Transcript of Steve Baker on the CIA, FBI, Directed Energy Weapons, and the Lies of the J6 Pipe Bomb Case

One of the most frustrating parts of the information overload that we live in now, where things are constantly coming at us through our phones, is that we never get a resolution to some of the biggest stories of our time. Something will just explode, it'll happen. Well, that's amazing, I can't believe that. And you'll have about 4 hours to think about what happened and its implications, then you're on to the next thing. That's just the nature of having too much information. Now, whether that's by design, whether we're being overloaded as part of some diabolical plan to keep us distracted, or whether that's a natural byproduct of technology, unrestrained technology. It's not clear, and it probably doesn't matter, because that's the daily lived experience of most Americans. Something huge will happen, you'll form an impression of it— not clear whether that's a correct impression or not— and then we'll move on. And this is true even of really big events. The biggest mass shooting in American history took place a little less than 9 years ago, 2017, in Las Vegas. And some guy apparently opened fire on a concert right below him. You remember this? 867 people were injured, 60 were killed by gunfire at least.

And there was an FBI investigation, and the authorities stared into the camera and said, we're going to get to the bottom of this. And the normal parasites showed up, telling us that, you know, the lesson is we have too many guns in this country. Guns are the problem. You shouldn't have a gun because a lunatic shot people in Las Vegas or whatever. They took advantage of the tragedy to push their own agendas. And then that's kind of the last we heard of it. Who was this guy? Some guy. Stephen Paddock, some guy. What was his motive? Unclear. Didn't leave a manifesto, so we don't really know. There seems to be some evidence that the official story is false. Yeah, it's fine. And then because we were so distracted with all the other things that were taking place at the time, no one ever really followed up in a satisfactory way. And so even now, the largest mass shooting in American history is solved officially. But do we have a satisfactory answer that explains why it happened? No, we don't. We're not even close to that. In fact, the answer that we do have may be completely different from the actual answer.

We don't know. And no one is actively trying to find out because again, we are on to the next thing and so on and so on and so on with almost every big news story over the past, I don't know, 15 years more. And there's kind of no way to change this because there's not enough time in life to go back and reverse engineer what we thought we knew about the most significant moments in American history. But there are a few of them that are worth pressing on even though years have passed. And one of them one of the top ones after 9/11, which is the most important story of our lives because it completely changed America, the structure of America. But after that, you'd have to say that January 6th is near the top of the list. Why? Well, a bunch of reasons. Most obviously because January 6th produced the single largest federal criminal investigation in American history. Almost every single FBI field office was involved in tracking down the perpetrators of this insurrection in which many policemen were murdered, and so on and so forth. Well, almost every one of those details turned out to be a lie.

Was not actually an insurrection. No one was armed. No one had a gun. There's no such thing as an unarmed insurrection. Can't insurrect if you're unarmed. And no police officers were murdered that day. In fact, the only person shot to death that day was a protester who was shot to death by a cop, a Capitol policeman called Michael Byrd. Her name was Ashley Babbitt. You're familiar with the, the rough outline of this, but the one fact that is true is that this did produce the largest FBI investigation in American history. Something 5,000 agents were involved, and in the end they arrested about 1,500 people on federal crimes, and a bunch of those people went to jail. Now, not everybody who was involved that day on camera, provably involved, including people who encouraged others to breach the Capitol, to go inside to break an obvious law by going into a locked federal building— not all of those people wound up being charged or serving jail time. Nick Fuentes, for example, was on camera encouraging people to storm the Capitol. He wasn't punished for that, apparently. Certainly didn't serve any jail time over it. Ray Epps didn't serve any jail time over it.

Same thing. What is that? Maybe just a weird anomaly where the feds spent years in the, again, largest domestic criminal investigation in American history, charged 1,500 people with federal crimes, but just missed a couple who were on camera encouraging others to break the law. You know, things happen. Bureaucracies are famously inefficient. Maybe they just kind of forgot those guys, or maybe something else was going on. We're still arguing about that. But lost in all of this debate— and you'll remember there wasn't much debate about January 6th at first. Everybody was appalled by it. It was an insurrection. Republicans were appalled by it. When Ashli Byrd was killed, there were Republican senators who applauded the shooting of an unarmed woman, an Air Force veteran, by a cop with a record of reckless behavior, Michael Byrd. They were just happy she was dead because she was threatening them somehow. She was like 5'2", an unarmed woman, and she was shot to death for no justifiable reason. But they were happy. Republicans were happy. And why were they happy? Well, because they're— a lot of them are basically authoritarian, of course. But because they felt threatened. They're such physical cowards that Ashli Babbitt, her presence threatened them, apparently.

So almost nobody really asked these questions at first, and the few who did were strongly discouraged from asking those questions. They were defending violence or vandalism or whatever, insurrection. But over time, it became clear that the purpose of the exercise was to discredit Donald Trump, who had just lost the election. Remember, this all took place on the day the vote was being certified. Accuse him of trying to overturn the results of that election, get him impeached and convicted, and thereby prevent him from ever running for office again. The purpose of the whole exercise, at least the aftermath, the propaganda, the lies that attached to the events subsequently, the purpose of that was to solve the Trump problem once and for all. Like he's gone. He will never darken our city with his shadow again. We're not going to have to deal with that. All the uncomfortable questions about our foreign policy or our economic policy, like no more Trump. And both parties could get behind that. In fact, they strongly were both behind that. This is before they subverted Trump and somehow brought him to their side. Who knows how that happened? We've addressed that in other episodes.

But the point is, we now know with some clarity and certainty that January 6th was not, in fact, an insurrection against the Congress. It was an insurrection by the Congress, by permanent Washington against the population. And that's really, really clear. But there was one part of that story that was really never resolved at all, one way or the other. And it was a widely reported facet and then soon forgotten. Part of the story in which somebody planted pipe bombs, like Unabomber-type pipe bombs, pipes with explosives outside the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee the morning of 9/11. And this is one of those stories, again, that right away in the first hours after the fake insurrection happened, news outlets told you about it, and then they kind of stopped reporting on it. And then we learned maybe a year later that Kamala Harris was at the DNC when the pipe bomb was found. But somehow she'd never mentioned it. And you begin to think, it's not clear what happened there, but probably not what they told us. And by the way, why haven't they answered the question, who did this? This is Capitol Hill.

This is Washington, DC. This is one of the most surveilled places on planet Earth. There are very few physical spots on Capitol Hill where you're not being monitored by cameras, where there's no CCTV recording your movements. And of course, now with advances in technology, facial recognition but others, it should be pretty easy to find out who planted bombs on Capitol Hill, especially if you've got the largest domestic law enforcement investigation in American history trying to find out. But instead, there was basically silence until a guy called Darren Beattie who ran at the time a website called Revolver News, ran a piece that asked that question, like, wait, why haven't they solved this? And what was that? And how would that be connected to the events of January 6th? If this was in fact an insurrection by Trump voters against the system itself, against the United States of America, this is like a modern Fort Sumter proceeding a civil war, and that's literally what they told us it was. They tried to overthrow the government. Okay, now how did that fit in? What did that have to do with it? And the explanation that the Biden administration gave, sort of, to the extent they talked about it, was, well, this was an effort to distract people, law enforcement, from the insurrection that was happening at the Capitol.

They would set off these bombs outside the two party headquarters. Law enforcement rushed there and the insurrectionists would continue to, I don't know what, sit at Nancy Pelosi's desk, wander aimlessly around the Senate, which is what actually happened. They didn't actually do anything but whatever except get shot. But that's kind of where they left it. But this piece by Darren Beattie raised the possibility that, of course, and once you thought about this, was clearly true. Of course federal law enforcement know exactly who planted bombs in front of the party headquarters. What made January 6th different from all other widely publicized crimes in our lifetimes is that it was a crime committed not against private citizens. It wasn't like shooting people at a country music concert in Las Vegas, injuring 867 of them. I mean, that's sad, of course, but What does that have to do with Washington? What does that have to do with us? What does that do to people who run the country? No, those are like whatever country music fans probably voted for Trump. Like, it's sad, sad. Maybe we can use their deaths to advocate for disarming the population, but it's not really a threat to anyone's power.

Just the opposite, actually. January 6th was at least construed— and I think a lot of the people who repeated the propaganda convinced themselves this was an actual threat to bipartisan Washington, not just Democrats but to Republicans. Lindsey Graham was every bit as upset as Chuck Schumer. Because it was a threat to the symbol of their power, the Congress, which once upon a time was called the People's House. And it's called the People's House as a reminder that actually the purpose of all of this is to serve the owners of the country, which is not members of Congress, 535 stewards of the country. It's the people who vote for them, the citizens. They own all of this. So they own, by definition, the Congress itself, the People's House. That's not the prevailing attitude in Washington, which, needless to say, is we own all of this And you're here for some purpose, increasingly unclear. Labor has no value thanks to AI, so it's not like you're actually doing anything for us. You're kind of in the way. And the last thing we want is for you to like pipe up and criticize us or get in the way of whatever our plans might be.

You're just kind of annoying hecklers spoiling the play that we're putting on for our own amusement. And so shut up. And by the way, if you refuse to shut up and if you get really mouthy about it and show up with bullhorns at our house, not yours, not the people's, our house, we're going to put you in prison and we're going to deny you bail. And for the overwhelming majority of you who can't afford competent counsel, we're going to give you public defenders who hate you, who ensure that you're going to be stuck in some roach-infested hellhole. For example, DC city jail. So that's, that's what happened. But the pipe bomb question hung in the air. How could they not know who did that? They're highly motivated to track down the perpetrators, but somehow not that interested in solving a crime. A attempted bombing of the two political headquarters didn't make any sense at all, as Darren Beattie bravely and correctly pointed out several years ago. But still, The Washington Post, The New York Times didn't seem to have a lot of interest in solving this crime or in pushing federal law enforcement to solve the crime.

Like, where— what's the status of this? How many hours of CCTV footage do you have? Have you looked at it? Have you run it against your facial recognition software? Why can't you find the person who did this? You know you can. Why aren't you? And so it really took, I don't know, 4 or 5 years until a reporter called Steve Baker, who at the time worked for The Blaze, really set about trying to answer this question. And as you're about to hear in our interview with Steve Baker, he went to some lengths to solve the riddle. And he may or may not have solved it. I mean, we're not weighing in on that, and his conclusions are now the subject of a pretty well-publicized lawsuit. So not only is it not our place to weigh in on it— just want to make it clear, we're not weighing in on it— but it certainly is an inspiration to the rest of us that we should probably get to the bottom of this. So Steve Baker spends quite a long time trying to figure this out, and he thinks he figures it out. And he named somebody, wrongly or not.

And within literally days, after years of not solving this crime, federal authorities arrest a guy who they claim did it. And he is, by all descriptions, some apparently autistic guy, Black guy. And they spun this whole story, and he confessed to the crime, and like, we can rest easy now. He did it because who knows what, he's transgender or something, who knows. I can't even remember what the excuse was for why this guy did it. And a lot of people know the guy pretty well, like, yeah, I know he didn't do that, like, that's, that's absurd. But, you know, we're not going to weigh in on that because we don't know. What we do know is that after years of apparently not doing anything to solve this crime, which is prima facie a serious crime— bombing the party headquarters on Capitol Hill, yeah, that's serious. The Department of Justice, like, just solved it in about 10 minutes after Steve Baker throws out another hypothesis as to who did it. A federal employee. That's his theory. So we're not quite sure what to make of this other than a reminder that no US citizen has an obligation to take the word of anyone in an official capacity, in authority, and particularly not in federal law enforcement as gospel.

Just because they say it does not mean it's true. Obviously, just because anybody says anything doesn't mean it's true. People lie. Not always. Hopefully not often, but they do sometimes. We know that. And people in authority have motive to lie, particularly when they're covering up something that they did in the first place. And that may be the macro lesson of this. There has been no effort, really, and no pressure to provoke an effort, really, to find out who is behind these supposed pipe bombings. In part because everyone in Washington is potentially implicated in this. If it turned out that January 6th was not an entirely organic— maybe partly organic, but not an entirely organic event— if it turned out that it was to some extent, maybe not wholly, but in part staged or encouraged by people with a completely different agenda, an agenda that included sabotaging Trump's political career going forward, then the perpetrators wouldn't just be the Democratic Party. They would be the majority of Republican leadership. It would be a bipartisan effort. And that may be the real takeaway here. What we're looking at on January 6th, we're looking at in the Iran war, we're looking at in the total mismanagement of the US economy for most of our lives.

