, can you plead with them to go ahead and back up so we can go ahead and help this, you know, help this girl.’”

After a few moments, Frack descended the stairs to near the second landing, then turned around, looked up, and screamed, “Back up! Back up! You guys, back up!” according to a short segment of his heavily redacted cellphone video obtained by Judicial Watch and reviewed by Blaze News.

Frack returned to the top landing before three Capitol Police CERT officers carried Babbitt down the stairs head-first to the Hall of Columns at the South Door.

In the initial chaos after Babbitt was shot, some rioters in the hallway obstructed police efforts to back the crowd up. Some bellowed at officers with the mistaken accusation that one of them had shot Babbitt. It was later learned that the plainclothes Lt. Byrd inched out of his hidden position just inside the doorway and fired one shot at Babbitt as she climbed into a broken-out glass side panel on the north side of the doors.

Frick and Frack look on as Capitol Police CERT team carries a dying Ashli Babbitt down the steps.Sam Montoya/used with permission

A Capitol Police bicycle officer angrily forced California physician Dr. Austin Brendlan Harris to abandon his efforts at rendering medical aid to the dying Babbitt. The officer shoved Harris down the hallway. The two briefly shouted at each other and scuffled, video showed.

Harris turned on the officer and said, “My trauma bag!” He was then handed his medical kit that was still sitting near Babbitt. He shouted, “You’re protecting the real monsters and you’re shooting the people!”

Three CERT officers picked up Babbitt and awkwardly carried her down the steps head-first with her backpack still hanging from her shoulders. Frack and Frick watched from the top landing as Babbitt’s massive internal gunshot wound left drops of blood on the stairs, according to video obtained from journalist Sam Montoya and reviewed by Blaze News.

Protesters vented their rage as they watched Babbitt being carried away. “Are you kidding me? She’s f*****g dead, you piece of s**t! She’s dead!” one man bellowed. “You guys are f*****g heroes!” another taunted.

Montoya was noticeably emotional while recording the scene.

“This is so sad,” he said on camera. “I cannot believe I am witnessing this in the U.S. Capitol. I cannot believe I am witnessing this. A woman was shot and is dead."

“I don’t know her name,” Montoya said, his voice cracking, “but she had a family! I just pray that this ends peacefully. No one else needs to get hurt. Nobody needs to get hurt.”

‘Officer-involved event‘

A large contingent of MPD officers in fluorescent yellow jackets descended on the hallway to remove the rioters and restore order. Frick and Frack remained behind the police line on the steps. Shortly before 3 p.m., they apparently approached USCP Deputy Chief Eric Waldow and Capitol Police K-9 technician Bruce Acheson to present themselves as witnesses to the shooting.

Word of that development quickly went out over Capitol Police radio.

At 2:59 p.m., Waldow asked for the crime scene unit, someone from the Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Criminal Investigations Section to meet with two witnesses to an “officer-involved event that took place at the House gallery.”

The wording of that dispatch is significant because after he shot Babbitt at 2:44 p.m., Lt. Byrd made a false claim over the radio that he was being shot at and was preparing to return fire.

As dozens of heavily armed tactical officers from the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and other agencies rushed into the Capitol after that radio call, Lt. Byrd did not update his dispatch to indicate that he was the shooter or state whether the shooting scene was secure.

Frick and Frack (left) are escorted to a meeting with Capitol Police. An unmarked squad car (upper right) arrives at the south barricade with Capitol Police officers. Special Agent Richard Larity (lower right) and Sgt. Sarah Smithers approach Frick and Frack for a meeting inside the squad car. U.S. Capitol Police CCTV

Officers outside and around the corner from the Speaker’s Lobby still had their sidearms drawn 30 minutes after the Babbitt shooting. Tactical teams swept each floor of the Capitol with M4 rifles alternating between a “low-ready” posture and “on target,” security video showed.

Canine technician Acheson escorted Frick and Frack to the Hall of Columns and out the South Door, security video showed.

All of the other protesters and rioters from the Speaker’s Lobby hallway — including Alam — exited the Capitol via the East Front House Door, according to a security camera over the entrance. As far as is publicly known, none of them was detained for questioning about the shooting, and none of their witness accounts appeared in the MPD or U.S. DOJ shooting investigation reports.

Secret meeting

A security camera that covers the South Barricade Plaza captured Acheson with Frick and Frack emerging from behind District of Columbia Fire and EMS Engine 6 at 3:02 p.m. Acheson led them to the USCP South Barricade kiosk, where they stood awaiting the team of officers summoned on the radio a few minutes prior.

An unmarked squad car with three Capitol Police officers who would question Frack and Frick pulled in near the South Barricade at 3:02:08 p.m., crossing paths with D.C. Fire and EMS Rescue 10 with Babbitt on board.

Special Agent Richard Larity, Sgt. Sara Smithers, and a female USCP special agent emerged from the squad and walked to the police kiosk to meet Acheson with the two witnesses. They escorted Frack and Frick to the squad car. At 3:08 p.m., Frack got into the back seat, where he spent the next 27 minutes, video showed.

While Smithers and her colleague interviewed Frack, Larity spoke to Frick outside the vehicle. At 3:16 p.m., Sgt. Michael Sanchez of the Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility stopped at the squad car to speak to Larity, security video showed.

An ambulance carrying mortally wounded Ashli Babbitt crosses paths with a Capitol Police unmarked squad car just outside the Capitol‘s south barricade on Jan. 6, 2021. Inside the squad car are three officers who will question shooting witnesses “Frick” and “Frack.”U.S. Capitol Police CCTV

Just before 3:36 p.m., Frack emerged from the squad car. He and Frick shook the officers’ hands and walked away.

While Smithers went to meet Capitol Police crime scene officer Mark West to photograph and process the Babbitt crime scene, Frick and Frack stood against a stone wall along the sidewalk, checking their phones.

Capitol Police did not respond to a Blaze News request for comment about the interview or what their officers were told by Frick and Frack.

