    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        EXAMINING THE INVESTIGATION INTO
                           THE DNC AND RNC PIPE BOMBS
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
                            THE REMAINING QUESTIONS
                          SURROUNDING JANUARY 6, 2021

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-50

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-624                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
                                     ------

                SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE REMAINING
                     QUESTIONS SURROUNDING JANUARY 6, 2021

                        BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair

    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         ERIC SWALWELL, California, Ranking
    TROY NEHLS, Texas                        Member
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana              JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                    ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, January 14, 2026

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Barry Loudermilk, Chair of the Select Subcommittee
      to Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding January 6,
      2021, from the State of Georgia................................     1
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Christopher M. Piehota, Principal Consultant, Deep Water Point &
      Associates
      Oral Testimony.................................................     8
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
    Thomas Anthony Speciale, II, Senior Advisor, Intelligence and
      National Security Alliance
      Oral Testimony.................................................    13
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    16
    John Nantz, Contributing Writer, Townhall Media
      Oral Testimony.................................................    19
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    21
    Michael J. Romano, Counsel, Lichten & Liss Riordan
      Oral Testimony.................................................    23
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    25

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee
      To Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding January 6,
      2021, are listed below.........................................    57

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
      for the record
        A statement Pamela Hemphill, convicted criminal for January
            6, 2021
        An article enitled, ``Former Pentagon chief: Trump gave no
            order to prepare troops before Jan. 6,'' Jul. 27, 2022,
            The Hill
        A fact check entitled, ``Pelosi did not block the National
            Guard from the Capitol on Jan. 6,'' Jul. 23, 2021,
            Associated Press
        An article entitled, ``Trump Forgets He Was President During
            Capitol Riot, Blames `THE BIDEN FBI' for Jan. 6 in Dead-
            of-Night Post,'' Oct. 12, 2025, Yahoo
        A report entitled, ``One Year Later: Assessing the Public
            Safety Implications of President Trump's Mass Pardons of
            1,600 January 6th Rioters and Insurrectionists,'' Jan.
            2026, Staff Report, Democrat, Committee on the Judiciary
        An article entitled, ``Trump May Have Accidentally Pardoned
            the Jan. 6 Pipe Bomber,'' Jun. 6, 2026, Politico
        A page entitled, ``District of Columbia National Guard >
            About Us,'' District of Columbia National Guard
        The document 18 U.S.C. 2384--Seditious conspiracy, Legal
            Information Institute, Cornell Law School
        An opinion Republican National Committee v. Nancy Pelosi, the
            United States District Court for the District of
            Columbia, Civil Action No. 22-659 (TJK), May 1, 2022
    An article entitled, ``Trump Impeached for Inciting Insurrection:
      President Trump became the first president to be impeached
      twice, after the House approved a single charge citing his role
      in whipping up a mob that stormed the Capitol. He faces a
      Senate trial that could disqualify him from future office,''
      Apr. 22, 2021, The New York Times, submitted by the Honorable
      Jasmine Crockett, a Member of the Select Subcommittee to
      Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding January 6,
      2021, from the State of Texas, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Clay Higgins, a Member of
      the Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions
      Surrounding January 6, 2021, from the State of Louisiana, for
      the record
        A letter to the Hon. David Pekoske, Administrator,
            Transportation Security Administration, from the Bennie
            G. Thompson, Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security
            from the State of Mississippi, and John Katko, former
            Ranking Member of the of the Committee on Homeland
            Security from the State of New York, Jan. 11, 2021
        The Grand Jury indictment, United States of America v. Brian
            J. Cole, Jr., in the United States District Court, the
            District of Columbia, Dec. 16, 2025
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Troy Nehls, a Member of the
      Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions
      Surrounding January 6, 2021, from the State of Texas, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``Biggest investigation in FBI history
            still has Merrick Garland in the hot seat,'' Jan. 5,
            2022, CNN
        An article entitled, ``Trump is elected 47th president,
            soundly defeating Harris to retake White House,'' Nov. 6,
            2024, Los Angeles Times
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Barry Loudermilk, Chair of
      the Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions
      Surrounding January 6, 2021, from the State of Georgia, for the
      record
        A press release entitled, ``Governor Pritzker's Sanctuary
            Illinois Released More than 1,700 Criminal Illegal Aliens
            Including Murderers, Pedophiles, and Kidnappers,'' Dec.
            8, 2025, Department of Homeland Security
        A press release entitled, ``Sanctuary New York Released
            Nearly 7,000 Criminal Illegal Aliens Including Murderers,
            Terrorists, and Sexual Predators,'' Dec. 1, 2025,
            Department of Homeland Security
        A press release entitled, ``Transcripts Show President
            Trump's Directives to Pentagon Leadership to `Keep
            January 6 Safe' Were Deliberately Ignored,'' Sept. 20,
            2024, Committee on House Administration
        An article entitled, ``Pelosi admits blame for `stupidity' in
            Jan. 6 security failures in newly released video: `I take
            full responsibility,' '' Aug. 28, 2024, New York Post