Is not a partisan question. It's not like one party took control, got both houses of Congress and the White House, packed the Supreme Court and went crazy. It's that the leaders of both parties, not their voters, but the leaders of both parties in Washington, had a very similar vision for what they wanted, how it might benefit them. And they did it not in opposition to each other, but in consensus, in agreement with each other. That is the unavoidable conclusion if you look at the past, say, 40 years of American history. Not that the parties are bitterly at odds, but that they are secretly in collusion. How could you reach another conclusion if you look at the outcome? You probably couldn't. But this specific story, while not related to economic or foreign policy, is a kind of window into the wall of resistance. That you bump up against when you start asking questions about, hey, what is going on here? America's 250th anniversary is here, and it presents a great opportunity to consider why our national culture matters. Being an American is not something to be ashamed of. We should all be proud to live here.

And the same goes for being a Christian. This July 4th, the Hallow app, which is the best prayer app ever, is launching the American Heroes Challenge. It's a 13-day journey and it takes listeners through the lives of the people who shaped this country, but whose stories are not in history textbooks because they just don't fit. These stories are amazing. Tales of Native Americans, the Declaration of Independence, World War I, even 9/11. These stories tie together history and faith that will affirm your faith. It's not a feel-good history lesson. It's a July 4th invitation to look at people who lived with courage, and to encourage us to strive to do the same. Download Halo free for 3 months at halo.com/tucker and do this challenge. We loved it. You will love it. With that, here is Steve Baker. And just once again, we're not endorsing his claims because of course we don't know if they're true, but we wanted to air them when almost nobody else was willing to because we think it's worth letting viewers decide. Does that make sense? Can't know if it's true. Can't know really if most things are true. But you can assess the evidence that we can confirm and come to your own conclusions about what it means.

And you should, because in this case, it matters. With that, here's Steve Baker. Steve Baker, thank you very much for doing this.

Thank you.

Um, now we have some distance between, uh, right now and January 6th. I think you know as much or more about it than anybody. Can you just describe it in general? What was January 6th in retrospect?

Uh, I like to couch it in this preface, is I saw a lot of people doing bad things that day.

Yes.

I saw a lot of people doing good things.

You were there.

I was there.

Yeah.

I've been prosecuted for being there.

Yep.

Uh, I saw a lot of otherwise good people doing some stupid things that day. But that's true on both sides of the police line.

Yeah.

Now, you were one of the first people to have access to the treasure trove of that alleged 41,000 hours worth of video. I think that was back in— gosh, that was back in February of '23, something like that. Something like that. And in fact, in fact, you had a couple of your producers called me to ask me what they needed to be looking at. And you took the, the Lieutenant Tarek Johnson story, that you did on your second week or second day of that. Uh, that was my suggestion. And the truth of the matter is, is that it was a setup, what happened at the Capitol. It was manipulated, it was engineered, and there is incredible amount of disinformation on both sides of the line. It doesn't matter whether you're on the left, it doesn't matter if you're on the right, whether you're MAGA, whether you're, um, on the Sedition Hunters side of the ledger. It doesn't matter. Tremendous amount of wrong information on both sides. And one of the things that I've endeavored to do, because I've had more access to the video than any other journalist in the world, I've spent more time in there, not only myself but teams of other journalists working with me, that we've gone in there with focused intentions and knowing what we were looking for, and then obviously surprised by many things.

Like, for instance, one of the biggest pieces of misinformation on the right is that the doors were thrown open by the Capitol Police and people were waved into the Capitol. That's not true. All 7 of the doors that were breached at the Capitol were breached from the inside by the protesters who first went through the the broken windows on that northwest Senate wing door that we've famously seen. Now, after that, in an effort to de-escalate, once the building was overrun, Capitol Police did hold doors open for people. And you— that was one of your first videos was showing the, um, uh, the shaman being led to the Senate.

Yes.

Chamber, and a cop opened the door for him. And that was a brilliant reveal. They did do those kinds of things, but not until later, not until after the Capitol was breached. And that's one of the mistakes that, again, the right makes. The biggest mistake that the left makes is they are convinced by the narrow presentation of video that they saw. Because they'll tell you, I mean, my critics will tell it from the left, will say, you can't gaslight me, I saw it with my own eyes, I was watching it live, I know what happened. No, you don't. You saw a very narrow narrowly focused battle scene, there were only like between 80 and 100 people who did any violence that day at all. Out of the hundreds of thousands of people that went to the Capitol that day, only 80, Tucker. But if you show the same battle scene from this angle, that angle, this angle, this camera, that camera, and you show it over and over and over and over again relentlessly for 5 years, then they believe that they know what they've seen. But they don't. Not until you've seen all of the other footage, which we have endeavored to do.

I don't think anybody can see 40,000 hours worth of video, but we've seen the most important parts of it. And that's why I can honestly sit before anybody again on the right or the left and go, no, that's not correct. And the right has a lot wrong as well. What they do have right is that it was a fed surrection. But I don't think it was set up by the FBI. I believe— and I've talked about this before, so this isn't a big revelation. I'll give you a couple of those later. But this, this is and was a, a setup that was designed and manipulated by elements of the Department of Defense, Capitol Police, and CIA to take down— it was a furtherance of the CIA and the intelligence community operation to take Trump out from ever being in politics ever again.

And so the idea was to provoke something so awful that he, he, he would be stained— well, maybe legally prohibited by, right, uh, conviction on an impeachment trial, but otherwise so stained that he could never run again.

That's exactly what the intent and the purpose was. And it was, uh, manipulated from the very beginning. I mean, look, you've, you've done stories, and all of us want to avoid defamation lawsuits, but I'm kind of past that point now. Uh, but you So if we started from the very beginning and revisited every aspect of January 6th, this would have to be a 20-part series today, and we're not going to do that.

Well, give us some indication of why you've concluded it was a setup.

The first thing that happened, and I was there that day, I captured my own video. And as I was driving home on the 7th from DC to, um, Raleigh, North Carolina, where I live, we started hearing about the arrests that were already being made, and the dragnet was already thrown. The next day, we're hearing about it on the radio, television, on the drive home. So I didn't go home. I actually called a friend of mine, special operator, United States Army and said, hey, I need a place to crash for a few days because before I get arrested, thinking that for sure, because I went inside the Capitol building, that that would happen, even though I went in with a camera and in the intent of following the story where the story went as a journalist, not as a rioter. And I never did any rioting, the— or any violence or anything of, of that type. But because of the types of people that were being arrested, I thought, okay, well, I need to go hide out somewhere. I need to write my story. I need to publish my videos, go through them all. And then when I get my story out, they can come get me.

So the first thing I did is I started going through frame by frame, analyzing my own video. And so I'm staying with a Tier 1 special operator, and he's, you know, standing over my shoulder looking at the videos that I have, and he's pointing to the screen and going, okay, now watch him. This is his job. Watch, watch what he does here. And I'm like, what are you, what are you talking about? He's got a sandwich in one hand and a cup of coffee in the other hand. He goes, yeah, watch, watch, watch what happens right here. Watch, he does that. Now he disappears into the crowd. Now watch her. This is what she does. Now this is her job. And, and I'm seeing this through another set of eyes. And what are you talking about? He goes, well, this is what we do overseas. This is how we incite color revolution overseas. We're trained to do that. And so while I'm in my 5-day process of going through all of my stuff and writing my first story about January 6th, which was 9,500 words, what I saw that day, what I experienced that day, one of these times he's leaning over my shoulder.

He says, oh, you know, we were there that day. And again, I'm like, what? He said, yeah, we had boots on the ground that day.

Meaning the National Guard waiting down the street?

No, meaning special operators from the US Army.

In plainclothes?

In plainclothes. And so my second article, which came out about 6 weeks afterwards, I actually revealed for the first time that elements of our special forces were in the crowd. Now, I didn't portray them as being, uh, you know, there for nefarious reasons or doing anything wrong. In fact, I even said it very well could be that they were there, you know, to take care of business in case things did get out of hand.

But they weren't there in their capacity as private citizens and Trump voters.

That's correct. Now, there were, there were, we know that for a fact. I mean, there were enlisted people, retired military, um, Steve Babbitt was a former Air Force enlisted Uh, there were FBI agents there as private. There were ATF agents there, private capacity. There were Trump supporters from all of the bureaus and agencies and this, that, and the other thing within the federal government. They were there in private capacities, and many of them were arrested and charged. Some of them did time in prison. And, and so, uh, in this particular situation though, I learned through my own work and through my access to that community is that we had elements there of a very, very elite nature from our special operators. And I just published that they were there. Now, nobody believed me. Nobody wanted to believe me. I got highly criticized for that.

They've been ordered to be there.

Yes, yes. And then exactly one year later, A writer for Newsweek, a gentleman by the name of William Arkin, on the first anniversary of January 6th published an article. The headline was Secret Commandos with Shoot to Kill Orders at January 6th. That's the headline, the Newsweek story. It's still online, you can look it up. It took me over 2 years before Arkin would even respond to me because I wanted You know, look, I wanted to maybe pick his brain. He could pick mine. He could share with me what he knew, what I know. And he wouldn't talk to me. When he finally responded, he was very hostile toward me, very antagonistic. He says, I feel like you've been trying to set me up. I'm not trying to set you up. I just want to colleague to colleague share what we know about that very thing. And he Actually, I have it. I have the screenshot from the DM communication with him where he denied that it ever even happened. Yeah, he goes, he goes, that was, uh, it never happened.

What?

We wrote about it. It's still online. If it never happened, how come it's not been retracted? Yeah, it just never happened.

He disavowed his own story.

That's correct.

Cost of living is already making it hard to live here, and it's not getting any better. Unfortunately, it's likely to get worse, and a lot of Americans fill the gap with credit cards, not just for fancy dinners, but to cover things like groceries and bills. That is a disaster. It's understandable, but don't go down that road because there is a tax in effect, a survival tax of 20% interest or more. Why would you do that? Why would you hand money to the big banks when you could keep it for your family? Our friends at American Financing have a better way. If you're looking to buy your first home or refinance your current one. They're helping Americans achieve the dream of homeownership with monthly mortgage rates currently in the fives. American Financing saves its customers an average of $800 per month. That's nearly $10,000 every year back to you. This isn't just a loan, it's a total financial reset. So debt is tough, but there's a smart way to do it and a reckless, self-destructive way to do it— credit cards. And so we recommend American Financing. They're salary-based, not commission-based, which means they actually work for you.

Not the banks. They're called America's Home for Home Loans for a reason. Call 800-685-5696, 800-685-5696, or visit americanfinancing.net/tucker. Has the Pentagon ever admitted that this took place?

No, because the Pentagon won't even admit that this particular unit exists. Now, you've had a member of your, that unit sitting at your table here. Recently, they don't exist. Um, that was one of the things that made this very difficult, was first of all, you know, when, when you write a story, you have to call and, you know, it is, you have to call, get spokesperson on the record. Yeah, disavowing or saying something or commenting about whatever, whether it's the FBI, CIA, DOD. Well, when you call the DOD and you ask them about this particular unit out of Fort Belvoir just outside of DC. We don't know what you're talking about. There's no such unit. Well, there is such a unit, and the special operators community is well aware of who they are. And they don't have a name— not a real name. They have a variety of names that they go by. They're typically, uh, universally referred to within their community as TFO, or Task Force Orange. There's been books written about them. Uh, they have variously been called the unit, the activity, and other things throughout the years, but they do—

what's their job? They operate domestically?

They have a couple of jobs. Uh, they are, uh, they're not supposed to operate domestically, not at all, as none of the United States, you know, armed forces are except for National Guard. And so, um, there's the signal intelligence group that's, uh, mostly, if I And, and they'll— believe me, they'll correct me when I get little minor details wrong— but the signal intelligence part of them, that most of them are out of Fort Meade. And these are the guys— I mean, look, these are, these are the most elite of the elite of the elite. Now, they don't look like Navy SEALs, they don't look like Delta Force guys. They're typically smaller, they use their brains. Uh, their training is much more, uh, in the way of surviving through isolation. And they're— they become deep inserts into, uh, uh jurisdictions around the world where we're not supposed to exist. You're not supposed to operate, that sort of thing. And they, they typically are on the front edge. They leave before Delta Force and SEALs are ever deployed. These guys, the unit, the activity, TFO, have been there already for a long time, uh, and they have to survive that without contact.

And they're all, all of them are polyglots. Uh, one of my closest friends and deepest sources, uh, within that community, he He speaks 8 languages, 5 of them native, as he says, and they're all highly trained, all have specialization. They're all smart, IQs off the charts.

So they're not the, you know, the right, uh, the meaty kind of 200,000 push-ups, right?

It's not them. Yeah, but they run marathons and everything about them is, is, is they're trained for endurance and isolation is their greatest skill.

What was their job on January 6th?

I don't know. I still haven't found that out.

But you found out early that there were current members, on-duty members of the U.S. military in the crowd.

Yes.

Dressed in civilian clothes. What's the CIA's connection to the events of that day?

I, I believe that— well, look, you go back to the 51 intel—

yes— leaders who signed the letter, officers who denied that Hunter Biden's laptop was Hunter Biden's, etc., etc.