At 3:42 p.m., Frick handed what appeared to be a two-way radio to Frack, who spoke into it numerous times over the next two minutes, security video showed. Frack looked at a street sign at the intersection of Capitol Plaza Southeast and Independence Avenue Southeast, then walked back toward the Capitol.

The interaction of Frick and Frack with Capitol Police was documented in a one-page supplement included with the MPD’s Babbitt shooting report. Described as “Attachment 19,” the summary said a Capitol Police special agent met with a witness at about 3:15 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021. The interview was not recorded, and the witness was not identified.

The summary said the witness showed the special agent a video clip and provided a copy of the file with the proviso that “he was willing to email the longer version in the future.” Judicial Watch obtained a heavily redacted copy of the video from Metropolitan Police as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2021.

The video is truncated and does not include the portions Frack filmed before the shooting that could shed light on what he or others said to the USCP officers. It is not known whether Frack spoke to police investigators or the FBI again or if he provided the rest of the video he shot on Jan. 6.

The unidentified shooting witness known as “Frick” ambles past the East House Steps at 3:51 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021. His partner or companion, “Frack,” waited on a park bench at the edge of Capitol grounds while Frick took a brief jaunt. The pair left Capitol grounds some nine minutes later. U.S. Capitol Police CCTV

The men proceeded to Independence Avenue at 4 p.m. and walked west. A Capitol Police security camera atop the Rayburn House Office Building last showed the men on the plaza of the Hubert Humphrey Building at 4:24 p.m.

Based on how the DOJ has prosecuted more than 1,560 other cases, the behavior of Frick and Frack would likely be classified as incitement and rioting at the bottom of the Northwest Steps, where they apparently enabled dozens of people to climb onto the staircase and proceed to the Capitol.

Given their early entrance into the Capitol, mere minutes after the breach of the Senate Wing Door and windows, there is a good chance they could have been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, a 20-year felony count that was all but taken off the table by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark June 28 decision.

Their behavior at a minimum would draw what defense attorneys call the “standard four,” basic misdemeanor charges for alleged trespassing, disorderly conduct, and “parading” at the Capitol.

Since the men do not appear to be a target of Capitol Police, the FBI, or the DOJ, the explanation for their presence and actions before, during, and after the fatal Babbitt shooting will likely fall to the attorneys at Judicial Watch and its $30 million Babbitt lawsuit.

The FBI and DOJ have said they will continue making Jan. 6 arrests leading up to the inauguration of President-elect Trump on Jan. 20, 2025.

Blaze News contacted the FBI, Capitol Police, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for more information on the men. The FBI and Capitol Police did not respond by press time.

Daniel Ball, a public affairs specialist for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., said: “We don’t comment on the existence or status of investigations into specific individuals.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Injustice Department: Steve Baker pleads guilty to January 6 charges



Blaze News investigative reporter Steve Baker has been breaking down the January 6 trials of American citizens and exposing what he’s found for years now — and because of that, the hammer of the government came down on him as well.

Now he’s pleading guilty to four charges related to January 6.

“My decision was very easy after my sentencing hearing last Wednesday, which was of course the day after President Trump was confirmed to have won the election. I went through what I consider a brutal hearing in which the justice department, not only them but also the court itself, showed their inflexibility,” Baker explains to Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.”


“They showed to me that they were going to not allow us to present my case as I've imagined in my mind for three years now, that I would ultimately present my case if I was charged. And then after being charged back in March of this year, I’ve had nine, 10 months now to build that case,” he continues, noting that the court denied him on every motion made.

According to Baker, he had “behaved completely, 100% professionally as a journalist” and the prosecution is in “violation of the First Amendment.”

Because the court denied Baker the right to present his case, he decided to plead guilty instead.

“I told my attorneys in a Zoom call that we made immediately after my hearing last Wednesday that I was not going to do this. I was not going to allow the government to put me through nothing more than a shaming exercise and to be quite frank, a 100% losing record for January 6 defendants,” he explains.

“There has not been a single exoneration, not a single acquittal, so I was going up against that buzzsaw if I did go to trial today,” he adds.

While Baker was just doing his job, so were many other journalists in attendance on January 6 who are not facing the same fate. And seeing the same thing happen to others, he believes that no defendant was given a fair chance based on their political leaning.

“Beginning with the Oath Keepers trial, which of course was the biggest, most publicized January 6 trial of all,” he says, “I saw how those defendants were denied the right to prevent evidence that was exculpatory evidence in their own trial, and yet, the government was allowed to present basically anything that they wished.”

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why I pled guilty — and what’s coming next



Today was supposed to be the day I promised myself and so many others that I would make my stand before the selectively weaponized and corrupt Department of Justice and Washington, D.C., court system. Having had three and a half years to prepare for this day, I’d determined in my own mind — perhaps naïvely — that I’d be able to have my own “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” moment and make my stand.

My case is a case of selective prosecution, not just against me but also against all those January 6 defendants who have been treated far more harshly than those who behaved equally or did far more violence and property damage — in this town — in the summer of 2020, on January 20, 2017, and even more recently in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations this year.

My trial would be nothing more than a shaming exercise.

Even though I was not accused of violence against law enforcement or any property damage, many saw my case as an example of glaring selective prosecution and a violation of my First Amendment right to be outspoken about my thoughts and opinions on January 6 before and after my arrival at the Capitol.

Yet while I was documenting the protest and riotous behavior of some for roughly two hours, I behaved as professionally as any other reporter or photojournalist on the scene, including some 80 to 100 media persons of all types who also knowingly entered restricted spaces without permission from law enforcement.

But the court would not allow the defense I hoped to begin today at trial. The court has denied my right to show selective prosecution by also denying our discovery request regarding how the government determined it was unnecessary to charge those other 80 to 100 media persons who also clearly, provably, and without permission from law enforcement breached exterior barricades clearly marked with “CLOSED AREA” signs and then accompanied both violent and peaceful protesters through broken windows and doors.