                        EXAMINING THE INVESTIGATION INTO
                           THE DNC AND RNC PIPE BOMBS

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, January 14, 2026

                            House of Representatives

                     Select Subcommittee To Investigate the

                Remaining Questions Surrounding January 6, 2021

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:23 p.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Barry
    Loudermilk [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Loudermilk, Griffith, Higgins,
    Nehls, Hageman, Crockett, Moskowitz, and Raskin.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The hearing will now come to order.
        Welcome, everyone, to the first hearing of the Select
    Subcommittee To Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding
    the January 6, 2021, events, entitled ``Examining the
    Investigation into the DNC and RNC Pipe Bombs.'' Thank you,
    Ranking Member Raskin and the Members of the Select Committee
    and witnesses, for joining us here today.
        I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the
    Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
        I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement.
        I've been investigating the remaining questions surrounding
    January 6th for three years. When this particular Subcommittee
    was formed in September of last year, I directed my team that
    oversight of the FBI's investigation to the DNC and RNC pipe
    bombs would be a top priority.
        In many ways, the bizarre constellation of facts
    surrounding the discovery of the pipe bombs is emblematic of
    the many unresolved questions about January 6th that remain
    today.
        What information did Federal law enforcement have, when did
    they have it, and what did they do with it?
        How did the Joe Biden and Merrick Garland's Department of
    Justice prioritize the apprehension and prosecution of
    Americans trespassing on restricted Capitol Grounds relative to
    the apprehension of the pipe bomber?
        How is it that the Biden-Wray FBI was able to flawlessly
    execute a cellular dragnet to capture the information and
    eventually apprehend those trespassing at the Capitol, but
    failed to exercise the same investigative technique into the
    pipe bomber?
        How is it that the Democrat-controlled Select Committee to
    investigate January 6th managed to write a final report in
    which they cover more than 700 pages and eight chapters without
    ever mentioning the pipe bombs until an appendix in the back of
    the report.
        Was information related to the pipe bombs part of the more
    than one terabyte of information that the Select Committee
    failed to retain, and in some cases deleted from computers just
    days before the Republicans took over the Majority in 2023?
        These questions and many more remain unanswered.
        The significance of the pipe bombs and how the events of
    January 6th unfolded cannot be overstated. The evidence
    suggests that the pipe bombs' discovery diverted significant
    law enforcement attention and resources away from the Capitol
    at the exact time they were needed most.
        It's hard to comprehend why both the Wray FBI and the
    Select Committee, despite their shared zeal for bringing to
    justice those who trespassed at the Capitol, have shown little
    effort or interest regarding the pipe bombs.
        As a quick refresher, at 17:49 p.m. on January 5, 2021, a
    suspect placed a pipe bomb next to a bench beside the Democrat
    National Committee headquarters building, then placed a second
    device in an alley near the RNC. Fortunately, neither pipe bomb
    detonated.
        After laying in plain sight for nearly 17 hours, both
    devices were independently discovered on January 6th within a
    few minutes of the vote to certify the election results.
        On January 6th, at 1:05 p.m., Capital Police responded to a
    pipe bomb reported at the RNC and at the same time that
    protesters began surging outside the Capitol and the
    legislators prepared to certify the vote. The Capitol Police
    Chief had to split his team, sending significant resources to
    handle two pipe bomb incidents.
        In addition to diverting resources away from the Capitol,
    the security perimeter set up around the DNC due to the
    discovery of the pipe bomb prevented Capitol Police from
    receiving the delivery of an additional 400 bike racks that had
    been requested to serve as protective barriers.
        The urgent need for 400 bike racks arose after nearly 500
    racks were unexpectedly removed from the Capitol on the evening
    of January 5th. The removal of these bikes were, according to
    Valerie Hasberry, who was the Chief Security Officer for the
    Architect of the Capitol, she said this was absolutely
    illogical.
        The discovery of the pipe bombs on January 6th further
    disrupted efforts to establish those boundaries and strained
    security resources.
        The placement and timing of the pipe bombs' discovery
    proved critical in blurring the lines between public space and
    restricted Capitol Grounds and therefore made it easier for
    protestors to enter the Capitol Building on January 6th.
        The Biden-Garland Department of Justice boasted that the
    Wray FBI pursued their investigations of Americans following
    the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, with, quote