Yes, this is all part of that same operation downstream from Mark Milley.

Yep.

Trump's, you know, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Yep.

Um, the— I believe that, um, certain very high-ranking elements in the Capitol Police were obviously in on this. We know that now from our video. We've discovered this from the video review. Tucker. I don't, I don't have to pull this out of my ass. It's in the videos, and we've released a lot of it, and a lot more of it is coming. But we know that the Capitol Police were ground soldiers that day. Not all of them. The frontline officers, they were doing their job.

Yep.

In fact, I, I, one of my very first stories, and I, and I, I got this from my own camera, was that the Capitol Police were— I called them sacrificial lambs that day, or pawns. I, I use the word pawns, sacrificial pawns. And the reason why I said that is when I was on the front line with my camera and had my camera in these young officers' faces that had just been called to the front line of this battle that was just breaking out on the west, lower west terrace there at the Capitol, they had fear in their eyes and they had no protection. They had no body armor. They had no goggles. They had no face, you know, gas masks. They had no helmets. That's another story right there. Their helmets had been collected 2 weeks before, were taken up. They were ordered to turn their helmets in. Yes, that's a whole other story that we've done work on. That's why I said we could do a 20-part series on this. This is so complex. But my thought about these young frontline Capitol Police officers real quick. You can go— you can be a Capitol Police officer for 30 years, and I'm not being critical.

I know they're accused of being, uh, you know, glorified mall cops, that sort of thing, tour guides. But you can go 30 years at the Capitol Police and basically never do anything other than, yes ma'am, the restroom's this way.

Yes.

Um, unlike Metropolitan Police Department, who—

the City of Washington, right?

That police force knocks heads. Every day for sure. They have to deal with most of the riots. And so I saw these young kids being called to the front line facing actual real violence because there was real violence that day. And my next thought was what they're seeing coming at them over my shoulder. And for instance, the, the Capitol Police Lieutenant Tarek Johnson, who you interviewed. Yes. He called his wife and said, tell the kids I love them. I'm not coming home today. This is, you know, we're dying here today. And that's what they thought, because all of a sudden there's this handful of just a few dozen people violently attacking the front line of officers. But they see tens of thousands of people over my shoulder coming at them, not knowing what their intentions were. They were scared. They were scared to death. Yeah. And some of them overreacted. So I have a lot of— I have a lot of sympathy for these frontline officers because they were not— they didn't get briefings that morning, right? They were undermanned, understaffed on purpose. January 6th, every 4 years, is supposed to be an all boots on the ground day.

For the Capitol Police. They're supposed to work double shifts, as a matter of fact. That's policy. That's department policy for First Amendment protest days. The Capitol Police themselves had issued and signed off on 6 permits for protest on the property that day, and they did not inform their officers that they had issued permits that day.

Jeez. How many federal agents in plainclothes were in the crowd that day? Do we know?

Unknown. You have to separate that. You know, we heard the reports a few months ago about the 247 that they had. Patel. This is one of the actual truths that Kash Patel has told about that day is that there were 240-something FBI agents that were called in for crowd control. But Tucker, they didn't arrive till after 4 o'clock. Those orders were issued late. These were not the undercovers. These were not the ones that, that's reported, were doing nefarious activities. These were people with no crowd control training whatsoever. The FBI is not trained for that. A special agent in the FBI is not trained for crowd control.

Yeah, they're not bouncers.

And they showed up with their FBI jackets on, their FBI ball caps, their vests. Uh, some of them had put on their, uh, ballistic vests, that kind of thing, but it all was emblazoned with FBI. These were not the plain— okay, all FBI are plain clothes. Except for the, you know, the SWAT teams, all of them. And so when you say that they were plainclothes, that doesn't mean undercover, but they showed up with their FBI, you know, big yellow letters all over their gear. And I was there. I videoed them as they arrived, but I also videoed the SWAT team that was already there early on. It was FBI SWAT team that were trying to save Ashli Babbitt's life down in the lower level of the Capitol. Yeah, I walked right past her body.

You did? Yes.

I got her on— I got her. I have— I'm the one that published the video of her being extracted out the— yes, south door. That's my video.

Christians ought to be safe in the Holy Land of all places, but they are not. Keep in mind, these are the descendants of the first converts, the first people who followed Jesus, people whose families have worshiped in the land Jesus walked for centuries, for thousands of years. And these same people are now facing enormous pressure to leave, fleeing their homes amid war and anti-Christian terrorism. Untold numbers of innocents are lost and without hope— fellow Christians. But how do you support them? There are groups out there who claim to support them whose real agenda is to move them out of their actual homeland. We think that's wrong. We think that's evil, in fact. And so we've looked far and wide to find a group that is actually supporting Christians in the Middle East. And we found one. It's called the Vulnerable People Project, VPP. It's one of the very few groups consistently helping vulnerable Christians throughout the Holy Land. They deliver food and water to Christian communities trapped in Gaza, for example. They help rescue civilians. They provide emergency aid to families who have nowhere else to turn. Today they are helping Christian churches and families safely remain in the communities where their ancestors worshiped Jesus.

There should be a lot of groups doing this, and trust us, we have looked for over a year now and there aren't. But the Vulnerable People Project is doing exactly that, and their work makes an amazing difference in people's lives. A gift of just $33 helps provide a day of protection and support for the vulnerable Christians in the West Bank. Who's looking out for them? Nobody. Well, they are. A monthly gift of $83 helps sustain that protection throughout the month. So visit SaveWestBankChristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began. That's SaveWestBankChristians.com. We are proud to partner with them. Thank you. Um, so we don't know. So the 240 FBI agents number is not relevant to the question of to what extent was this a setup.

That 247 are absolutely irrelevant. And that's another thing that the right gets wrong. If I can care— if I have to characterize the two narratives about January 6th, that's one that they get wrong.

But, but the, the relevant question is how many people in the crowd pretending to be protesters were actually working for the federal government?

Correct.

And we don't have that answer.

We don't have that number. The FBI could tell us that number. They know that number. First of all, we know that there was 20-something CHSs that they've told us about, confidential human sources, actively working with CIA— I mean, I'm sorry, FBI handlers, as they were embedded in the various organizations, whether the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers or Three Percenters or whatever. We know that, uh, we don't— I believe there was a much higher number than that that they've not revealed. And then of course there were the operatives. The other thing, and I'm not trying, I'm not trying to give FBI any grace in this, but the truth of the matter is, is if you've got a crowd size of— my estimate was that the total crowd size was between 400,000, 600,000 people at the Capitol that day. Damn. Actual Capitol Police officers who testified in the crowd said that as they looked out over the sea of people, it was— this is a quote from the trials. It was a crowd as large as any inaugural event I have ever attended. That means it's big, really big. And so, um, now the press still says that there were only 30,000 people in, in DC that day.

They, they've held to that number, um, and that's incorrect. And then you've got people that exaggerate and say there were 2 million people, but there weren't. So You have this situation where in a, in a crowd of that size, anytime you're going to have elements of all of the federal law enforcement agencies and departments and bureaus are going to be there. They're going to have counter-surveillance teams in the crowd, and we want them there. They're sniffing for bombs. They're, they're looking for nerd wells. They, they know the signs. They're trained for that very thing. And we want them there, just as we want them in Times Square, you know, on New Year's Eve, just as we want them in any large event.

Sure, because they're there to protect the public. What you don't want is plainclothes federal agents or confidential human sources stirring up mayhem, provoking violence, or actual trained provocateurs in the crowd. Were there?

Absolutely.

Was Ray Epps one of them?

I believe he was. I mean, look, the circumstantial evidence is there. I mean, look, you know the story intimately about Ray Epps.

Uh, he kept threatening to sue me but never did.

Yeah, well, he, he probably doesn't want to go through discovery.

I suspect that's true.

Absolutely. But I mean, look, we, we don't need to relive his case, but the obvious is the obvious. He was number 16 on the FBI's January 6th Most Wanted list. And then suddenly he wasn't, and suddenly disappeared. And suddenly the New York Times comes out, Alan Foyer, and does a puff piece article on him. And gosh, when did that come out? Summer of '22. And they made him the sympathetic character.

Never forget it.

Yeah, it's incredible. How does the guy that is the most open, most broadcast person calling people to go into the Capitol, how does he become the sympathetic character of the left and never get charged?

You know, eventually, eventually, right? But, but with minor charges.

He never even had to come in today.

He's never got charged with anything. No, which is kind of crazy since Nick Fuentes was calling people to rush the Capitol. What is that?

A lot of people. There are a lot— there's, there's characters that are on video, and there's a, there's a tremendous amount of video beyond the Capitol Police CCTV, which, by the way, that video has no— you know, the CCTV, as you know, has no audio. But the body cam footage, the news camera footages, the insane amount of iPhone footage that have been collected for discovery in all these trials. So we hear tons and tons of characters that are calling for violence, calling for people to attack law enforcement, to storm the Capitol, this, that, and the other thing. And so many of those have never been arrested.

Is that true?

Absolutely.

Meanwhile, you were.

And I was correct.

And what were you charged with?

So when, when the FBI first interviewed me in October of '21, a month later, the U.S. attorney, the U.S. attorney who had my case, notified my attorney in Raleigh that his client was going to be charged within the week. This was the week before Thanksgiving of '21, and they listed the charges. They were going to charge me with, I kid you not, interstate racketeering. To my knowledge, I was the only one of everybody in the whole January 6th dragnet prosecutions, weaponization of our government against all of us that was going to be charged with racketeering. And basically the case that they were going to make is that because I, as an independent journalist blogger, had made money from the licensing of my videos. HBO licensed my videos. New York Times licensed my videos for their documentary. Others all over the world licensed some of my videos. And, you know, you don't get much money for, you know, it's like the standard rate is $1,000 per minute. Well, so when they, when they use 6 seconds of your video, you're not getting a lot of money.

No.

So, so, uh, uh, that was the only thing that we could conclude. And then so what we did is we did a major press offensive. So this was the week before Thanksgiving. On Monday of Thanksgiving week, we sent out about 200 press releases to all manner of media and saying that, you know, journalist is being prosecuted for his journalism on January 6th, being me. And the DOJ backed off. And we didn't hear from them again for— even though they said I was going to be arrested Thanksgiving week. We have this in writing, by the way, still do. They said I was going to be arrested the week of Thanksgiving of '21. We didn't hear from them again until 20 months later when I got a grand jury subpoena.

20 months?

20 months. They went dead silent, would not even respond to my attorneys.

That's so wrong. That is not a free country when they act like that.

Left me in the lurch like that for that long. And then it was until, uh, after the grand jury subpoena, it was another 8 months before they did actually arrest me.

And where did they arrest you?

I, uh, I was working for The Blaze at the time, and I was in Dallas where The Blaze headquarters was. That was kind of pre-planned when they, when they told us what the, what the date of my, uh, voluntary submission to the FBI. We chose to do that in Dallas so that we could get it all on camera. And I submitted myself to the FBI field office in Dallas, and then they, uh, processed me there, handcuffed me. That's where they captured my perp walk on camera, and then they took me down to the federal courthouse in Dallas.

You charged with a felony?

Nope, I wasn't. I was charged with 4 misdemeanors. Ultimately, that's— they charged me with the basic 4, you know, parading, um, what I call glorified trespassing, disorderly conduct. Well, if they do that, but there wasn't any. In fact, that was the other advantage that we had even before my arrest, through The Blaze, we released all 37 minutes of me in the Capitol behaving like a journalist, stopping, taking notes, camera, this, that. I mean, my entire 37 minutes are on YouTube. You can go watch it right now.

And so what happened?

Um, ultimately, I, uh, had a trial date set that was exactly one week after the 20 24 election. I had—

are you serious? Yeah.

So I have, um, my pre-trial hearing was the day after the election, and Judge Christopher Cooper, which by the way, the same judge who just made, uh, made them take, take Trump's name off of the Kennedy Center, uh, same judge, he, um, he hated me. He really wanted to put me in jail.

For what?

Um, uh, my journalism.

Walking in a building you own to commit journalism?

Wait till you hear what he said in my hearing. So the day after the election, he was obviously in a bad mood because Trump won, and he shot down every one of our motions. I mean, it would not let— allow me to present a selective prosecution defense. And that was going to be our primary defense, is because we were going to force the government to explain why the other 80-something journalists that came in from the outside into the inside of the Capitol that day and followed the story where the story went, why weren't they prosecuted? All the people that work for the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., etc.

They were not arrested, correct?

Not arrested, not charged with anything. Why were they not, and yet I was? So That was going to be our argument. And the judge totally said, you're not, you're not going to do selective prosecution and you cannot present a First Amendment case in this courtroom.

You can't appeal to the Constitution of your own country.