Because of these last-minute rejections by the court during my pretrial hearing last Wednesday, I instructed my attorneys to notify the Justice Department and the court of my intention to change my plea to “guilty” on all four misdemeanor charges.

As one of my attorneys stated, my trial would be nothing more than a shaming exercise. Apart from the fact that any J6 trial in this courthouse is a no-win scenario, today, I chose to deny the government the opportunity to put me through that senseless, waste-of-time shaming exercise.

The government also withdrew its plea deal offer, which, had I taken it earlier in this process, would have let me plead guilty to the single glorified trespassing charge but also would have required me to waive my right to appeal. Unfortunately, the federal courts do not have a “no contest” option, and because the court refused our request for continuance, we did not have time to seek an “Alford plea,” which would have allowed me to maintain my innocence in the appeals process.

In taking this action today, I not only deny the government its shaming exercise, but I also preserve my right to appeal should President Trump not come through on his campaign promise to pardon all nonviolent January 6 defendants.

Nevertheless, I will continue fighting this weaponized judicial system in the court of public opinion and in the halls of Congress in the coming months and years … for as long as necessary.

Mr. President, pardon Steve Baker and the nonviolent J6 defendants on day 1



Steve Baker’s trial was scheduled to begin Tuesday at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington, D.C., but anyone expecting high legal drama was left disappointed. After last week’s election, playing along with the farce would have been a waste of everyone’s time and taxpayers’ money.

In a fairer world, federal prosecutors would have pondered the recent headlines and taken a sensible step back. That’s what special counsel Jack Smith did with his crusade against Donald Trump, who, Lord willing, will take the oath of office again on January 20.

Do the right thing, Mr. President, and do it without delay.

“The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy,” Smith wrote last week. A district court judge readily agreed.

Baker’s attorney, William Shipley, filed a motion on Sunday to delay his trial and revisit the case in February, citing Smith and the Justice Department’s new stance.

“To deny this motion, in the face of the Justice Department’s official position,” Shipley argued, “would run contrary to the interests of justice and likely subject the defendant to criminal convictions for no purpose other than expediency.”

Judge Christopher Cooper on Monday denied the motion, the “interests of justice” be damned.

So Baker pled guilty Tuesday morning to all four misdemeanor counts against him. A trial would have been, in the words of one of his attorneys, “nothing more than a shaming exercise” in a court where the outcome is all but guaranteed.

Baker is scheduled to be sentenced on March 6 — two months after Congress is supposed to certify Donald Trump’s election. If that isn’t divine providence, nothing is.

Promises made ...

Trump made a great many promises during the campaign for the election, which he won by a landslide, including a vow to pardon the January 6 political prisoners. “Oh, absolutely, I would,” Trump said in July. “If they’re innocent, I would pardon them.”

Note the caveat if they are innocent. More than 1,500 people have been arrested in connection with the Capitol protest, which devolved into a riot that left hundreds of police and protesters injured. Hundreds have been found guilty and sentenced. But not all the people who have faced criminal prosecution and prison time are angels or heroes. Some of them committed assault and vandalized property. They needed to be held accountable.

But the vast majority of the J6 cases involve nonviolent offenses, amounting to little more than trespassing. Note that not one person has been charged with insurrection for “the insurrection.”

Baker, a Blaze Media investigative journalist, was arrested in March and charged with the government’s four go-to misdemeanors: knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a capitol building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a capitol building.

Last month, the government offered Baker a deal: plead guilty to “knowingly entering or remaining,” pay a hefty fine, and waive his right to appeal. He passed.

Why did the Justice Department wait three years to indict Baker anyway? He committed no violence. He didn’t fight with police or even argue with them. He was there as an independent journalist covering a story — along with anywhere from 80 to 100 other bloggers, writers, reporters, and videographers who similarly lacked official credentials. He walked through an open door into the building and calmly recorded the scene. Afterward, he wrote about what he heard and saw and cooperated fully with the FBI. He’s been perfectly transparent.

He's also been critical of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Justice Department’s response to the events of January 6 and the weaponization of law against political dissenters. Federal prosecutors had little to say to Baker before Blaze Media began publishing his investigations, which we’ve collected under “The Truth About January 6.” Maybe that had something to do with it.

Promises to keep

The full story of what happened on January 6, 2021, has yet to be told. The House of Representatives’ farcical one-sided select committee sought to cement a narrative in which a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol at the behest of the president and tried to steal the election by preventing Congress from certifying the electoral vote. It’s a tale so stupid only Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson could believe it.

Lingering questions nearly four years on lend themselves to conspiracy theories, which could be easily dispelled with a full and bipartisan accounting. Maybe we can get a better idea of how many federal agents were in the crowd. We might learn whether some of those agents were sent to be provocateurs or if they were on hand simply to observe and report. Perhaps with Donald Trump back in the White House and Republicans in control of the House and Senate, we might get some added sunlight.

But before the reckoning, the January 6 defendants need a resolution. Trump promised pardons and clemency, and he needs to deliver on day one. He would set the tone for the next two years, demonstrating with the stroke of a pen that this time will be different. The administrative state would be on notice that their days of abusing of power with impunity are over.

Pardon Steve Baker so he can continue his vital work. Pardon the nonviolent protesters and take a second look at the other cases, such as the Proud Boys’ and Oath Keepers’ “seditious conspiracy” trials. And, for the sake of their grieving families, posthumously pardon Matthew Perna, Nejourde “Jord” Meacham, Mark Aungst, and Christopher Georgia, all of whom committed suicide in the face of weaponized prosecution.

Do the right thing, Mr. President, and do it without delay.

Steve Baker seeks Jan. 6 trial delay, citing massive Trump election victory



Blaze Media investigative reporter Steve Baker filed a late motion in U.S. District Court to delay all proceedings in his looming Jan. 6 criminal trial, citing the Department of Justice pausing its prosecution of President-elect Donald J. Trump.

The lead defense attorney for Baker, scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 12, asked U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper “to vacate all dates and hearings in this case in the interests of justice, and to set a status conference in this matter for the week of February 2, 2025.”