    ``unprecedented speed and scale.''
        We now know that for 47 out of Joe Biden's 48 months in
    office, the Wray FBI held in its possession the critical
    evidence identifying Brian Cole, Jr., as the pipe bomber, but
    failed to make any progress on the case.
        In contrast, in October 2025, the Patel FBI put together a
    designated Red Team consisting of law enforcement officers from
    outside the FBI. Within six weeks of its creation, the Red Team
    identified Brian Cole, Jr., as a suspect using material and
    evidence the FBI had in its possession since February 2021.
        On December 4, 2025, four years, 11 months, and two days
    after the event, the Patel FBI arrested Cole for allegedly
    planting the pipe bombs.
        The FBI operational updates and internal after-action
    report paint a dismal picture of the Wray FBI's investigation
    of the bombs.
        While there is evidence showing that some resources were
    dedicated to the investigation, there is also evidence that
    critical components of the investigation were slow-walked, and
    then resources were cut just two months in.
        For example, CAST, the Cell Analysis Team, reported, quote,
    ``difficulties in getting the Washington Field Office to accept
    help, deployment delayed.''
        Then, on February 26, 2020, the FBI noted that the
    Washington Field Office's pipe bomb investigation team was
    quote, ``expected to decrease in the coming weeks.'' At the
    same time, the FBI was diverting resources from the case.
        Given the significant evidence against Cole in multiple
    categories, it is difficult to understand how he was not
    identified as a suspect in the Spring 2021. Why did it take a
    team of non-FBI personnel who reexamined the evidence to
    develop Cole as a suspect? Was this merely incompetence? If so,
    what can be done to better equip our FBI?
        The Wray FBI's failure to act on the evidence in their
    possession demands thorough examination. Additionally, there
    are still critical details regarding this case that must be
    understood.
        First, what was the pipe bomb suspect doing on the phone
    during the course of planting the devices? Does this activity
    implicate any other suspects?
        Second, on January 2025, my team issued a report that
    discussed the FBI's investigation into a computer search
    conducted after the pipe bombs were planted, but before they
    were discovered, a search that read: ``Pipe bombs, D.C.'' Was
    this Cole?
        If so, this is another key piece of evidence tied to Cole
    that was overlooked. If not, is the person who conducted that
    search tied to Cole?
        Additionally, the FBI operational updates note two
    eyewitnesses who described the gray hoodie suspect as a White
    male. Did this influence the FBI's investigation?
        Today, we hope our witnesses will shed light on the FBI
    investigative protocol to help us begin to unravel what went so
    wrong with the Wray FBI's management of this case.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin, for an
    opening statement.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you very kindly, Mr. Chair. Thanks
    to our witnesses for joining us.
        I would like to begin by offering appreciation to the men
    and women of the FBI who apprehended the January 6th pipe bomb
    suspect. This has been a rare bright spot for Federal law
    enforcement over the last year.
        I also want to thank the Capitol officers who defended us
    with such valor and such courage on January 6th, who defended
    the Members of the House, the Senate, our staffs, and everyone
    else who was caught up in the siege against the Capitol in the
    attempt to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election.
        Those officers continue to defend us and continue to endure
    the abuse of the January 6th insurrectionists. Check out this
    video from what just happened last week on January 6th.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Raskin. The abuse of our officers continues, just as
    the plaque, which was passed overwhelmingly by Congress to be
    installed in the Capitol complex, has still not been put up by
    Speaker Johnson.
        Now, of course, the prosecution of Brian Cole, the pipe
    bomb suspect, remains ongoing. The full facts of the case have
    not yet emerged. Under our criminal justice system, of course,
    he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This hearing is at
    best premature. I hope certainly it does nothing to recklessly
    endanger the prosecution of Mr. Cole.
        Here is what we do know. We know that Brian Cole voted for
    Donald Trump twice. We know that in his own words he was
    inspired and incited by Donald Trump's big lie, the pathetic
    lie that the 2020 election had been stolen, a lie that has been
    debunked and repudiated by more than 60 different Federal and
    State court decisions across the land in every court that's
    looked at it, and of course was rejected by the Congress of the
    United States as well.
        Mr. Cole told investigators he was in D.C. because he was
    going to protest in support of Donald Trump. He told the FBI
    that he believed the narrative that Trump had spread that the
    election was indeed tampered with, quote, ``Someone needs to
    speak up, right?''
        Well, like the thousands of Trump supporters who stormed
    the Capitol on January 6th, Mr. Cole did something more than