That's correct. So, uh, as soon as we got off of the pre-trial hearing, it was a Zoom call, I got on another Zoom call with my attorneys, 4 of them, and immediately 2 of my attorneys who are former federal prosecutors themselves said, look, you understand that this trial is going to be nothing but a shaming exercise against you. And I said, yeah, I've been covering the trials. I know exactly what they're going to do. I'm not doing it. Inform the court, inform the DOJ that I'm pleading guilty to all 4 misdemeanor charges.

And what was the penalty?

Well, so this was now a— so my pretrial hearing was the day after the election. My beginning of my court date was supposed to be the very next week, exactly 1 week after the election. The next day We got a message from Charlie Kirk because he was on the transition team, and he said directly to me, your pardon is a done deal, don't worry about it, it's all taken care of. So I had that knowledge and that information going into my trial date, and, um, I rolled the dice. That's why I pled guilty to all four rather than going through the humiliation exercise. And so we were in the hearing, and at the end of that pleading guilty to all four, the judge asked the clerk, when is Mr. Baker's, um, um, sentencing hearing? And she typed in, she goes, Mr. Baker's sentencing hearing will be March 6th. He goes, okay. He said, Mr. Baker, your sentencing hearing is going to be on March 6th of, uh, Next year, he said, but since I probably will not see you in March— he knew the pardons were coming as well. All of those judges did. They all knew it, that the pardons were coming.

He said, since I won't see you in March, he said, and I quote, I'm going to hazard to deliver to you the remarks that I would normally give at your sentencing hearing. And then he dressed me down for the next 7 or 8 minutes. I have the transcript. For my journal. He never mentioned one thing I was charged with, never mentioned anything that I did or said at the Capitol. The only thing he did was my post-January 6th, um, or talked about was my post-January 6th journalism, in which I had referred to the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the bias of this court. And he spent 7 or 8 minutes defending the court. Against my journalism. Not one word about my—

this is not charges. Nuts.

We have— I have it all. So I have the transcripts. Wow.

So you never went to jail?

No, uh, I, I did not get a pardon. I got a case dismissal with prejudice, because in the federal system, until you are, um, sentenced, right, you're not convicted, right? Because that's when the paperwork basically is filed. And, uh, so I was, uh, it's for me, it's like it never happened. I mean, it did. I went through 3 years of hell with that.

But yeah, and the cost, I can't even imagine. Um, wow. I don't think that got enough attention at the time.

I was one of the high-profile cases. I actually had a bevy of mainstream media journalists from The Washington Post AP and, uh, WUSA9 and everything were there in my, in my hearing. They were there. And in fact, in the press conference afterwards outside the courthouse, I actually looked at the, the guy from the Washington Post, Spencer Hugh, and I said, you were in there, you heard what the judge said. He criticized me for my journalism, not for what I did on January 6th.

What did Spencer Hugh of the Washington Post say?

He went, yeah, you're right. And then his article that came out later that day Was incredibly fair.

Good.

Yeah.

So it was, I don't know, but it was months, many months after January 6th that I first became aware of the mystery of the two pipe bombs left on Capitol Hill that morning. It was a piece, I think, by Darren Beattie in Revolver. And so that was at least 4 years ago. And I don't think we're any closer to, or I'm not any closer to understanding what that was. Can you describe the story, like what was publicly conveyed about those pipe bombs, and then tell the story about what you think actually happened.

Yeah, what, what the public believes happened was that a nefarious individual planted, uh, these, uh, devices, these weapons of mass destruction, at both the Republican National Committee headquarters and the Democratic National Committee headquarters, and that A lot of people believe that those were to be used in case we couldn't stop the, you know, we, you know, the, the people who stormed the Capitol that day.

Insurrectionists.

Right. The insurrectionists, which I was accused of being, couldn't stop the vote that day or the confirmation of the Electoral College vote, that they were going to blow, blow the bombs. That was the initial thought. And that was, of course, the way the press breathlessly presented this, right? Um, that's not at all what happened. Let's just start with the very beginning.

So this is— but here's what we know, where we read that day or the next day: two bombs, two explosive devices, were found outside in front of the RNC and the DNC on Capitol Hill on January 6th, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Yes. Now everything starts breaking down from there. First of all, we now know in hindsight from actual FBI agents who were tasked to that investigation, that they were told by leadership that the devices were inert. Individuals that are familiar with bomb making and bomb training from all of the federal agencies have said, looking at the photographs and looking at the FBI's forensic report, which came out a week later, I have, I have the entire report said that these were typical training devices. Hmm.

They were not bombs.

They were not bombs. One of the FBI whistleblowers famously said they would have been bombs if they had been bombs. And, and so we now know that despite what the FBI continues to say about the devices being dangerous, being the, having the potential to do great harm and bodily— in fact, they've charged the guy that they've arrested with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

But I mean, when it was first reported, it was reported as, as an act of terrorism.

Yes.

But you're saying the FBI knew right away, or— Absolutely, they knew they were not bombs.

Yeah, they, they knew on the day of that they were not bombs.

Why would they lie about that?

Um, I don't think that the FBI was brought into the lie until the investigation began, and then that's when the blob informs the blob that we must protect the blob.

Yes.

And that's where we are today.

Well, that's how things actually work.

That's how it's exactly—

it's not partisan. No, it's not one agency. It's not a rogue agency or a rogue politician. It is the system protecting itself.

And by the way, I stole the blob analogy from Mike Benz, who actually did the work for Darren Beattie back on the pipeline.

I should have said that. I should have said that.

And so the, uh, the first— that was the first breakdown. The second breakdown is, is then in the timing. So the discovery of the devices, the first one was discovered 25 minutes before the bicameral meeting of Congress and the gavel dropped by Vice President Pence at 1 o'clock. So the first bomb was discovered 25 minutes before that. All right, um, then the second device was discovered 5 minutes after 1 o'clock. Well, Chief of Police, uh, Chief of Police, the Capitol Police, Steve Sun, who you've interviewed a couple of times, uh, he absolutely says that those were diversionary devices. Those were meant to divert resources from the Capitol already, as I mentioned earlier, extremely depleted. There's— on January 6th, there were 2,000 uniformed officers with the Capitol Police. Less than 250 were on duty that day, despite the fact there were all these 6 or something registered protests, despite the fact that the Assistant Chief of Police, Yogananda Pittman, had signed off on 6 legally permitted protest events on the Capitol grounds.

Yogananda Pittman, who went on to get rewarded by Nancy Pelosi with a job at the Berkeley. University of California, Berkeley. Yeah. Um, tells you so much. Uh, okay, so, but these bombs were— or these devices were found right around the time of the vote, correct? And the rest of us thought that it was like— it was almost like the anthrax attacks before 9/11. Yeah, we knew, right? Or after 9/11, we knew something terrible was going on, but there were never any details.

Yeah. Well, here's another interesting aspect of the timing. So not only did the gavel drop at 1 o'clock, those 6 permits all began at 1 o'clock. Now, Trump had messed up the schedule because he arrived at the stage at the Ellipse an hour late. So he was supposed to take the stage and begin his speech, his hour-long speech at 11 AM. He did not take the stage until 11:57. All right. Then he went over his time. He did not leave the stage till 1:16.

PM.

By then, the first breaches had already happened, the first battle lines had already been established, and the first launching of less-than-lethals into the crowd were already taking place before the president ever left the stage. All those early people, including Ray Epps, including about, um, 50 former Marines that were on that front line, had already breached the barricades, had already started taunting and attacking police. And, um, and now you have two calls over the police radio, which we have— we have the entire, uh, uh, all day of the police radio. And the calls go out, they need reinforcements at the RNC and the DNC, because that's within— both of those buildings are within the Capitol Police jurisdiction. So they had to divert this already depleted force, and that's why we know that they were diversionary devices, and that was the point, was to pull law enforcement away. So at the same time that Capitol Police are going to the other locations, now you have the arrival of Metropolitan Police are now showing up at the Capitol. They're streaming in They're coming in to kick butt. The fighting gets worse and worse and worse. And as I said, good people on both sides of the line, bad people on both sides of the line.

And the, the next thing that we know, and this is what's really important, is in the aftermath of the devices is what we learned from video. And this is the single most important thing that we learned from video, first of all, is we saw the reaction to the discovery of the device at the DNC. Now, we did not see the reaction because the Capitol Police has never showed us, or the FBI has never showed us, any video in the alleyway behind the RNC. Now, the device was actually behind the Capitol Hill Club, you know, Republican hangout, kind of next door and attached to the RNC. Um, there's allegedly no camera there. But there is. I'll get to that here in a minute. But at the DNC, we see a, um, Thomas Massie likes to call him, uh, the two counter-surveillance officers that work for the Capitol Police, undercover, plainclothes counter-surveillance officers, Capitol Police, and they work for the intel department of the Capitol Police. One of them Massie calls, uh, man bun guy because he was wearing a man bun, and the other one he calls backpack guy. Well, backpack guy went to the two SUVs that were guarding the parking deck entrance of the DNC.

Why were they there? Because then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was inside the DNC, not where she was supposed to be, by the way. She's supposed to be over at the Capitol, which is another very, very strange aspect to this entire story, is she's being coronated over at the Capitol and she's a voting senator. And she's not there.

Hmm.

At 1 o'clock, she's inside the DNC. So the Secret Service have swept that building already— human assets, dogs— they've swept that entire side. We found on video at 8:30 in the morning, 8, 9, 10 Secret Service walking right past where the bomb allegedly was found. That bomb was in the wide open. It could not have not been seen. It could not have, uh, not been found by bomb dogs. It could not have not been found by— not to mention the pedestrians that were walking by it all day long. It's wide open right there. It wasn't hidden behind a bush. At 1:05, Backpack Guy, counter-surveillance officer with the Capitol Police, goes over to the SUVs. He informs the Secret Service agents sitting inside the two SUVs, we just found a, you know, bomb, suspicious device. The reaction of the Secret Service agents is the most suspicious thing that makes— made all of our mind. Darren Beattie, Mike Benz, anybody else who's done any work on the pipe bomb knows that when you're informed that there's a bomb sitting 10 feet from you, you don't sit in the SUV and finish your sandwich for 2 minutes.

No, no.

And then when they get out, they casually walk around. They don't stop traffic. Now, there's protocol, okay? These guys are trained. Every one of these agencies, bureaus, are all trained on what to do when suspicious devices are found. They have to set up perimeters, cordon off a certain amount depending upon the, the type of device they think it is. Yeah, it could be 700 feet, it could be 2,000 feet.

Yeah, it's a bomb.

It's a bomb. So within a matter of feet, they don't have any concern for their own safety whatsoever. They're allowing families to continue walking 10 feet past the bomb down the sidewalk.

And we know for a fact that they were told it was a bomb.

Absolutely. Okay, well then I don't believe that they were told that though. This is what, this is what we've been told. I believed, and I've said this from the very beginning, the only thing that explains their reaction, or lack of reaction thereof, was the fact that they were told by the Capitol Police guys, hey look, uh, we're in the middle of a training exercise, so we've got these, you know, devices over here. Um, we're gonna have to start the dog and pony show here a little bit. The bomb squad's gonna come out, we're gonna have the robot and all that. Oh no, no, go ahead and finish your lunch. That's the only thing that explains the reaction.

And it's why Kamala Harris, despite being there at the time and talking about January 6th constantly like it was Pearl Harbor plus 9/11, never publicly said a word about the fact she was there. Now you would think Kamala Harris would be bragging, I survived January— I survived a bombing attempt from the radical right white-wing supremacists or whatever.

Instead, it took a year before Newsweek— not Newsweek, um, Politico— revealed that she was even in the building.

Right, that's right.

Entire year.

So I think we can say, based on everything that you said, pretty confidently, these were not bombs.

These were not bombs, right?

How'd they get there?

This is where we have a real struggle, because we have the videos of this dark figure, this gray, you know, hooded figure walking through that area around the RNC and DNC on the night of the 5th.

Both.

What's that?

Both on both sides. On both sides.

Same, same individual caught on camera, multiple, multiple cameras. All, you know, they're caught on Ring cams, caught on the DNC cameras, caught on Capitol CCTV cameras. This, this figure comes out of nowhere at 7:34 PM, plants both devices, and then disappears through a secret gate, by the way, at 8:18 PM.

Um, through a secret gate? What is that?

In the alleyway behind the RNC, and there's residences in that alleyway.

Yeah.