William Shipley cited the DOJ’s motion to pause the criminal case against the president-elect in light of the Nov. 5 election “to afford the government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy.”

'The "people" on behalf of whom the government purports to speak made themselves heard clearly on November 5.'

“The unique circumstances now before this Court — a president-elect having pledged to reverse the decision-making of the predecessor administration after having made the issue a part of his campaign promises — and the Department of Justice now making a representation on the record in another case that the election outcome is a change in circumstances warranting a delay, justifies defendant Baker making this motion,” Shipley wrote in a motion filed late on Nov. 10.

Baker, 64, of Raleigh, North Carolina, is charged with four trespass-related misdemeanor counts for being at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He was in Washington to document the historic protests and provide coverage for the readers of his blog, the Pragmatic Constitutionalist. Now a Blaze Media writer, Baker was arrested in Dallas on March 1 and perp-walked in front of media at the FBI offices.

Baker had planned a selective-prosecution defense, noting that no left-of-center media reporters and podcasters were prosecuted for covering the Jan. 6 protests and riots. Armed with a list of more than 75 journalists who were not charged, Baker sought discovery from the government explaining the apparent political tilt in its prosecutions.

Blaze Media investigative reporter Steve Baker is perp-walked before the media at the FBI offices in Dallas on March 1, 2024.Photos by Blaze Media

“To deny this motion, in the face of the Justice Department’s official position, would run contrary to the interests of justice and likely subject the defendant to criminal convictions for no purpose other than expediency,” Shipley wrote.

Baker said the list itself weighs heavily in favor of his selective-prosecution strategy.

“The most important legal argument that we’re bringing is this: Somewhere in the vicinity of 80 journalists of all types — credentialed employees of mainstream news organizations from the New York Times to the L.A. Times to French media to British television — went through broken windows and broken doors that day without permission,” Baker said Oct. 29. “Included in that bunch were freelancers, independents, bloggers, podcasters, and social media influencers without credentials.”

Trump’s sweeping election victory with 312 Electoral College votes and a popular vote margin of 3.6 million votes creates a new reality that the courts should not ignore, Shipley argued.

Blaze Media journalist Steve Baker captured iconic video footage on the West Plaza of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Steve Baker/Blaze Media

“Before the government makes the claim that the ‘people’ have an interest in the administration of justice as reflected in the Speedy Trial Act, defendant Baker would point out that the ‘people’ on behalf of whom the government purports to speak,” Shipley wrote, “made themselves heard clearly on November 5, and that should mean something to the Department of Justice without regard to what administration is now in charge.”

In a nine-page opinion issued Oct. 25, Cooper refused Baker’s motion to dismiss the charges. He previously denied Baker’s motion to retain his right to carry a firearm after threats were made against his safety. Baker appealed the issue, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against him.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Notorious Jan. 6 Speaker's Lobby defendant asks for pardon, gets 8 years in prison



Zachary Jordan Alam, the troubled Virginia man who created chaos just before the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, demanded a full pardon just as a federal judge sentenced him to eight years in prison on Nov. 7.

Alam, 33, of Centreville, Virginia, portrayed himself in patriotic language during a sentencing hearing before U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, an appointee of President-elect Donald J. Trump.

“I want a full pardon with all the benefits that come with it, including compensation,” Alam demanded, according to the Associated Press account of the sentencing hearing.

Alam expressed his hope for a pardon based on the Nov. 5 re-election of Trump, who will become the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20, 2025.

Alam’s defense team filed part of its sentencing memorandum under seal and suggested his troubled emotional history warranted a more lenient approach.

Alam is one of the most notorious participants in Jan. 6, as evidenced on Capitol Police security footage and third-party video. His most visible role was in the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby, where Babbitt was gunned down by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd.

Alam used his right fist to punch at the doorway, mere inches from the left side of Capitol Police Officer Christopher Lanciano’s face. He also punched at the glass panel behind Officer Kyle Yetter and Sgt. Timothy Lively, video showed.

Using a helmet handed to him by fellow agitator Christopher Grider, Alam smashed several glass panes in the doorway. After the final glass pane fell into the Speaker’s Lobby, Air Force veteran Babbitt punched him in the nose.

Rioter Zachary Alam shouts into the crowd shortly before using a helmet to smash several windows in the entrance to the House Speaker's Lobby at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Photo by Sam Montoya

Babbitt then climbed into the broken-out right window and was shot by Byrd. She died 31 minutes later at a Washington hospital.

The U.S. Department of Justice recommended 136 months in prison, while Alam’s attorney sought a term in the range of the time he served in pretrial detention since late January 2021.

Coverage of the sentencing hearing revealed an ongoing media bias against Babbitt, 35, of San Diego. The AP suggested those on the right portray Babbitt as a “martyr,” echoing controversial language used in an FBI memo on domestic violent extremism.

Babbitt, who served 14 years as a military policewoman in the U.S. Air Force, shouted at three Capitol Police officers to call for backup as soon as violence broke out in the hallway, video showed.

She confronted Alam once and was brushed aside as he continued his attack on the doors, video showed. Then, after Alam smashed out a large panel of glass directly in front of him, Babbitt grabbed Alam and threw a left hook that stunned him and knocked off his glasses, video showed.

While the AP noted that Michael Byrd was “cleared of any wrongdoing” in the shooting by the DOJ, Capitol Police, and the Metropolitan Police Department, it failed to note the ongoing $30 million wrongful death lawsuit brought against the federal government by Judicial Watch Inc. on behalf of Ashli's widower, Aaron Babbitt.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

10 things I learned in prison



Pat Stedman was released from federal prison on October 27, 2024, after serving a year behind bars for his presence in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Stedman was in Washington, D.C., that day to protest 2020 election fraud and to petition Congress to vote against certifying the election prematurely in order to give the various swing states the opportunity to investigate voting irregularities, as was requested by numerous members of their legislatures.