    just speak up. He set what the FBI concluded were viable
    explosive devices on Capitol Hill, near feet away from where
    thousands of people lived and worked and dropped their kids off
    at daycare.
        It is only due to the heroic actions of the Capitol Police
    and a watchful bystander that these devices were discovered and
    disarmed.
        Make no mistake, Mr. Cole's political goals appear to have
    been no different than those of the Proud Boys, the Oath
    Keepers, and hundreds of cop beaters and rioters who stormed
    the Capitol--to foment violence on that day, to terrorize the
    police, but most of all, to stop the steal and overturn the
    election that was certified in the United States of America
    with Joe Biden defeating Donald Trump by more than seven
    million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college.
        There are only two real differences between the pipe bomber
    and the rioters.
        First, unlike so many of the rioters, Mr. Cole was
    thankfully unsuccessful in his efforts to injure law
    enforcement and innocent people on that day.
        Second, unlike the other rioters, it has not yet been
    determined whether Mr. Cole actually got a pardon from Donald
    Trump. Trump granted a, quote, ``full, complete, and
    unconditional pardon to all individuals convicted of offenses
    related to events that occurred at or near the United States
    Capitol on January 6, 2021.''
        Mr. Cole, if convicted, would he be covered by this
    unprecedented corrupt pardon offered by Donald Trump, who
    incited the insurrection against the Union? Well, Mr. Cole's
    lawyer definitely seems to think so.
        President Trump and his DOJ have already attempted to
    legitimize violence against the police on that day. Is it their
    position that the pardon extends to Mr. Cole as someone who was
    involved in the events that occurred near the Capitol, or is it
    a position that it's OK to beat police officers with
    Confederate battle flags, Donald Trump flags, American flags,
    tase them, haze them, vilify them, demonize them, taunt them,
    trample them, kick them, and punch them, but they draw the line
    at planting an explosive device? I would be very interested to
    know the answer to that.
        It's been obvious for quite some time the pipe bomber was
    motivated by the same lies and violent rhetoric as everybody
    else who followed Donald Trump's orders on that day. To avoid
    that reality, Republicans have deployed conspiracy theory after
    conspiracy theory about the pipe bomber.
        Donald Trump falsely claimed the FBI knew who it was all
    along.
        Dan Bongino, the former podcaster who turned former FBI
    Deputy Director, who recently quit for mysterious reasons, told
    us that this was a setup. He said it was an inside job.
        Just a few months ago, the Blaze wrote a ludicrous article
    pinning the pipe bombs on an innocent Capitol Police Officer on
    the basis of how she walked, which unsurprisingly was quickly
    exposed for the pure concoction it was.
        That did not stop multiple Republican Members of Congress--
    including, I'm afraid to say, you, Mr. Chair, at least I'm
    told, although I haven't seen what you said directly--but
    certainly multiple Members of Congress promoted the article and
    its authors, and the false and dangerous idea that it was a
    former Capitol Policer Officer who planted those bombs, an idea
    that continues to fester in the deepest and darkest corners of
    the extremist internet.
        Mr. Chair, I think that the Capitol Police officer deserves
    an apology from any Member of Congress who participated in that
    particular lie and conspiracy theory.
        These conspiracy theories have finally been debunked, but
    they've not been put to rest. We're here as part of the
    ``Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions
    Surrounding January 6, 2021.''
        Since the identity and motivation of the pipe bomber had
    been long one of the last question marks remaining, I am
    interested to know what are the remaining questions, because
    we've got a bunch of answers, but I certainly have some
    questions remaining.
        One question I've got is: Why is it that those who pushed
    the big lie and tried to steal the election and participated in
    the riots at the Capitol, from Ed Martin to Heather Honey to
    Jared Wise and Jeffrey Clark, why are they now holding
    positions of power and influence in this administration?
        We should also be holding a hearing on how Donald Trump
    pardoned the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other felons for
    violently assaulting hundreds of police officers against the
    wishes of more than 80 percent of the American people who
    reject those pardons.
        What have been the public safety implications of those
    pardons? How about a hearing on the 33 pardoned rioters who
    have since gone on to commit other felony crimes, including
    possession of child pornography, rape, conspiracy to commit
    murder of FBI agents, kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated
    robbery, reckless homicide, and so many more? How about a
    hearing on that?
        How about a hearing on why the Speaker refuses to put up a
    plaque that by law was supposed to have been posted in 2023 in
    honor of the police officers who defended us?
        How about a hearing on why, unlike Ashli Babbitt's family,