Um, uh, and businesses. And the actual alley is called Rumsey Court. And at the opposite end of the long alleyway from where the RNC and the Capitol Hill Club are is a Catholic church. And there's a garden on the other side of a fence. Well, if you don't know where the gate is, because it's a hidden latch and the gate completely and perfectly blends in with the fence. So if you're not a resident, you don't know that that gate exists, and there's no path, there's no footprints or whatever. The first time I went through it, there was snow on the ground that I went out and checked it out myself. So I— only reason I found it is because I could see the snow prints where local residents use that as a shortcut. The second time I went out there and videoed, there's no evidence whatsoever. And I, I had my camera, and you can't see a latch, you can't see a gate of any kind. I happen to know where it was because I'd been through it before. And so this young bomber, which we'll get into I'm sure here in a moment, this, uh, young Black autistic, uh, individual who, um, allegedly confessed to the crime told FBI that he mapped out his route for planting the devices by using Google Maps.

There's two things that aren't on Google Maps though: that secret gate nor are the blind spots in Capitol Police CCTV cameras.

Hmm. And the person who left these devices was clearly aware of where the blind spots were.

And now we know more by video. Now, the FBI has only ever released about 30 seconds of video of the bomber and put out a $500,000 reward asking for tips from the public. If you recognize the way this person walks or the way you recognize anything about it, you know, call this 1-800 number. And, um, the interesting thing is, is that the FBI themselves told the congressional committee— this was Loudermilk and Massey's report— that they had 30,000 video files of the bomber. That's their, that's their number, not mine. 30,000 video files. They have only released about 30 seconds of video. Because of our access to Capitol CCTV, we have about 21 minutes of the Hooded Bomber walking around. It's never been shown to the public.

Where'd you get that?

Capitol CCTV.

How do you get access to Capitol CCTV?

Well, um, if you remember, you guys were first granted access by McCarthy, um, and then they used a small handful of us as guinea pigs to eventually give universal access.

So House investigators had it.

House investigators have it. They have, they have the, the, the hard drives.

Yep.

Uh, and then they gave us access, uh, myself, uh, Julie Kelly, um, John Solomon, uh, uh, Joe Hanneman, uh, who was with Epoch Times at the time, now my partner in this project, um, they, uh, and myself And so with this access that we got, we harvested, literally harvested, this amount of footage of the bomber walking around. And this is where it really comes home to the Capitol Police, is on the evening that the gray hooded figure was planting the devices, this individual only sat down in two places. During the stroll, during that 7:34 to 8:18 period. The first place that the Hooded Bomber sat down at was the DNC bench, then— but did not place the bomb the first time that this individual sat down, got up, left, went around the block, and went to the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and sat down at a bush outside the Congressional Black Caucus, reached into the backpack, pulled out a device and slid it under the bush, then changed their mind, reached, grabbed it back and put it back into the pouch or the backpack, stood up, went down a back alleyway back to the DNC, and then planted the bomb at the DNC.

You can see the hooded figure on camera reach in, pull the device out of the bag, and then lay it over behind the bench and the mulch there. One problem with that scene right there is the FBI says that Brian Cole Jr., who they arrested for being the bomber, said that that was when he set the timer on, you know, the egg timer. Kitchen timer. Except on video, he doesn't set the timer. One hand in, one hand out, never stops to set the timer and sets it down. FBI is clearly wrong. And if the kid really gave that in his confession, he was clearly lying in his confession.

Delusional.

Or delusional. Or the fact that autistic individuals give the highest percentage of false confessions to law enforcement of any other demographic.

So he wasn't charged, however, when you first started looking into the story, Brian Cole?

No. And this is, this is where the, the problem comes in. Let me go back to the sitting down at the two locations. So the next day, on the 6th, the first device is found at the RNC, alerted by a lady by the name of Carlin Younger. And the first device is found at 25 minutes before 1:00. And then the Capitol Police send out over their radio, they deploy their own counter surveillance teams, 3 of them, 2 men each, to go out and look for other devices. This one counter surveillance team where Man Bun Guy and Backpack Guy, they— we find their car. My team, my guys on my investigative team find their car. We follow their car through the city and it arrives at the Metro South parking lot right across the street from the RNC. They get out of their car, put their backpacks and their jackets on. They walk and they beat— now they're deployed to look for devices, right? This is their job. Our job is to look for devices. They spend their entire stroll from Metro South over to not the DNC. They go to Congressional Black Caucus Institute and walk right up to the bush do this, look under the bush.

2 minutes later, they then find, find the bomb at the DNC. The only 2 places that the hooded individuals sat down the night before is the only 2 places they actually looked in their stroll while they were looking for devices. They didn't look under the garbage cans, under cars. They didn't look under other bushes. They looked nowhere else. Tucker, this is a Capitol Police operation.

Do we know the identities of man bun and backpack?

Yes, they have been interviewed by the committee. Uh, in fact, uh, Representative Massey actually interviewed the man bun guy himself. They have been interviewed, and the congressional investigators say that it's the most, uh, pre-planned and rehearsed interview they've ever witnessed in their life. And by the way, they could only get permission to interview them if they were not under oath, and they had to be interviewed together, which you never do in an investigation.

They were not under oath?

Nope, they were not under oath, and it was not—

why would a law enforcement officer refuse to testify under oath?

Because this was Capitol Police. Capitol Police is different.

Why, why would House investigators settle for that? How about no?

Because, uh, Johnson and Jordan restricted the committee from investigating the Capitol Police.

Now, why would they do that?

The Praetorian Guard.

Yeah. So if you're the cat— just to be clear, I mean, and if you doubt this, you can go back into the clips and look at every sex scandal or DUI scandal on Capitol Hill. It's always the Capitol Police who are involved in it. And tons of people on the Hill have drinking or drug problems. There's a lot of crazy sex-related behavior and other things. And the Capitol Police know all that?

Yes, they—

am I being a conspiracy nut here?

No, no. As a matter of fact, the first time I ever met Tarek Johnson— it's one, it's one reason why I gave your, your team his story— yep— was he looked at me the very first time I met with him, was in, uh, '22 sometime, and he said, Steve, you have no idea how powerful the Capitol Police are.

Yeah, that's true.

And I'm thinking Keystone Cops, glorified mall cops. No way. No. Dignitary Protection Detail and the intel department are not the Keystone Cops. Yeah, this is the CIA. And as a result of that cooperation with the agency, they know where all the bodies are buried. They know where the skeletons in the closets are. Everything that you just talked about a moment ago, this is what they have privileged knowledge to, and this is how they affect legislation on Capitol Hill. This is how they affect who the leadership is going to be. That's how the leadership disappoints us so gravely every time we get our guy in and he suddenly is no longer our guy.

So you think that the Capitol Police are like a vector of control?

Absolutely.

Yeah, I would not be surprised by that 100% at all. Um, at all. And of course, they're controlled by the Speaker of the House.

Yes.

So it's an inherently political operation.

So Loudermilk, um, Congressman Loudermilk, who was chairman of the last two January 6th investigative committees— the first one, his subcommittee was under House administration. The new one is a subcommittee under Judiciary Committee chaired by Jordan. Loudermilk is the chairman of the subcommittee. In order for him to even get this committee— and how do I know this is because he told me himself to my face— the only way he was able to continue his investigation into matters related to January 6th is he had to agree not to investigate the Capitol Police. To which my response was, you can't investigate January 6th without investigating the Capitol Police.

Why would you ever allow— I mean, any investigation that begins with parameters like that, it's like Jeffrey Epstein search warrants. It's like designed to obscure rather than illuminate the truth, right? Right.

They thought, they thought that they would eventually have the ability to circumvent some of that, and they did get the interview with the two counter-surveillance. I know their names. I've never released their names publicly, but I, I know who they are. Do you think, uh, yes, in fact, uh, Backpack Guy is now The— you're not gonna believe this— he's now the Capitol Police liaison to the FBI.

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. Kid you not, doesn't surprise me at all. If you look into the work histories of people with big jobs in DC, it's very, very common to come across something like that, you know. I mean, he'll probably be the director of the FBI someday, right?

Um, so there's two things that we know. We know that the bomber had intimate knowledge that only Capitol Police could know. The hidden gate, the, um, uh, under several reasons why the knowledge of where the blind spots were in the cameras is very important to this story, not the least of which is that the bomber only carried one bomb at a time and reloaded the backpack in a blind spot over at Folger Park, knowing that there was no— and that's where the bomber either parked their car or their accomplice was waiting for them there.

Who would have access to the blind spots? Only some—

only the Capitol Police, right? Only. We know that there was— when the bomber entered the— there's a famous, there's a famous video of the bomber apparently waving at a cop car and right in front of the Capitol Hill Club as, as a, as a, um, uh marked Capitol Police car comes by. The bomber apparently waves at the car, then walks around the corner. Two Capitol Police cars pull up with their headlights on and create a blind— they blitz out the cameras that are faced down the street. It completely obscures. And it was at that moment that the bomber ducked down into Ramsey Court, was when the two cars blinded those cameras.

So who was that person?

We want to go there?

Yeah. I mean, you're being sued for saying this, so I just want to be completely clear. I have no clue. I'm not endorsing your position at all. You're being sued by one of the worst lawyers, in my opinion, the worst lawyer I've ever dealt with in my life. So, and which I hope we can get into. Um, so, you know, I, I have no idea if what you're saying is true. I'm not imputing the character of anybody. I, I'm sure there's another side to it, but I'm interested in the story. And this will presumably come out in trial if your case goes to trial. So, um, well, just tell us about your reporting. Like, how did you go about figuring out who this person was?

Exactly. Look, in, in our reporting about January 6th, I've not just obsessed for 5 and a half years over the pipe bomb.

Right.

I've been on the pipe bomb and then been off the pipe bomb.

And it is in some ways the most interesting story because like the US government tells us there was a simultaneous bombing of the two-party headquarters and it was like super dangerous and it was an act of terror. And then they never mention it again or release any relevant information. So I mean, for 4 years I've been wondering, and that's why we're having this conversation. So I'm just interested, how did you go about trying to ascertain the identity of this person?

So, so this is what was happening, happening at the time. Is that going back to the initial part of our conversation where I learned that there were elements of our Department of Defense— Department of War now— in the crowd, not knowing what their reasons for being in the crowd were. I have no idea. But I was very curious why in a very small area of the Capitol on the west side, 3 people died of heart attacks. So you had 2 gentlemen early on, one before the first less lethal was ever fired, one that a lot of people have claimed were murdered by Capitol Police and was hit. They say he was hit by less lethal. No, he wasn't. We've seen the video from every angle. He was never struck by a less lethal device or launcher. And then the third one was Roseanne Boylan, right near the, the tunnel. 3 people dying of heart attacks within 50 yards of each other at any event ever in the history of the world has never happened. So I'm very curious about this. I know that that particular element or unit of our armed forces has a weapon.

It's called an agitation weapon. It is a directed energy weapon, backpack size. We just learned a lot about that from the invasion down in Venezuela, the discombobulator that the president, uh, called it, the discombobulator weapon. So I started investigating the source, the use, who in our government has the agitation weapon, and what its uses were. I learned that one of its uses was it can make people go nuts in a crowd in a color revolution.

Couldn't go nuts in what way?

Um, a 3-star general retired from SOCOM that I interviewed—

Special Operations Command, correct—

told me Yes, that weapon exists. And I quote, with it we can stop your heart, we can make you shit your pants. But I wouldn't need that weapon to start January 6th. I would just need 4 or 5 of my best men. That's exact quote. I interviewed members of that unit. About the weapon. I have interviewed former Secretary of the Army about the weapon. All have verified its existence and its quote unquote prolific use within our special operators community. And I started looking for backpacks in the crap. I know what the shape is. I know what the design is. I've interviewed two people that have participated in the design of that weapon. One of them's a doctor, the one is a special operator who essentially assisted DARPA in the design of the, the how to, how to make it field worthy out in the, in, in the field. And, um, so I start looking for it in the crowd. Me and my team, we're looking at backpacks everywhere. Well, one of the most interesting backpacks that day was worn by a small handful of Capitol Police officers that were up on the upper terrace that early, early, early on, before the crowd had gotten violent, started launching less lethals into the crowd.

And they were wearing— so they've got, they've got their, um, their black uniforms on, but they've got military-colored backpacks on. So we start zooming in on them in the cameras, and we got totally distracted about the looking for this, uh, a directed energy weapon, because what we found was is that this team of less lethal officers were illegally firing into the crowd. They were firing their weapons against policy, against the law, against their own training. In fact, some of them were training officers in, in the use of less lethal, and they were using them in what's called a criminally negligent manner. Shooting people in the head, in the crowd, in the face. They were shooting their own officers in the back of their helmets on the front line. You could see the— you could see the pepper pellets go explode off the back of their helmets. So we decided to do a story on the use of less lethal, got distracted from the directed energy weapon story. And because we now— we found all this fresh video, you know, and so we needed to identify these officers. So we're going down the line, we identify 1, 2, 3, 4, and then there was one officer we couldn't identify.