While Stedman followed the crowd into the Capitol and shouted along with them, he did not engage in any violence.

Nonetheless, he was sentenced to 48 months for a felony offense, obstruction of an official proceeding — an Enron-era financial crimes law that theJustice Department weaponized against January 6 protesters.

Stedman was released early following the Supreme Court's ruling that prosecutors had applied the obstruction law — originally meant to target the destruction of evidence — too broadly.

***********

Just under two weeks ago I was released from federal prison, one year to the day that I came in. Here are 10 things I learned in this crucible.

1. Your opinion doesn’t matter

In the civilian world, everyone feels entitled to say what they want, and most people take offense when others don’t agree with them. We live in an outrage culture that thrives on people spouting off on each other. This is basically X.

In prison, this kind of behavior isn’t wise. Unless asked, you keep quiet about your opinions and learn to tolerate others. You don’t provoke them. Arguments turn violent frequently. If you want to be right, prepare to fight.

And don’t get me started on the knives people make. The human mind placed under pressure is capable of incredible ingenuity.

2. Respect is paramount

Prison was one of the most respectful environments I’ve been in. More respectful than a country club.

Everyone says “excuse me” or “my bad” when passing by someone or interrupting a conversation. You hold doors for others. Entitled behavior is punished. The higher security the prison, the more dangerous it gets. Even moving someone’s chair without asking can lead to violence.

But it's easy to avoid conflict. If you stay out of ego and treat people with respect, you will have few problems.

3. Necessity is truly the mother of invention

No lighter and want to smoke a cigarette? Two batteries and a wire will do the trick. Want to cook but no stove or microwave? You can boil water in a bucket with two cables wrapped around a metal slab plugged into an outlet.

I’ve even seen a convection oven built out of soda cans and loose wires. And don’t get me started on the knives people make. The human mind placed under pressure is capable of incredible ingenuity.

4. Prisons are mental institutions

After long stretches in prison, even strong men start to lose it. In some cases it’s obvious — people talking to themselves. But in most cases it’s more subtle. Looping conversations. Pacing the room back and forth constantly. Hoarding junk. Easily stressed by inconveniences. Paranoid.

Long lockdowns, boring routines, and constant assaults on humanity by guards can bring you down to an animal-like level. Some people come in like this. But most are made this way by the conditions. There's a term for it: "institutionalized."

5. Paperwork matters

The two classes of offenders at the bottom of the totem pole in prison are chomos (“child molesters,” used as a catch-all term for all sex offenders) and rats. It is very important that you have your prisoner "paperwork" to prove that you're not one of them.

Fort Dix is a dumping ground for these types of prisoners, so they are allowed on the yard, unlike in higher-security prisons. But they are still the bottom of the totem pole and are disproportionately targeted for extortion and robbery.

Rats in particular are despised, which is understandable considering that most inmates are in prison because of them. Have your paperwork ready, or keep a low profile and stick to where you're allowed.

6. Race is real and relevant

Prison is a tribal environment. You are categorized immediately based on your ethnicity and filtered accordingly into “cars.”

White guys have their table. Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans, etc. each have their own as well.

Black guys organize based on geography, i.e. New York, Pennsylvania, Carolina. You can join their car even if you aren’t black, but it only happens rarely, usually if the guy in question also came from “the hood.”

The separation creates stability; the differences are apparent and universally recognized.

But respect is color-blind. There are dirtbags in every race as well as honorable men. The good men are friendly with each other regardless of background. Conflict between cars is uncommon and avoided at all costs. It's called "crashing out," and gets ugly. To avoid this, troublemakers are policed by their own.

7. Everything is relative

Fort Dix was real prison to me. But to guys who came from the higher-security institutions, it wasn’t.

You could go outside regularly. There weren’t bars on your cell doors. Even during lockdowns, you could still move around the building, use phones and computers, sometimes even watch TV.

I came to appreciate little things a lot. Being able to go to the gym, a little extra food at the chow hall, getting your comissary early, an unlocked door so you could move around easier — these all felt like “freedom.”

The abundance we have on the outside is amazing. After this year, something as simple as bread with butter and jam tasted like heaven to me.

8. Our information overload is extreme

After two days back in the “real world,” I was absolutely overwhelmed by the amount of information we receive. In prison, I had no access to the internet and limited communication with the outside world.

I didn’t scroll through feeds or messages. I talked to people or read. I was focused and present, had real conversations, actually learned some things. I can already feel the siren song of distraction calling me since I’ve been back.

Honestly, I prefer the clarity I had in there to the deluge of nonsense out here. There is something wrong with the way we are living. It's not healthy or natural, and that explains so much of our growing social dysfunction.

9. You really notice women

Being around high-testosterone men 24/7, you become very attuned to even the slightest amount of feminine energy in the environment. Everyone notices female guards, even if they don’t gawk at them.

Little flourishes of femininity go a long way. You can almost smell it before you see it. I remember staring at my wife during visits, intoxicated by her presence. This was about more than just sex. The way her hair fell on her shoulder, the way she moved. Everything about her was refreshing — I just wanted to take it all in.

10. You can adjust to anything

My first few weeks in prison were tough. There were a lot of rules I didn’t understand that I had to learn. And to put it lightly, it was a very different environment to get used to, with very different types of people.

But then all of a sudden, all this newness became normal. I was living in a ghetto behind barbed-wire fences, and there wasn’t anything weird about it. I’d fist-bump gangsters and sneak apples out of the chow hall in my socks, as if this was just a part of life.

It’s still surreal for me to look back on it. I just left this world. And it already feels like a dream.

Why Americans had to suffer before they could ‘Make America Great Again’



Over the past few years, Americans have gone through a mental and cultural revolution, and Jason Whitlock of “Fearless” believes it was a necessary one.

“Without the pain and suffering we went through the last four years, we wouldn’t be in position to make America great again,” Whitlock says.

“Everybody understands this. ... Those of us trying to lose weight, we know that every time we work out and exercise and push ourselves and go through that pain, that’s what benefits us. That’s what allows us to gain muscle and to improve ourselves,” he continues.