    which got a handsome $5 million payout, even after two
    government investigations determined that the police had acted
    reasonably and appropriately in her case, how about a hearing
    on why the 140 officers who were injured on that day and the
    five officers who died in the days that followed, including
    officer Brian Sicknick and his family, why have they received
    nothing, not one penny, not one dollar, and Ashli Babbitt's
    family got $5 million, even though there was no finding of any
    culpability on the part of the government? How about a hearing
    on that?
        How about a hearing on whether we've done justice to the
    police officers who defended us on that day? How about a
    hearing on that, Mr. Chair?
        Well, nothing that can be said around the edges of this
    nightmare is ever going to take away or erase the indelible
    truth of what happened. The President, not being able to handle
    his loss by more than seven million votes in the Presidential
    election, used every means at his disposal to try to overturn
    the election, to concoct fraudulent electoral slates, to try to
    get the Department of Justice to just say the election was
    corrupt and leave the rest to me and my Republican friends in
    Congress to try to force the Vice President of the United
    States, Mike Pence, to assert powers he didn't have to reject
    the electoral college votes and then to unleash a mob of
    thousands of people to attack Congress.
        That's the reality. Nobody's laid a glove on a single
    sentence in the report of the January 6th Select Committee. Not
    one.
        I defy anyone to challenge that statement. I would love to
    see someone show how anything we have found has been
    contradicted. Nothing. Not Presidential firings and demotions
    of devoted civil servants, like all the DOJ lawyers and FBI
    agents who've been sacked and demoted, not the Presidential
    pardons. Not all the tweets about how this was a day of love.
    Nothing will ever Whitewash the indelible facts of that day.
        Mr. Chair, I thank you for your indulgence, and I yield
    back to you.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman yields.
        Without objection, all other Members' opening statements
    will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted
    to the Committee clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
        I'd now like to introduce today's witnesses that are here
    to testify on the FBI's investigation into the pipe bomb.
        Mr. Chris Piehota is a former FBI Senior Executive
    Official, serving over 25 years in the Bureau in various senior
    positions, including as an Executive Assistant Director and a
    special agent in charge.
        Accordingly, he is well-equipped to provide insight into
    the FBI's protocol for handling cases like the investigation
    into the pipe bombs.
        Mr. Piehota currently delivers strategic guidance and
    advice regarding national security matters, cyber operations,
    security practices, risk mitigation, and more.
        Mr. Thomas Speciale is a former Senior Advisor to the
    Director of National Intelligence at the United States National
    Counterintelligence and Security Center.
        Mr. Speciale has also served as Senior Collection
    Strategist on Domestic Terrorism at the Office of the Director
    of National Intelligence.
        He is a career intelligence officer, having served across
    the U.S. intelligence community in and out of uniform for over
    20 years, and has a great understanding of how intelligence is
    used from an operational standpoint and can help provide
    insight into the intelligence failures which occurred on the
    6th.
        Mr. John Nantz is a former FBI Special Agent. In total, Mr.
    Nantz has served in the law enforcement community for 26 years.
    He was assigned to the Miami Field Office and subsequently to
    the Washington Field Office where he finished as a Supervisory
    Special Agent.
        Prior to his FBI career, Mr. Nantz was a Deputy Sheriff.
    Mr. Nantz's combined law enforcement experiences make him well-
    suited to provide insight into the FBI's pipe bomb
    investigation.
        Mr. Mike Romano is currently a Counsel at Lichten & Liss-
    Riordan. Prior to his position, Mr. Romano previously served as
    a prosecutor at the Department of Justice for over 17 years.
        We'll now begin by swearing in the witnesses.
        Would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you
    swear, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you are
    about to give is true and correct and to the best of your
    knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? You may be
    seated.
        Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
    the affirmative.
        We thank you all for being here.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered
    into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
    do summarize and complete your summary of your testimony in
    five minutes.
        Please remember to turn on your microphones using the
    button in front of you so that members can hear you. When you
    begin to speak, the light on the timer in front of you will
    turn green. After four minutes it will turn yellow. When the
    red light comes on, your four minutes has expired, and we ask
    that you please wrap up at that moment.
        Mr. Piehota, we'll start with you, and you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA

        Mr. Piehota. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Loudermilk,
    Ranking Member Raskin, and the Members of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation and its handling of the Capitol Hill pipe bomb
    investigation. It's an honor to visit with the Committee today.
        As said, my name is Chris Piehota. I am a retired FBI agent
    with nearly 25 years of experience. At the time of my
    retirement, I served as an Executive Assistant Director, one of
    the FBI's most senior executive roles. Prior to this role, I
    served as an Assistant Director, and before that as a Special
    Agent in Charge.
        During my FBI career, I was taught about and personally
    developed familiarity with investigative, operational,
    administrative, and leadership requirements that can and should
    be met during properly executed and managed FBI operations.
        We are here today to discuss the possible circumstances
    surrounding a case that cuts to the heart of public trust in
    Federal law enforcement; specifically, the FBI, specifically
    the placement of two viable pipe bombs outside of Democratic
    and Republican National Committee headquarters, circa January
    5, 2021.
        The December 4, 2025, arrest of Brian J. Cole, Jr., was a
    noteworthy investigative achievement for the FBI and its law
    enforcement partners.
        Unfortunately, this arrest alone is not the central issue
    before this Committee. A primary issue for discussion today is
    how this case remained unsolved for nearly five years, despite
    indications that the FBI had decisive information in its
    possession.
        There are three primary areas of consideration when looking
    at the past and present FBI challenges: Culture, leadership,
    and operational practices.
        We must assess the following factors to determine the FBI's
    general fitness and performance in how it conducted the Capitol
    Hill pipe bomb case.
        Culture. How did the FBI demand the fabled fidelity,
    bravery, and integrity in all its related operations?
        In the high stakes environment present, it was plausible
    that investigators inadvertently eliminated or disregarded
    possible leads due to a lack of time and resources or flawed
    prioritizations, a fidelity shortfall; they became overly
    conservative in their approaches for fear of mistakes, a
    bravery shortfall; or pursued too many leads in a surface-level
    fashion to show urgency and expected progress, an integrity
    shortfall.
        In the end, culture determined how the organization behaved
    and performed when times were good or bad.
        Leadership environment. Leadership remains the lifeblood of
    any FBI investigation, the kind of fearless, principled
    leadership that demands excellence and makes no concessions
    when the safety and security of the American people are at
    stake.
        How did the FBI leadership set expectations and maintain
    standards, preferred practices, and behaviors during this case?
    What drove FBI leadership to set priorities, allocate
    resources, and motivate people in this matter?
        One thing I learned over the course of my career was,
    ultimately, we lead or we fail.
        Operational practices. Information volume can crush an
    investigative team if not adequately resourced and prioritized.
        How did the FBI manage investigative workloads that could
    have resulted in terabytes of specialized data and information
    and required a small standing army to process investigative
    findings in a timely, usable manner.
        Regarding other operational impacts, the presence of
    additional factors, such as case ownership churn, the
    reassignment of case agents, insufficient investigative skill
    or experience, investigative or analytic stovepipes, and
    overwhelmed administrative systems could have converged to
    cause unforeseen and unrecognized investigative gaps.
        If the pipe bomb investigation was not actively led and
    managed, it is no surprise that the investigation eventually
    stalled.
        In closing, this discussion brings us to an important
    takeaway. The Cole arrest itself appears to revalidate and
    remind us of the power, effectiveness, and necessity of a
    skilled, objective, apolitical, well-led FBI. However, the Cole
    arrest was not born of a new strategy, it was the result of a
    salvage operation.
        Salvage operations and cold case approaches will not
    protect America and its people. The Cole arrest indicates that
    we still have work to do in rebuilding an FBI that can
    effectively meet and defeat 21st century threats and challenges
    while concurrently protecting the American people and upholding
    the Constitution.
        I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Piehota follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Piehota. Mr. Speciale, you
    may begin.