To be honest with you, we didn't know if it was a male or a female, but this officer was firing the pepper ball gun that was hitting people in the head. It's a point-blank range, by the way, very close on. These were not misfires. And I have a source, one of my earliest sources at Capitol Police on January 6th investigation was a CDU officer, Civil Disturbance Unit of the Capitol Police, and the less lethal team is part of CDU. So I called my source, and I then sent him a photograph, still shot of this officer, and he immediately went, oh yeah, that's, uh, Shawnee Kirkhoff. I said, well, who's Shawnee Kirkhoff? He said, oh, great cop. Uh, he said it was kind of her— she was, uh, you know, uh, always a good hang. She was fun to be around. Um, she was a good friend, but it was kind of weird. He said when she left She left the Capitol Police about 6 months after January 6th, and when she left, she wiped her social media out. She changed her phone numbers and her email, and we all lost contact with her. We were friends.

We lost contact with her. And he said, we heard that she might have went to one of the 3-letter agencies, or he said maybe it was Defense Intelligence or something. But anyway, that's what we heard. And I went, oh, okay. So now I have a name, right?. And so I start looking for this name. Well, turns out Ms. Kirkhoff was the first person to ever testify in the very first January 6th trial, the trial of Guy Refit in the summer of '22. She's the first person to testify in the very first trial, and she testifies as a less lethal officer who fired at this individual that was being— that was on trial at that time. And this is what she said, and this is what happened in the transcripts. The first thing before she faced direct examination from the government is the judge went to a sidebar and told the, uh, both of the attorneys, said, now you know that there's some under-seal aspects about this first witness. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. Be careful when you're questioning. I thought, okay, I thought that was interesting. And so then direct examination starts, and the prosecution asks her her name, spell your name, go through the whole process that they typically do.

And one One of his first questions was, of course, you know, where are you employed now? And she said, I still work for the government. He goes, oh, you're no longer with Capitol Police? She said, no, I left Capitol Police about 6 months after January 6th. He said, did you leave under good circumstances? Oh yes, uh, very good circumstances. In fact, I had already applied for my current position in the government, uh, before January 6th. Okay, that's interesting. Then it's time for cross-examination. The judge hits the button again, calls another sidebar, and he says to the defense attorney, don't you go waving Miss Kirkhoff's 302s around this courtroom. That's the FBI investigation forms. That's what an FBI 302 is. And now I'm like, my radar is pinging off, off the charts. So I have to know who this person is. So I have sources at ODNI, and that's how this whole element of the story comes into it, is that I took the information that I had and I received assistance from ODNI that helped me identify her as a current CIA employee.

What does she do at CIA?

What I was told by ODNI is that she was on their, uh, the equivalent of a dignitary protection type detail. Where she could possibly be accompanying Director Ratcliffe and other dignitaries around, armed. And, um, she protects John Ratcliffe, the director of the CIA? I'm just telling you that her job description, as it was relayed to me by ODNI, was that she was on that detail, and she could be one of the people that protect Ratcliffe.

That's crazy.

That's what I learned.

John Ratcliffe being the former congressman and current CIA director.

Correct. All right, so now we're full into this and I'm doing everything I can. Now we find videos of her college career as a world-class, you know, All-American athlete, soccer player, and I learned that she had a career-ending injury— well, not career, it was, it was her college career-ending injury in her fourth year, fourth season. Uh, she broke her tibia in half on her right leg in a, in a game. And, um, and then we found videos after recovery and therapy. She played a year of minor league ball for Columbus Eagles, and I see her walking across the field and she's dragging her right leg in a manner that would be, um, typical for somebody with that exact injury, with a— what they call a circumduction move, where the dragging the right foot—

yep, it comes around the left, left foot.

And I've seen more of the Pipe Bopper video than anybody, and I've seen it over and over and over and over again. I've watched my— that 20 minutes of video, I've spent dozens and dozens of hours watching it. And I went, you've got to be kidding me. And so then I took—

so you hadn't had that in mind? You hadn't thought—

no, I was investigating the illegal, improper use of less lethal weapons used against the January 6th crowd.

And you find out that one of the people you believe was using these weapons illegally winds up at CIA, to which she had applied before January 6th, but now she's at CIA in some protective role, potentially protecting the Director of Central Intelligence, John Ratcliffe.

Potentially.

I mean, I, you know, it's hard to even know what to say about all of those connections. Um, and then as you're watching video of this person, you say to yourself, oh my gosh, I recognize that gait, that distinctive gait produced by an injury.

Yeah, it's no more complicated than that.

No, that's fine. I'm glad I asked you the question.

I have no— I have no malice against Shawnee Kirkhoff. As I said before, I think that she believed she was involved in a training exercise, right?

And it sounds like, um, I mean, it sounds like you, you didn't go into this imagining you would conclude that.

No. And then what we did, because of this evidence, we started looking at her as a Capitol Police officer, and we found 2 and a half hours-ish of video of Miss Kirkhoff as a Capitol Police officer from the Capitol CCTV video archives. From January 5th and January 6th. We have her running all over the Capitol on both days, the 5th and the 6th, as a police officer. So we have tons of video of her, and she has that gate.

So is there any way to— I mean, I, you know, there's all kinds of biometric software. Is there a way to, you know, bring science to bear on this question?

Well, that's what we did. So I took it to a source of mine within the intelligence community who I've not named and will not name ever. This source can come forward if they desire to at any point in this defamation trial, if they choose to come forward, but I will not out them. And this, this source is a let's just say 30-year career in the community, an expert in gate recognition and also an engineer in the technology. And this person ran the gate recognition for me, came back to me with a 94% hit. So I turned over as much video of the hoodied January 5th pipe bomber and Ms. Kirkhoff's footage, both as a soccer player and as a Capitol Police officer, the, the software came back with a 94% hit, but the expert analysis, human analysis, was 98% match. So when I'm asked how sure am I that she's the bomber, I'm 94 to 98%.

So, um, pardon my ignorance, is gate recognition software commonly used by Intel or investi— or law enforcement agencies?

As a matter of fact, FBI used gate recognition technology to, um, disclude a January 6th pipe bomber. They had as one of their, uh, persons of interest a gym owner over in Virginia across the river who had believe it or not, an odd gate, but more importantly, had a receipt for having purchased the identical type of rare Nike collectible shoe that the bomber was wearing that night. Nike Air Max Speed Turf 2018 Edition is what the bomber was wearing in a very specific color scheme— gray, gold, and black. And, um, he had a receipt for having purchased this. So they ran gait recognition on him and eliminated him as a suspect. They ran gait recognition on the Guthrie case just recently, you know, Savannah Guthrie's mother. They use gait recognition on that suspect. Um, gait recognition in courts have been used for hundreds of years. Hundreds of years. I mean, you can— it's in many cases it's more accurate than facial recognition or a fingerprint because you can get it from a distance. And that's what's so valuable about gate recognition.

So are you the— I mean, the FBI was doing or claiming to do an investigation into these pipe bombings for a long time, right? Did they ever talk to her? Was she ever— did she ever come up as a suspect in this?

So, uh, when I discovered all of this, I took this information to my sources at ODNI, and all hell broke loose. So following the law, following procedure, um, Tulsi had a special group called the DIG, the Director's Initiative Group, which was shut down and dissolved because of this story.

Yep, by, by CIA.

By CIA, of course. The people that worked in the DIG that assisted in this story, um, and looked at the evidence were demanded by CIA to come into Langley for 4-hour sit-down interviews and polygraphs. And they told him, you know, bite me. It's like, you forget that ODNI, we oversee you. It's not the other way around. And they did the point of—

one of the things that Dick was doing is looking into mysteries in which the, you know, federal government had the documents, necessary documents to show what actually happened in a bunch of different stories, right?

Yeah, I, you know, I had taken— I, because I believed it was a possible public corruption issue. Nobody in the intelligence community trusts the FBI. And I'm sorry, I'm, I'm sorry to all the—

that is, I can verify that—

Trump supporters out there, but they don't trust Kash Patel's at all FBI any more than they trusted.

And in fact, people in the government will always tell you that the FBI kind of gets a pass. CIA gets a lot of attention for being evil and killing people and all this stuff, but like in real life, you're afraid of the FBI.

Yeah, because they're the ones that can harm you domestically.

That's right. Yeah, people are afraid of the FBI. That's absolutely true. Right.

So, um, that's why I took it to ODNI. FBI would have been the natural people to go to with this, but I've been through this. I've taken a public corruption—

office of the Director of National Intelligence, correct? Right, right. So that'd be Tulsi Gabbard until recently.

And I took it directly to the DIG, the Director's Initiative Group, within the FBI. And I took this name of this person. Actually, they, they, uh, or as I said, they were the ones that discovered that what her job was at CIA. And then they drafted a memo. Now, this was just a draft memo. It had never been complete, still had the yellow, you know, markings on the memo, had not been approved for distribution. But the Deputy Director of ODNI I call it a leak. It's not. It's, it's, it's, uh, you know, it was a pass-along to the Deputy Director Ellis of CIA before the draft memo was complete. This was done before our story about Ms. Kirkhoff was published on November 8th of last year. So this draft memo was being circulated. It was, uh given from the deputy director, Tulsi's deputy director, to deputy director of CIA, who gave it to FBI, who gave it to the White House, and leaked it to the press. The White House had it the day before our story came out. Two days before our story came out, Miss Kirkhoff's partner gets a call from the FBI and said, oh, we're going to raid your house tomorrow morning.

Now they got a 12-hour advance notice that their house was going to be raided. That's not standard operating procedure, by the way. So on the morning, Friday morning, November 7th, FBI shows up and they're there all day. Now I have no idea that the FBI is raiding Miss Kirkhoff's house, but what I learned was from one of my Capitol Police sources. It was about, uh, 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Hey, your girl's— her, her house is being raided right now. And So we sent our— I was still with The Blaze at the time. And so our acting editor-in-chief at the time, Chris Bedford, lived in Alexandria where Kirkhoff lives. And so on his way home, he drove past the house and sure enough, they're all out there, got uniformed and plainclothes individuals, local cops, FBI are all milling around that house. This is the day before our story came out. That night, Miss Kirkoff, at 8 PM, by a very high-ranking FBI, um, individual who I still don't know who it is, but our attorneys know who it is through discovery that I've not seen yet, um, told her that we need you to come in for a polygraph.

And now, and what they told her was that, look, it's gonna— you're gonna spend more time in the drive down to, you know, the FBI headquarters and the drive back, then you're gonna, you know, spend being interviewed. Well, that wasn't true. She ended up being interviewed and polygraphed for 4 hours, didn't get back home until after midnight. But what we then learned months later was that she failed that polygraph. Not only did she fail the polygraph, she was admonished by the polygrapher, the, the, uh, examiner admonished for her rehearsed answers to the questions.

And the questions pertain to the pipe bombing directly?

The questions were, or did you plan—

how do you know that she failed the polygraph?

Uh, it, uh, so in the Brian Cole Jr. case, now you, you asked earlier, how did Brian— how did this investigation suddenly get ignited again? 5 days after I named, uh, Miss Kirkhoff as the potential bomber based on forensic science, gate recognition technology. Um, suddenly outside of Brian Cole Jr.'s house in Woodbridge, Virginia is an FBI surveillance team. 5 days after— after 5 years, nothing. 5 days after, there's a surveillance team on his house. He was then arrested a month later, charged with the crime. On Dan Bongino's birthday, they did the dog and pony show, you know, uh, press conference where, you know, Bondi and, um, Jeanine Pirro and Kash Patel and Dan Bongino all made their statements and their speeches about this Brian Colgin, about this Brian Colgin Jr. Who is he? He is an autistic Black man. He was 25 years old on January 5th and 6th of 2021. He's 30 years old now. And, um, he famously, because of his autism and his extreme OCD, he famously walked his dog 2 or 3 times a day around the neighborhood. His neighbors, including an FBI whistleblower, still an employee of the FBI, says, ain't him.

He walks nothing like the bomber. He has a very interesting gait. Uh, I can go through the forensics with you, uh, till the cows come home, Tucker. Just, just very, very briefly, and then I'm going to give you the blockbuster. All right, it's just, you know, when—

I'm sorry to say this, but when, uh, Cord Meyer's wife, Mary Pinchon Meyer, who had had an affair with, uh, President Kennedy, was murdered on the Towpath in Georgetown, right near where I grew by CIA. It was obvious. It's very clear what happened now. But then at the time, and she was a well-known person in Georgetown in 1962 or whatever, they arrested an autistic Black guy, put him on trial. I'm laughing. It's just like horrible. And they put him on trial. He was acquitted by a D.C. jury. But it's the same. It's the same. I mean, I'm not You know, whatever. No, I know, just like I've heard this story before.

Here's, here's, here's—

find the autistic Black guy, right? So bad.