And through that improvement, Americans were able to stand up.


“It’s exactly what needed to happen in order for a lot of white men, black men, Hispanic men to say, ‘Hey, you can call me whatever you want, but I’m going to stand up for male leadership, I’m going to stand against these evil people that are forcing this transgenderism on kids, I’m going to stand up to the people that have made abortion the center of their entire political movement,” Whitlock says.

However, while what Americans have been through under a tyrannical Biden-Harris administration has been at times been brutal — for those imprisoned after January 6 or for protesting at abortion clinics, for those forced to vaccinate against their will or who lost their jobs for refusing it, and so much more — we’re not victims.

“None of us want to consider ourselves victims, because we’re not. We deserve the suffering that we went through because we’ve been so irresponsible that the left has been in position to do what they were doing because we were cowards,” Whitlock says.

“That suffering was necessary, and thank God, we got through it,” he continues, adding, “And now we’re on the other side, and we can receive the benefits for that suffering.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Biden-Harris DOJ moves to imprison enfeebled, nonviolent Jan. 6 defendant for 4 years



When federal agents raided the rural Virginia farm of Thomas Caldwell on Jan. 19, 2021, they were sure he was a kingpin of the Oath Keepers and the architect of a heinous attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

They treated him as such.

The permanently disabled Navy veteran said he was thrown onto the hood of an FBI sedan after a SWAT team lit him and his wife, Sharon, up with red lasers in the freezing air on the porch of their farmhouse in Berryville, Virginia.

“I had asked them five separate times, ‘What am I being charged with? What am I being charged with?’ They finally said, ‘Trespassing.’ I said, ‘Are you out of your mind? You come here and point guns in my wife’s face for trespassing? Where am I supposed to have trespassed?’ They said, ‘Well, you went into the Capitol.’”

Caldwell never entered the Capitol, but he spent nearly two months in isolation after being kicked, beaten, and mocked upon his initial intake at a Virginia jail. He said guards mocked his Christian faith as they kicked him in the groin.

“The guy that was the kicker said to me, he said, ‘Where’s your Sky Daddy? Where’s your Sky Daddy? Gonna come down here and help you?’ He was referring, of course, to Jesus Christ. I never want to forget it,” Caldwell said in 2022. “I never want to forget it.”

The Central Virginia Regional Jail conducted an internal investigation after Caldwell’s descriptions were published in the Epoch Times. The sheriff said he could not substantiate Caldwell’s assertions.

Caldwell had spinal fusion surgery on his neck on Oct. 22. He had a total hip replacement in May 2022.

Nearly four years later, the government’s story about Caldwell has dramatically changed. He’s no longer the plot-keeper or the mastermind of a potential armed assault on the Capitol, and prosecutors are no longer seeking to send him to prison for 14 years. Caldwell is scheduled for a Nov. 18 sentencing hearing in Washington, D.C.

Caldwell was found guilty by a jury of a single count: tampering with evidence — that being photos on his own phone that were backed up on a home computer and on Facebook.

Caldwell was originally found guilty of the dubious 20-year felony “obstruction of an official proceeding” that was chopped down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark June 28 ruling. The DOJ has since withdrawn the charge that led to that guilty verdict.

Thomas Edward Caldwell arrives for his Jan. 6 trial at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 27, 2022.Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

In a trial that ran from Sept. 27 to Nov. 29, 2022, Caldwell was found not guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, seditious conspiracy, and attempting to prevent a member of Congress from discharging duties.

His four co-defendants — including Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes III — were sentenced in 2023. Three remain in prison, and one has been released on probation.

The 70-year-old U.S. Navy veteran faces sentencing only for the obstruction of justice/tampering with evidence count. Defense attorney David Fischer is asking U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to sentence Caldwell to time served, meaning the 53 days he spent in pretrial detention at Central Virginia Regional Jail. Caldwell has been in home detention for the 833 days since.

'A lot of the things that they’re saying are horrible and seditious are mocking and jibing and poking fun with friends.'

“Caldwell’s medical ailments, his status as a Zero-Point Offender, his full acquittal on January 6-related conspiracy counts at a time when D.C. juries had not acquitted a single defendant of a single count (65-0), his perfect performance while on pretrial release, and his military service that resulted in a lifetime of debilitating injuries suggest that a sentence of time-served (53 days) is appropriate,” Fischer wrote in a six-page supplemental sentencing memo filed Nov. 4 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Fischer said Caldwell had spinal fusion surgery on his neck on Oct. 22. He had a total hip replacement in May 2022. He suffered debilitating injuries caused by a mortar round during a classified mission in the Philippines. Fischer has described his client as a “physical wreck.”

“Respectfully, a sentence that includes incarceration would be inappropriate based upon Caldwell’s recent fusion surgery and his status as a 100 percent service-connected disabled veteran,” Fischer wrote.

Caldwell and his wife attended the Jan. 6 protest at the Capitol. He did not enter the building, commit violence, or vandalize the property. The pair did walk up stairs to the Lower West Terrace to take selfies and then retreated.

What Caldwell did was to write, talk, and cuss like a sailor about the 2020 presidential election and the Democrat leadership in Congress. He used an encrypted messaging app to fire off colorful missives to some of his veteran buddies.

“A lot of the things that they’re saying are horrible and seditious are mocking and jibing and poking fun with friends—in private conversations—sometimes with one person in a text message, or two people,” Caldwell told the Epoch Times in 2022. “In fact, some of these things are with guys that are 75 miles away in Virginia, who are at their farms, drunk as lords, as they say, watching stuff on TV.”

'Caldwell’s conduct and behavior were more akin to a loud-mouth Walter Mitty.'

Prosecutors presented as credible the statements Caldwell made about using duck skiffs to ferry weapons across the Potomac River as part of a “quick-reaction force” to attack the Capitol. He was cited by prosecutors for suggesting he would use the doorknob of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office as a bathroom wipe.