                STATEMENT OF THOMAS ANTHONY SPECIALE, II

        Mr. Speciale. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Members of the
    Committee. Thank you for this invitation to speak to you and
    the American people.
        I do not sit here today to speak for anybody other than
    myself and my family. This is not about me. It's about every
    American.
        While I have served in the military since 1987 and in the
    intelligence community since 2009, I've had a unique vantage
    point in this country on the issue before us.
        In the months leading up to January 6th, I served as the
    Senior Intelligence Collection Strategist for Domestic
    Terrorism at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). As an
    intelligence collector and an analyst, I am trained to pursue
    hard facts, rather than political ideology or what is
    convenient.
        Everything I present here today is available on my website,
    along with a more detailed statement regarding these issues.
        In late October 2020, I warned the FBI Domestic Terrorism
    Task Force leadership that we should be thinking about
    potential ``black swan events,'' due to the fragility that I
    saw in our country, the distrust of the government, political
    polarization, and an extremely volatile social environment. My
    warnings were ignored, and I was labeled a domestic extremist
    by my FBI joint duty assignment supervisor because I was a
    supporter of President Trump.
        At the NCTC, I was fighting back against the FBI's desire
    to get a Federal domestic terrorism criminal statute for
    deterrence purposes, and to treat constitutionally protected
    activities as a factor, not a constraint. That's KGB- and
    Gestapo-like thinking.
        At the NCTC, I offered two highly classified documents, a
    collection of emphasis messages and a collection posture
    statement on domestic extremism, which I am happy to discuss.
        These, if declassified by Director Gabbard, would greatly
    illuminate January 6th thinking on the part of the FBI and
    others leading up to January 6th.
        On January 5th, in my private capacity, I stopped potential
    violence on the Capitol and warned rally attendees not to fall
    for a trap set by instigators and agitators to fight the
    police. On January 6th, I warned attendees that I was afraid
    that there would be blood in the streets--and Ashli Babbitt and
    Rosanne Boyland were both dead within hours of my warnings.
        When I returned to the NCTC, I was terminated because my
    FBI supervisor believed I was a domestic extremist simply for
    attending the rally on January 6th.
        In July 2021, I published a White Paper where I identified
    the actual causes of January 6th--a distrust of the government,
    false narratives of gun violence, and a lack of government
    transparency leading to conspiracy theories, many of which have
    now been proven to be true.
        I have provided copies for the Congressional Record three
    times. This is the third time.
        For 2\1/2\ years, the FBI, Army Counterintelligence, and
    Army CID investigated me for extremist activity without any
    criminal predicate. I have never even been questioned, much
    less charged.
        All across the country, many citizens faced raids and
    arrests for protected activities. For deterrence purposes, I
    have FOIA'd the DOJ and the FBI for the 89 documents in my
    eGuardian file, but they have ignored my FOIAs.
        The purpose of this hearing regarding the pipe bomb and my
    core assessment regarding the FBI's failures regarding January
    6th, because the FBI was singularly focused after January 6th
    to prevent Donald J. Trump from becoming the President again
    and to cripple, intimidate, and silence his allies and
    supporters.
        They never truly pursued the pipe bomber because they were
    focused on covering up lies, criminal misconduct, and election
    interference--and they were hunting Trump supporters.
        In early 2022, I was a voluntary witnesses to the January
    6th Investigative Committee where I offered them classified
    documents, which they were--a classified briefing which they
    refused, and I provided multiple documents, which they
    destroyed, including my report.
        Regarding what happened on January 6th, a protective orders
    have been placed on the body cam footage of many of the
    officers on the Capitol that day. This must be lifted. The DOJ
    has been marked these as highly restricted. That's not a
    national security classification.
        Also, we need to look into the FinCEN violations. There are
    people at the DOJ that I can direct you to that can speak
    specifically about these abuses.
        I go into great detail about these classification abuses in
    my report, as a matter of fact. It is against government
    regulation, quote, ``to classify or otherwise conceal
    information that is in violation of the law, or to prevent
    embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.'' The FBI
    has been abusing this for decades.
        The President issued an Executive Order, reports have been
    made to the President, referrals have been made to DOJ. The
    result of all this weaponization has been catastrophic to the
    public trust in our government, but specifically the FBI.
        Without accountability and significant reforms, many
    Americans will lose complete faith in you and us. We do not
    want that.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman's time has expired. If you
    could wrap up, we'd appreciate it.
        Mr. Speciale. Yes, sir. I've made a number of suggestions
    regarding reforms to the White House.
        The hardest moment in my life was not in a combat zone, it
    was in my own home, sitting with my wife and my son. At one
    point, I had to sit down and tell them what to do if the FBI
    smashed open our door at 4 a.m. in the morning, waving rifles
    around and pointing at them. Imagine having to tell your 10-
    year-old son that his friends would do that.
        I remember him asking me: ``Why would your friends do
    that?'' I didn't have an answer.
        I have done my part. We have done our part. We have placed
    our careers, our lives, and our livelihood on the line in
    service to this country, in service to all Americans, red,
    blue, Brown, and White.
        We will continue to serve the Nation in accordance with our
    oath. It is not an oath to our donors or a man or a party, it
    is an oath to the American people, it is an oath to the
    Constitution.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Speciale.
        Mr. Speciale. Thank you for this opportunity. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Speciale follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Speciale. Mr. Nantz, you may
    begin.