Here, here's a really interesting side note to this story is so you had the evening of the arrest, the, the press conference from all the muckety-mucks, DOJ and FBI. That was 6 months ago. You know who has never mentioned it yet during the campaign? It was a top 3 priority of this administration. The president. The president never patted Cash and Dan on the ass and said attaboy. He's never mentioned it. Nobody in the White House has ever commented on it. And our sources in the White House is nobody in the White House buys this arrest.

Well, I can confirm that, which is why I'm talking to you. Yeah, of course. Come on now. Um, but I also don't, you know, I don't know. I mean, just be, you know, I don't know. I don't know anything, uh, which is why I'm grateful you're here. So Okay, so you write a piece saying that it looks like this Kirchhoff woman could be the person. Her date— her gate is basically identical. Yes. Um, she meanwhile works in a protective capacity at CIA, possibly for the director himself. Crazy, crazy town. Um, what is her response to it? She denies it.

Well, you know, one of, one of the things that I've been criticized greatly over, and me and my, my team and my writing partner Joe Hanneman, is that we never reached out for comment to Miss Kirkhoff. That's not true. Try reaching out to somebody who's an employee of the CIA. Yeah, I have. Her background— her background is— her background has been scrubbed. Now, I did find her address. We found that. I could have knocked on her door. I didn't do it. Shame on me. Okay, so I should have gotten— I should have, should have, could have knocked on her door. Um, We contacted everybody else. 9:00 the next morning. So our, our story comes out on a Saturday morning, 9:00 on Sunday morning, November 9th at 9:00 AM. I'm in a hotel in D.C. and I get a call from the frickin CIA. It's the chief public affairs officer at CIA, calls me at 9:00 AM from home with a crying baby in her arm. I can hear the baby crying. She's going, excuse me. She goes, look, I'm just calling you to let you know that you got one aspect of your story wrong.

I went, okay, right, great. What, what one aspect did I get wrong? She said, you got, uh, Miss Kirkhoff's job description wrong. Now, the job description that I published, I didn't make up. That was what ODNI, who has access to the entire intelligence community database, read off to me and told me what her job was. But instead, she said, no, she's just a security officer at Langley on the campus. That's all she is, security officer Langley. And so we corrected the story. I mean, we didn't correct it, we just made, you know—

but she didn't say our employees was not the pipe bomber?

No, nothing like that. She just— she actually even said, she said, I just don't, I don't want that one little thing, you know, take away from the veracity of your story. She said that. And, um, thank you. So I notified my editors, they made the note, you know, to the, to the story. And, and then everything continued to blow up. Now, fast forward 6 months later, and I have sat down with, for many, many hours, a current existing CIA employee who has also become a whistleblower, but he still has his job. And he has held Ms. Kirkhoff's files in his hands. And he said that Sunday morning call that you got that, saying that she was a campus security officer at CIA. That's a lie. And he goes, you know, that's what we do for a living, right? We lie.

Yeah.

I said, yeah, I understand.

Um, so what did FBI say about this? Did you call Dan Bongino or Kash Patel to ask their view?

Well, you know, I have reached out to Bongino on many occasions, and this is part of the story, is, is that in my reporting about The new FBI, I've been very critical of them, especially after their abandonment of the whistleblowers, because that was one of Patel's promises, was that they were going to make the whistleblowers whole. That was one of Bongino's promises, they were going to make the whistleblowers— and we're talking about the whistleblowers that had whistleblown about the COVID regime, about the mandates related to that, about January 6th, the, the, you know, the guys that were told to go out and SWAT raid grandmas, you know, for misdemeanor offenses, something the FBI had never done in its 100-year career, you know, history of the, of the agency, the bureau. And, and so I'd become very critical. And 5 times that I know of, and I only know this because the executives at The Blaze relayed it to me, 5 times individuals from the 7th floor of the FBI, the Hoover Building, called my bosses to try to get me fired at The Blaze.

What? Yes. Who do you know who called from FBI?

Dan Bongino called twice. He was the first one that I was trying to get you fired. Yeah. Well, first of all to complain, then it escalated from there.

Did he call you?

No, didn't. No. Bongino and I— Bongino gets my DMs because he told my bosses that he reads my DMs. That's why I know he gets them. And he famously blocks people on his, you know, X account. He's never blocked me, but he's criticized me. He's the one who told Thomas Massie that he would personally write the check for the defamation lawsuit from Sean Kirkhoff.

How did Dan go so quickly from a critic of the deep state to its most aggressive defender? What, what happened to Dan, do you think?

You know, I don't know, but I can tell you that in February of 2004, that— and it's still on, uh, Dan's X page. You can go there. February 24th, he is singing my praises. He goes, that Baker guy at The Blaze, he is just knocking it out of the park about the pipe bomb. Because we were releasing videos back then that nobody had ever seen, like, you know, the, the destruction of the bomb by the robot. I mean, people— the, the fact that, that investigative cameras had been turned away from the site. We, we not only found that the cameras had been turned away, we found the fact of them being turned away from the investigation scene. And we were releasing all these videos back then, and he's singing my praises. Well, he's complete opposite now. I don't know, you know, look, I can speculate as much as anybody.

He—

it feels like, looks like he had a breakdown of some sort.

He's terrified, that's obvious. Um, I don't know why. I don't know any more than that. I know, having had a lot of contact with Dan Bongino, he turned on a dime And something happened to him at FBI that just broke him as a man, destroyed his life, and certainly destroyed his career. And I feel sorry for him, but I just find it interesting that he was your greatest opponent. You're just trying to find out what happened.

Yeah, he tried to call me off of my reporting on the whistleblower situation. And then as we were getting closer to this story, he called. So the first person he called was the president of The Blaze, and that was in the summer before I even knew who Kirkoff was. And then later he called my editor-in-chief, and then Ben Williamson, the assistant, uh, personal, uh, I think, uh, personal affairs officer, uh, in the 7th floor FBI, he called my editor-in-chief. Both Bongino and Williamson agreed that Bongino would sit down with me and let me show him the evidence we had developed on the pipe bomb, which he never did. No. And I sent him many messages trying to execute that that opportunity, that sit-down never happened. And then why wouldn't he want to see that, I wonder? I don't know. He made— you know, he famously criticized Massey, you know, in this tirade he went on, like a, you know, 4-day tirade against Massey. And one of the things he was criticizing Massey for is that Massey wouldn't accept his invitation to come down to the Hoover Building and see their evidence against Brian.

No, Dan is working to cover up, right, you know, the activities of of the permanent government. It's just, I just have never seen anyone change that much or be that afraid. I mean, it looked like he was going to have a heart attack, he was so afraid. And I'm not saying that to attack him, but I just wish I knew what happened to him. You haven't heard?

No. I know—

But you know that the Jews have been talking about— —no specifics.

But what I do know is that he made two calls to my bosses. Ben Williamson made one call. Marshall Yates, who was the congressional liaison to the FBI, formerly general counsel staffer for Thomas Massey before he went to FBI, he called my bosses. He definitely was trying to get me fired. Marshall called the White House. He, I mean, he, he called Congress members. He did media sources, everything they could to try and—

And what was your crime again?

My crime was reporting on Kirkhoff, and I allegedly was the person that received leaks of both files and technologies from Joe Kent, the Director of National Counterterrorism. Did you? No, not— I mean, not— in fact, in fact, before, before I left The Blaze, The week before, I got a call from Daily Wire reporter, Daily Wire, 9:30 at night at home, and he said, hey, I'm calling to comment from you on a story that I've got. I said, okay, hit me. He said, I have 3 different sources from the intelligence community who say you were the recipient of leaks from Joe Kent. And I just busted out laughing in his face. I said, well, first of all, who are the 3 sources? I can't tell you that. I said, you have 3 people from the IC telling you that I received Technology and leaks from Joe Kent. Yes, that's what I have. 15 minutes I just went off on him, and he finally went, okay, okay, okay, okay, I believe you, I believe you. And then they didn't publish the story. Yeah, but everybody else did. Reuters did, uh, you know, New York Times, everybody else published stories about it.

So what was Kirkhoff's response to your piece?

Well, it was through attorneys. I mean, she has never, uh, spoken herself until Guess what she got? She got the Ray Epps treatment from the New York Times, and they did the full puff piece on her and made her into the sympathetic figure that I had defamed and falsely accused of being the bomber. And, um, that reporter called me, and I did an hour and a half the first session and 30 minutes of follow-up with that reporter. I went through everything. That reporter had no idea that she had flunked you know, the, the polygraph. I went through tons of evidence and information that we have.

And so what was her— what's— I, I read somewhere that she said there's video of me with my dog or my puppy during the hours in question when the—

so planted. Again, we have 3 sources from the FBI who called CBS and that's told CBS News that they had, uh, an alibi video of Miss Kirkhoff on the evening of January 5th while the bomber is running around at RNC and DNC is that she is home, and I quote, playing with her puppies. Okay, the same 3 sources from the FBI who allegedly leaked that to CBS would also have known at the same time, the same day, that she flunked the polygraph, and they conveniently left that out of the story.

Have you seen this video?

No, it doesn't exist as far as we know because it has been under— they have, they have, uh, request— the attorneys for Brian Cole Jr. have requested it under discovery. And it's never been turned over. But Clare Locke has changed the story twice now. Clare Locke is the most, uh, feared defamation law firm in the world, probably. Um, they famously represented, uh, uh, the voting machine company against Fox and many other high-profile cases. Not only did they change the story about the puppy videos twice now because the CBS version of the story was that she was home playing with her puppies. 3 FBI sources, right? Then I received— The Blaze received, and my partner Joe Hanneman received— the demand and preservation letter from Claire Locke prior to the lawsuit being filed. And in the preservation letter, they changed the story to that the video shows her at home caring for her dog, Singer. Now, that may not seem like a significant change except for one big reason. Immediately after the story came out that she was home playing with her puppies, what they didn't know is that we had done a dark web scrape of— we found her old social media stuff.

And in that, we found where she and her partner had adopted an adult greyhound down in Florida and brought it home one month before January. June 6th. And we also found the, uh, 5-star review that Miss Kirkhoff had given her dog sitter, dog walker, and again references only the one dog, the one adult dog, by name. And they didn't know that we'd been able to find these things. And so as soon as that came out, even though I was under gag order now from The Blaze and I couldn't publish anything about Miss Kirkhoff directly, uh, released those photos for proxies. Who put it out on the web. So suddenly they were embarrassed that it wasn't puppies. And 3 FBI sources, right? These are not people that are going to get the— are going to get it wrong between puppies and a dog. So it goes from she was playing with her puppies to caring for her dog, and then the lawsuit comes out and the lawsuit says, well, okay, it wasn't either one of those things. There's a video of the dog sleeping on the couch and you can hear her voice in the background off camera.

And we've only ever seen a screenshot of the dog on the couch, but nobody has seen the video.

Meanwhile, uh, you know, there are a bunch of news stories attacking you for impugning her character when there's video evidence proving her innocence. But it turns out to be a little bit more complicated than that.

I guess it's much more complicated than that. I mean, first of all, um, Brian Cole is not the bomber. Brian Cole cannot be the bomber. We have a— we, we— there's a— we've made famous by his, uh, his pseudonym. His name is Armitage, and he is, uh, a, um, also an individual on the spectrum, highly motivated. On the pipe bomb story, he and I met a couple of years ago through this story. And then he began working with our team on the video examination, and he's obsessed with this. And one of the things that he has been able to discover, and I love his quote, is he says that— he says that Brian Cole Jr.'s body is his alibi. We know because I've been on my hands and knees inside Rumsey Court, measured the bricks in the alleyway behind the, the RNC. We have a clear shot of the shoe, the foot that the Hooded Bomber is wearing. The heel is on the line of a brick. That shoe crosses the first brick, the second brick, and less than half of the third brick. That's a 9 to a 9.5 at the most of that particular shoe.

Now, why do I know that? It's because I've purchased 3 pairs of that Nike Air Max Speed Turf shoe. I purchased 9.5, 10.5, and a 12. Why did I purchase a 12? Because Brian Cole Jr. wears 12. Brian Cole Jr., by his mother's own statement, could not— I showed his mother the 9.5 of that shoe. She goes, Brian ain't squeezing his big fat foot in that shoe. I have held Brian Cole's shoes in my hands. He wears— all of his shoes are size 12.

So why did he— he confessed though?

As I mentioned earlier, the, the demographic known for giving the highest rate of false confessions to law enforcement are autistic individuals. They had him in an interrogation for 2 hours with no attorney present. An autistic— they've just scooped him off the street, he was walking his dog. Are we— he was— why he was— he was walking to the 7-Eleven. Not— not the dog had just recently passed away. He was walking to the 7-Eleven down the front of his neighborhood. The FBI scooped him up off the street, uh, arrested him, took him in, put him under interrogation. Now this is a highly OCD kid with— I mean, he's 5 minutes to Wapner. That's who he is, okay? Very smart, very bright. But very much a creature of habit and routine. Does he have some political motive?

Like, what are they saying moved him to do this?