Caldwell was never a member of the Oath Keepers, although some Oath Keepers camped on his farm property while attending protests in Washington, D.C., in November and December 2020. Prosecutors continue to tie him to the Oath Keepers.

“Caldwell plotted with other affiliates of the Oath Keepers to forcibly oppose the certification of the 2020 presidential election, and then he joined the mob that attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021,” prosecutors wrote in their 14-page Nov. 4 supplemental sentencing memorandum. “In his own words, Caldwell ‘heard that Pence f**ked us ... so I grabbed up my American flag and said, ‘Let’s take the damn Capitol’ and, ‘Let’s storm the place and hang the traitors.’”

Jan. 6 defendant Thomas Edward Caldwell detailed the torture he suffered in pretrial detention in a 2022 magazine story. Photo courtesy of Joseph M. Hanneman

In his court filings, Fischer has tried to separate his client’s bluster from the alleged elements of the charged crime.

“Caldwell’s conduct and behavior were more akin to a loud-mouth Walter Mitty than the Rambo-type figure the government has portrayed him since his arrest,” Fischer wrote in May 2023.

Fischer said the photos Caldwell was charged with deleting were backed up on Facebook and a home computer.

“The deleted/unsent items were not exactly akin to throwing a murder weapon in the river and, thus, were neither essential nor ‘especially probative,’” Fischer wrote. “The jury, importantly, did not find the deleted/unsent items particularly probative. The deleted/unsent items were introduced by the government to the jury, which subsequently acquitted Caldwell on all conspiracy counts.”

Prosecutors have described the Caldwell case in dark, sweeping, dramatic tones.

“It is not hyperbole to call what happened on January 6 a crime of historic magnitude,” they wrote in the DOJ sentencing memo. “As judges of this district have repeatedly and clearly stated, January 6 was an unprecedented disruption of the nation’s most sacred function—conducting the peaceful transfer of power."

“‘The events that occurred at the Capitol on January 6th will be in the history books that our children read, our children’s children read and their children’s children read. It’s part of the history of this nation, and it’s a stain on the history of this nation,’” the DOJ memo stated, quoting from U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The media’s ‘war on misinformation’ loses all credibility



Like many in the influential yet shrinking elite media bubble, the Atlantic is in a panic over misinformation. In an October 10 article titled “I’m Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is,” Charlie Warzel laments how Americans no longer automatically follow the directives of the establishment or rely on the media-academia-expert complex to think for them. Warzel frames the issue differently, describing it as “nothing less than a cultural assault on any person or institution that operates in reality.”

“It is difficult to capture the nihilism of the current moment,” he writes. “The pandemic saw Americans, distrustful of authority, trying to discredit effective vaccines, spreading conspiracy theories, and attacking public-health officials.”

The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today.

Warzel contends that things only worsened from there. He describes “journalists, election workers, scientists, doctors, and first responders” as victims in a “war on truth” because they “must attend to and describe the world as it is,” which, in his view, makes them dangerous to people who resist “the agonizing constraints of reality” or who have financial and political interests in perpetuating misinformation.

Warzel, of course, is not alone. Recently, many have sounded the alarm against the so-called plague of misinformation allegedly affecting society today. Among these voices, the most authoritative have come from a who’s who of Democratic Party leaders.

Hillary Clinton: “I think it’s important to indict the Russians just as Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases, criminally charged, is something that would be a better deterrence.”

Tim Walz: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

John Kerry: “If people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.”

And, of course, Kamala Harris: Social media companies “are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and it has to stop.”

Nowhere in Warzel’s article, or in any of these bold pronouncements and threats against dissenting voices, is there the slightest acknowledgment of a simple, undeniable truth: We stopped trusting them because they lost our trust. Science, once a self-correcting pursuit of truth, has become Dr. Fauci’s “the Science” with a capital S — a dogma similar to the one that the church used to stifle Galileo.

Much of the media, formerly our bulwark against state tyranny, now operates as the Democratic Party’s ministry of propaganda. When Donald Trump burst onto the political scene in 2015 and went on to secure the GOP’s nomination a year later, the media decided objectivity was no longer necessary. Instead, their new mission became crusading against Trump at every opportunity. Our loss of trust in these former arbiters of truth was a natural result.

Rather than acknowledging this erosion of trust, these politicking journalists, along with academics and political allies in their bubble, labeled any resistance to their often-false narratives as “misinformation.” Researcher David Rozado has documented a sharp rise in mentions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the media and academia, starting in 2016 — the year of Trump’s election.

Seriously, not literally

Warzel and others with a similar viewpoint might argue that the media began addressing misinformation in 2016 because Trump himself started spreading it, thereby inspiring a wave of conspiracies and outlandish claims from his supporters. There is some truth in this. Trump undoubtedly pushed the boundaries of acceptable political discourse and often lacked substantial proof for his claims.

While politicians have always bent the truth, Trump — a salesman from the high-stakes world of real estate rather than a lawyer like most national politicians — didn’t shy away from exaggeration. His go-to phrases — “the best ever,” “the worst ever,” “like no one’s ever seen before” — were part of his rhetorical style of inflation and hyperbole.

I would argue that most people, regardless of education, recognize Trump’s claims for what they are. Trump talks like that braggadocious, big-talking uncle we all know — not like a slippery politician skilled at lying through subtle phrasing and misleading statistics. People understand not to take Trump literally. In fact, unlike most politicians, Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for.

Ironically, despite claims from the left that Trump is a shameless liar, many people support him precisely because he speaks openly and directly about things other politicians might only hint at. That transparency, though often crude, appeals to his base. I would agree, however, that Trump has likely lowered the level of our political discourse more than anyone in recent memory. But crudity is not the same as deception. If anything, it’s the opposite of deception.

In any discussion of lies and misinformation in politics, the “Big Lie” attributed to Trump — widespread election fraud in 2020 — looms large. But an undeniable fact remains: The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today. These distortions cover a wide range of topics and often involve coordination among news outlets, scientists, academics, and others.

