There is strong evidence; one might say proof, that Nancy Pelosi’s security chief perjured himself in the Oathkeepers trial. This has broad consequences.
Blaze Media employees Steve Baker, two other employees, and a House Oversight Committee staffer poured through 14,000 hours of U.S. Capitol CCTV video, and what they found is shocking.
Baker first became concerned during the October 3rd Oathkeepers trial when one of their investigators saw something never done before. Jeffrey Nessler, assistant US attorney, told Judge Mehta that a rogue attorney would release interviews with people involved in the case. Judge Mehta then remarkably directed the media pool to put out a tweet and threaten this particular attorney and let him know that if he released those sealed documents, he would have him held in contempt of court. Baker had never seen a judge do that.
That’s when he knew something was amiss. Those documents are still sealed.
A year ago, Baker and his team began looking through many hours of J6 tape. What he found has broad implications. The problem the FBI has with these documents and why they’ve kept them under seal is that the parties changed their testimony.
At least “one of these Capitol Police officers changed his testimony about his interaction with the Oathkeepers.”
In the first testimony, the officer revealed the Oathkeepers lined up between him and the more agitated protesters and assisted him in keeping them off of him and helping him de-escalate. “That was in May of 21 that interview; in August of 21, this officer was brought back in, and the testimony was changed into an aggravated contentious event with the Oathkeepers.” He also created “a second event to explain the first FBI interview that never happened.”
This is Capitol Police special agent David Lazarus.
“When he heard the gunshots at 240-244, broadcasted over the radio that shots had been fired, he was down in the tunnels escorting senators towards the Rayburn Building, to the other Senate office buildings, and that’s quite a long distance away from the House chamber where allegedly these shots were fired.”
After reviewing the tapes, it was clear that, from the officer’s own words and videos, Lazarus wasn’t anywhere near the contentious event. He was in the tunnels. The Oathkeepers left well before he got there. The proof comes in the form of times he gave in his testimony, a video of him walking under an analogy clock, and other videos of him in and out of Capitol TV, providing absolute proof that he wasn’t where he said he was.
“By the way, Glenn,” Baker said, “these are videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial. If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted, with any of the testimony revolving around these guys, would be released, any other time in American history.”
“Somebody set this up, and we’re working on that trail as well,” Baker said.
Glenn read Lazarus’s testimony:
He testified that he passed by USCP Officer Harry Dunn engaging with four Oathkeepers “three or four times” while he was evacuating staffers for Pelosi who were trapped in a locked office in her chambers.
Lazarus went on to explain that he observed Dunn “arguing” with rioters and that during that exchange, he eventually found an opening through the rioters and was able to rescue “11 or 12” of Pelosi’s staffers. During his sworn testimony, Lazarus went into great detail about the problems he had getting through the crowd of rioters gathered at the top of the stairwell where Dunn was having what became a much-publicized interchange with the Oathkeepers.
Lazarus explained that one rioter asked, “Who are you? Who are you?” Then, according to the trial transcript, he testified:
And, you know, one attempted to — I had my lanyard on with my ID on it. And one — they were videotaping, and one attempted to pull at my ID. And I kind of, like, grabbed it back and looked, made sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening. So then I just kind of, like, walked fast to get into the office and then check on the staff again.
Lazarus’ detailed description of what took place — what Lazarus described as “very antagonistic” in the “three or four times” he passed by — was a dramatic moment in the trial.
“Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was antagonistic,” explained Lazarus under direct questioning by Assistant United States Attorney Alexandra Hughes.
Lazarus was even shown a short cellphone video clip of the four Oathkeepers standing in front of Dunn:
Hughes: And are these the individuals you observed, the antagonistic conversation?
Lazarus: Yes.
Hughes: At any point in these three or four interactions in this space, did you observe any sort of — anything but an antagonistic conversation?
Lazarus: That’s correct.
Baker said, “The problem with Lazarus’ testimony about this significant event is that according to direct video evidence, the jury never saw, it never happened,” Baker states.
Baker said the problem here is “they were already out of the building at the time.” The Oathkeepers have been gone for “not quite 10 minutes.”
“Lazarus reaches that area where in great detail in the trial, and we have the trial transcripts, obviously in great detail, he describes what he saw, and it just did not happen. …the one thing that the government was absolutely intent upon doing was not allowing anything that could be exculpatory or anything that painted the Oathkeepers in a positive light.
Baker also described several positive interactions the Oathkeepers had with law enforcement that day.
“Lieutenant Tariq Johnson used two Oathkeepers, literally recruited them, to help rescue another sixteen officers out of a dangerous situation. That was never allowed in the trial.”
Then, there is something that never comes out, and most people don’t know. The 35,000 dues-paying Oathkeeper “members had more than a decade’s worth of spotless records providing disaster relief and security during riots and other large events. They had never once been accused or charged with a crime in thousands of operations.”
“…in years and years of disaster relief operations, security details and all kinds of other times, when they actually went and were recruited and hired by minority businesses like in Ferguson like, in Louisville KY, and those riots where they were recruited by minority businesses to come help us protect our businesses. Not in any time since 2009 [when the Oathkeepers were founded] could the government show the Oathkeepers committed violence in any of those operations or had ever committed a crime or any charges had ever been filed.
Emphases Added.
Watch:
Personally, I think the government hates the Oathkeepers because they are a militia sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