Well, what they're saying is, is that is in his confession that he had taken his cues from the Irish Troubles.

I'm sorry? That's in the reaction.

Yes. The Irish Troubles was where he was motivated. And he says, or they say, that he said in the confession that he hated both the left and the right. He hated both parties, and that that's why he planted the devices at the RNC and the DNC. There's one problem with that, is that there were two other potential drop sites, because we know from the video evidence that one of those sites was the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, and the bomber changed their mind. Another site was an actual housing unit that houses Congress members and Congress staff members. Those were the two other locations where the bomber stopped and chose not to, and then eventually settled on the DNC and the RNC. As I said, there's so many details and they're all running through my mind, but I want to give you something that we've never released before, and I got permission from the attorneys. To give this to you. This was something that Armitage, our video examiner, found is after thousands of hours of watching these videos of the bomber walking through Rumsey Court for the first time— because this kid, he, our guy, he watches, you know, the first time he watches a pixel set, then the next time he watches another pixel set, and then he's just, he's that obsessed with the videos.

But that that, um, obsession led him to finally see a smartwatch flash on the bomber's wrist. This is after years of watching the same video over and over and over again and never noticed it. All of a sudden, the smartwatch flashes. This is the January 5th Hoodied Pipe Bomber. It flashes again. He tells us about it. So me and now my whole team, we go all— all of us go all in back to the videos again. And suddenly, what we thought were arm stretches and, you know, other motions that the bomber was just making during the stroll. The bomber's talking into their wrist at least 5 times that we can count. There's one problem with that, is Brian Cole Jr. has never owned a watch, never worn a watch, much less acquired a smartwatch and learned to talk into it on the night of the distribution of the pipe bombs. We know that for a fact. Is he pleading guilty in this case? Uh, no. Oh no. In fact, uh, just 3 or 4 weeks ago there was a superseding indictment where they jacked it up trying to force them into a plea deal. They jacked it up.

They charged him with terrorism and planting weapons of mass destruction, basically charges that would get him life in prison if he was convicted, thinking that they would scare him, the family, into a plea deal because that's even though they weren't bombs, even though they weren't bombs, and it doesn't seem like he did it. And he could not, he could not physically have been the person that did it. He's the wrong shoe size, he's the wrong body shape. Um, he can—

gate recognition tell a man from a woman? Absolutely.

Well, it, you know, it, it can tell the gait and then you can surmise. But you know, most people that have viewed the videos for years have thought that it was a female.

That's what I thought looking at it, but what do I know?

But his— you talk about a guy who— we've got video of him walking. His gait could not be more antithetical to the bomber's gait. It's highly— he walks almost like a duck walk. Yeah, with his butt out. And, you know, he walks, which is typical of an autistic person, you know, placing heel first. Yeah, right. And, or toe first. And, you know, and with— but, but with the feet out like this, whereas the bomber walks like this with a pigeon-toed right foot foot circumduction, planting it in front of the left foot. That's the way the bomber walks. That's the way Shawnee Kirkoff walks.

So what is the— okay, so now you're being sued. It's okay. I'm sorry, I don't want to get ahead. So, uh, Brian Cole Jr. had— now there's a superseding indictment threatening him with life in prison, trying to get him to plea.

Is he going to plea? No. As a matter of fact, At that exact hearing, status hearing, uh, the defense attorneys demanded a trial date. Is he in jail? He's in jail. He's been held in pretrial detention. He's in the general population. I thought for sure that they would have him in isolation for his own benefit.

Yeah, I know. I don't think his own benefit plays a role in their calculations.

No, but he, he actually has a cellmate. Um, he is granted access several hours a day to a tablet, so he is able communicate with his family through the tablet. He calls all of his family members twice a day on, you know, in a rigid schedule.

Um, uh, it's just bonkers that there have to be— I know the people I've spoken to in the federal government believe that he's falsely charged. Yeah. And these are sober, you know, these are real people. Um, this is not on Twitter, this is real life, and they think he's falsely charged. But it's— there have to be people in federal law enforcement who agree with that, and yet they're going along with it anyway.

Well, they're not. As a matter of fact, the— there was whistleblower that came forward as a direct result of this case, an FBI whistleblower that I mentioned earlier. This whistleblower, FBI agent, lives just down the street from the Cole family. This whistleblower has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years, has seen Brian Cole Jr. walking his dog twice a day, 3 times a day, him and his wife, hundreds, thousands of times over 10 years. He, and he came forward because of this case. I've interviewed the whistleblower. He told me, and I quote, he said, "Nobody in my shop is buying this arrest." What are they suing you for? Uh, well, defamation, right? But what, what are the damages? There's been no stated number yet, uh, at all. I mean, to be honest with you, the 127-page lawsuit, I got through 30 pages with my highlighter and I had to stop. I, I mean, I just gave up. It's one lie, falsehood after the other. In fact, they are making stuff up. I mean, making stuff up that don't— that doesn't exist. And see, I haven't— we haven't gotten to the part yet where I get to see discovery, where we get the subpoena information.

We haven't got there yet. It's all brand new. Um, but the law firm that represents Cole is now representing me. So they have the Cole discovery. I still can't see it, but what they have informed me is, is that we have nothing to worry about.

I want to ask you one last question. Um, it came to my attention several months ago when I was hearing this story from someone in the— from a couple people in the US government who are very upset about it. Uh, not because they're partisans one way or the other, but because they're human beings who are decent people and believe in justice and like not hurting the innocent, um, that there, there were people in the government who believed, career people including, who believed that this was totally crazy, that you were right, that you're, you're the one being defamed, and, um, that Bryan Kohl has been falsely charged. And one of them worked for the Department of Homeland Security and is now dead. Uh, this is a story that I heard from a couple of different people who were very upset about it. I don't think this has ever been written about in public. No. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about? And if so, tell me what you know about this.

Uh, we've— are deeply involved in the investigation. We have not written about it yet because we don't have final, um, conclusions But maybe we don't use names and you can just—

No, I won't.

I won't mention his name. So you may not know this, but I had acute heart failure the Sunday before Christmas. The Friday— I didn't know that. The Friday. So this was the Sunday before Christmas. On Friday, that night, I was in Rumsey Court on my hands and knees with a tape measure measuring those bricks, the very bricks that the Hooded Bomber stepped on. I'm measuring that, uh, the bricks. Saturday morning, I'm over at the DNC measuring the sidewalk and the pavement there to compare, so we could establish an exact, or as close to an exact shoe size as we could, of the Hooded Bomber. At lunchtime on Friday, before I did that, I got a call from a member of the intelligence community decades. He said, we have to meet, we have to meet now. I said, okay. So we met, he picked a place, and I met him there. First thing he did is he took my phone away and threw it in his briefcase, which is a Faraday cage briefcase. And then he slid a card across the table. He said, do you know who that is? And I looked at the name on the card and said, yeah, of course.

He grabbed the card back And he said, uh, he was found dead the day before Thanksgiving. Now, my last conversation with the name on that card was October 29th. And when I took this case to ODNI, as we said before, because ODNI and the members of the DIG who were going to look into this had determined that they didn't trust the FBI either on this case, especially this case. And so they were going to take it to HSI, Homeland Security Investigations. The relationships that they had is they had a liaison partnership with all of the intel. That's what the DIG is. The DIG had reached out to all of the 18 federal intelligence agencies. Yeah. And, and got one of the good guys or two of the good guys from each, you know, agency to come in and work with them. Not deep staters vetted in that manner. This is an individual who was vetted to not be a deep stater. 19 years career with HSI, senior agent over there. They called him in, they briefed him on the entire case, introduced me to him. Then in late October, early November, he sat down with a team again of individuals that I will not name.

I know who they were, and I knew who was— I know who was at the conference table. And he briefed them on how he was going to pursue this case, what technologies he was going to use, um, the other personnel that he was going to bring into this to pursue this case. And as I said, my last conversation with him was on the, um, 29th of October. One of these people that I know of had their last conversation with him on November 10th, and then his girlfriend found him dead in his condo on the 26th of November, the day before Thanksgiving. And this longtime IC, um, operative had tears streaming down his face as he's talking about this and explaining to me what they've heard. And he said, of course, the rumors obviously that he committed suicide, and he said none of us believe it. None of us that knew him and were close to him, were friends with him, believe that this was a suicide.

And, uh, what did the medical examiner say?

Still no report from the medical examiner. We actually, on our team— it was over 6, 7 months ago. Yeah, we, we have it. We have a, um, uh, a member of my, you know, my team who is a, uh, retired 25-year FBI vet vet and a veteran, and he, uh, now private investigator who we retained. And he actually went to the Fairfax County Police Department and spoke to the lead detective on this case. And in that situation, the detective didn't give up anything, any information whatsoever, except that there still was no report from the medical examiner. And, uh, that was back in February. And then more recently, just in the last few days, We have it confirmed. There's still no report. We have FOIA'd that information. They've ignored it. Fairfax County Police Department has completely ignored us on that FOIA. Um, are they allowed to do that? Technically no, but you know, they do it all the time. Law enforcement agencies around DC, they're famous for that. That's why like Judicial Watch has to sue them, and then you get, you get the body cams. Like, you know, Tom Fitton just got the body cams from, uh, January 6th.

5 years, 5 and a half years later, but he had to wait, you know, 3 years or 2 years of lawsuits to get certain of these body cams released. And that's just the way they are. They, they stonewall you until you have to beat them in court. And so, um, here's what we also know about this, because we have done a tremendous amount of investigation ourselves into this HSI, uh, agent's death. In January, I'm only 3 weeks after my acute heart failure, and I call up my cardiologist and say, I got to go to D.C. He's like, I don't want you traveling yet. He said, you're not flying? I said, no, I'm going to drive. He said, all right, be careful, take it easy, whatever. I beeline it straight to the condo where this individual was found dead. As I get there, I'm pretending like I'm a real estate buyer. I'm pretending like I'm interested in purchasing this condo. As I get there and going through the charade of being, you know, somebody in the market for a house, I walk up on the guy that's moving into the condo where this agent had died.

They've sold it. The house has been— the condo has been sold. So the guy's moved. He's carrying boxes in.. And I said, oh, you're moving into unit blah, blah, blah. And he said, yeah, he goes, I just closed on it last week. I said, oh darn it, you know, I was looking at that. I was here a couple of weeks ago. And he, he said, yeah. So he said, there's a unit below me, you know, he's— so he took me down there. He showed me another one that was on the market right then. He said, I think it's the same agent. So thank you. So we shook hands. And then as we're going, he's going back to the parking lot to get another load of boxes and I'm going to my car. I pulled the Columbo on him and I went, oh, oh, by the way, I got one more question for you. And I walked over to him again and I said, I heard when I was here a couple of weeks ago that there was something weird that happened in that unit. He goes, yeah. He said, I was told that the previous owner was murdered.

I was told he was murdered. And that's an exact quote. I was not expecting to hear that, and he caught me off guard. I mean, I was like, I— that answer took me off my game. And so I didn't ask the obvious follow-up question, was, who told you that? Now, I would imagine it was a neighbor. Obviously, there's a death in there, suspicious death. They're going to tape off the scene. These condos are very close and tightly wrapped, you know, around each other. Uh, they would have interviewed all of the neighbors for, you know, to see who they heard anything, saw anything. All of that would have happened. So I can only imagine and surmise that one of the neighbors probably was told by a young cop doing the, you know, surveillance that this guy's over here was killed or murdered or whatever. Um, we know— we have learned since then that it was a gunshot to the head, and, um, it was his girlfriend that found the body. There's been no publicity. There's never been anything on the police blotter about this. The family did not issue an obituary. The only thing that I have in my possession of evidence solid evidence of his death, or two things actually, is that the— his body was cremated on December 19th, 3 weeks later, before the medical examiner's report, before cause of death is issued.

And so there's a cremation report. We found that. And then we also found the— I was given the internal memo that HSI put out to all of their employees you know, talking about the, you know, their colleague who had passed away suddenly and that there were going to be a memorial, you know, get-together at a bar for, you know, celebration of life memorial. And then since then, I have also, through my other sources in the IC, have had questions asked within the Fairfax County Department. They've all been stonewalled. They've all been, you know, stiff-armed away from this discussion. Nobody will talk to them about it, and, um, we don't know. So the reason why we've not gone forward with a story about this is there's just way too many things to— you know, there are elements missing from this to make a conclusion. But the bottom line is, is the guy within the community with the power and the investigative authority and the tools and the personnel to investigate this case is dead. That's the facts.

What a story. I appreciate you're taking all this time to tell it. I think it's important to get it on tape.

We needed to. Yep. It's like a dead man switch, if you know what I mean. Yeah, I do.

Steve Baker, thank you very much, and Godspeed. Thank you, Tucker. Thanks for joining us tonight. See you next Wednesday.