Warzel’s alleged defenders of truth against misinformation have committed numerous notable infractions against reality.

Expert alarmism

For years, the media, relying on handpicked “experts,” has bombarded us with alarmist rhetoric about the imminent danger of manmade climate change. They promote a phony 97% consensus among climate scientists while censoring evidence-based alternative views, despite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that doesn’t fully support such alarmism.

We were falsely told that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. This baseless accusation led to years of costly investigations that hamstrung his administration, while the New York Times and the Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for their extensive reporting on these unsubstantiated claims.

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, which brought American cities to their knees with widespread arson, vandalism, looting, and destruction of small businesses, we were told these events were “mostly peaceful protests.” This disinformation campaign, along with the promotion of critical race theory and anti-law enforcement ideologies, led to lenient or nonexistent prosecutions for those involved. Meanwhile, the media labeled the events of January 6, 2021 — which resulted in far less loss of life and property damage — as an “armed insurrection” and an attempted “coup.”

The media omitted key facts about January 6, including that Trump, the alleged instigator, had warned top advisers days before that many protesters would be coming to the Capitol and requested the National Guard be prepared. They ignored and defied his request. Consequently, those involved in the Capitol breach were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and given disproportionately harsh sentences for what, in many cases, amounted to minor infractions, often limited to acts of trespassing.

On the eve of the 2020 election, the media — including Twitter and Facebook — suppressed the New York Post's explosive story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, labeling it “Russian disinformation.” This suppression likely influenced the election outcome in Biden’s favor. Only later, when it no longer mattered, did the media reveal that the laptop and the story were real. Anyone who dismisses Trump’s claims of 2020 election interference must first contend with this major flaw in the media’s “Big Lie” narrative.

Accounting for COVID

The COVID-19 era exposed how the media colluded with the government to spread fear, propaganda, and disinformation while silencing evidence-based alternative views. Continued censorship on these issues — including the absurd censorship and deplatforming of respected scientists like Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer of mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines — limits full and frank discussion.

The handling of the lab-leak theory of COVID’s origin provides a glaring example. Initially dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” the lab-leak hypothesis now holds wide acceptance, yet the media originally pushed a flawed natural-origin narrative. Acknowledging a lab origin would have implicated Dr. Anthony Fauci, who approved gain-of-function research tied to the virus’ creation.

To discredit the lab-leak theory, scientists coordinated with Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to publish an influential paper in Nature, arguing for a natural origin. Yet, their contemporaneous communications reveal they did not believe the narrative they promoted. The media amplified this false narrative, labeling dissenters as conspiracy theorists whose claims had been thoroughly “debunked.”

War, dementia, and ‘cheapfakes’

The media uncritically promoted the Biden administration’s false narrative that the Russia-Ukraine war was an “unprovoked” attack by Moscow. While Putin bears responsibility, evidence strongly suggests that the attack was substantially provoked by neoconservatives within the Biden administration. These actions built upon the Obama administration’s support for the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s government in favor of a more anti-Russian regime.

Biden administration officials continued to draw Ukraine foolishly closer to NATO, despite knowing that establishing an enemy alliance on Russia’s border was a red line for Putin — just as it would have been for the United States had Canada joined the former Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact or placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

The media also colluded with the Biden administration and others close to Joe Biden to hide his cognitive decline and ongoing descent into dementia. They attempted to gaslight the public, dismissing videos of Biden’s apparent incapacity — including moments like talking to a dead politician — as “cheapfakes.” When the June presidential debate made Biden’s condition undeniable, the media feigned shock.

After Biden was ultimately compelled to drop out of the race by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and wealthy donors, the media continued their false narrative. They portrayed his withdrawal not as an action forced on him by party elites despite his objections but as a courageous decision he made to protect democracy against Donald Trump.

Covering for Kamala

Once Democratic Party bosses appointed Kamala Harris to replace Biden, the media launched an unprecedented, coordinated effort to portray her as something she clearly was not: capable, intelligent, informed, inspiring, visionary, eloquent, articulate, honest, principled, and free of responsibility for the Biden administration’s mismanagement of the economy and immigration.

This full-scale media campaign included giving Harris and her running mate a month-long pass on unscripted interviews and press conferences. When they finally faced the media, reporters served up softball questions, allowing them to evade or respond with vapid pabulum or evasive nonanswers without follow-ups.

The presidential and vice-presidential debates further underscored this bias, with moderators framing topics to favor the Democratic ticket and engaging in misleading “fact-checks” exclusively for the Republican candidates. During the vice presidential debate, moderators even conducted fact-checks, despite rules prohibiting them.

The October “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris stood out as a particularly egregious example. Unlike the unaltered footage of Biden’s apparent cognitive struggles, CBS edited out Harris’ incoherent rambling in response to a question about Israel. They skipped directly to a slightly more coherent part of her answer, creating a genuine “cheapfake.” While the Biden clips aimed to reveal his cognitive deficits that his administration and the media sought to hide, the shameful editing stunt at “60 Minutes" blatantly tried to conceal Harris’ cognitive deficits from the public.

Who are you gonna believe?

In the face of this longstanding barrage of lies, propaganda, and disinformation, only two types of people would retain complete trust in the powers-that-be: 1) those deeply embedded in the Democratic Party-aligned information bubble, lacking the motivation, common sense, or drive to seek alternative perspectives; and 2) complete morons.

Most of us, thankfully, fit into neither of those categories — nor the massive overlapping area where the two converge. As a result, we no longer take anything from the media and their allies at face value. This widespread disillusionment, however, has led many to a point where it’s difficult to discern truth from misinformation, struggling to balance healthy skepticism with slipping into loony conspiracy land. Social media further amplifies this predicament, acting as both an escape from the distortions of the mainstream narrative and a potential detour from reality itself.

And yes, it’s a problem. But before the media priests blame us for opting out of their funhouse hall of mirrors, I have a suggestion for them: Take a long, hard look in one of those mirrors, recognize your own complicity, and ... well ... stop lying to us!