                        STATEMENT OF JOHN NANTZ

        Mr. Nantz. Chair Loudermilk, Ranking Member Raskin, and the
    Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the
    invitation to speak with you today. It's an honor to share my
    perspectives derived from 26 years in law enforcement, 20 of
    those as an FBI agent.
        The Biden-era FBI and DOJ presided over some of the most
    controversial investigations and prosecutions in modern
    history. From the January 6th investigations to the Mar-a-Lago
    raid, Merrick Garland's DOJ, in concert with former FBI
    Director Christopher Wray, has successfully tarnished our most
    respected institutions of justice and national security with
    the odious stigmas of politiciza-tion and weaponization.
        American citizens have been rightly outraged at the
    inexcusable malfeasance of a relatively few senior executives.
    A bifurcated FBI held highly politicized investigations in the
    compartmentalized precincts of the Hoover Building, while the
    vast investigative experience and far more rigorous oversight
    of field agents and division-level management was in large part
    circumvented, providing insulated political hacks with the
    unchecked latitude to pursue political opponents.
        For instance, as documented by DOJ Inspector General
    findings, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was predicated
    on a thin tissue of preposterous fictions spun by operatives of
    the Clinton campaign and given the imprimatur of compromised
    members of the intelligence community.
        What we witnessed during Biden-era weaponization was
    appalling. I watched the events of January 6th unfold at a
    Washington Field Office offsite. I was initially struck by the
    peaceful and civilized conduct demonstrated by the vast
    majority of protestors, which quickly devolved into disgust as
    radical elements, wearing the uniform of antifa anarchists,
    began a campaign of agitation and vandalism which drew a
    minority of the more gullible into criminal acts.
        The Biden Administration and a complicit mainstream media
    wasted no time in labeling it as an insurrection, an event to
    rival September 11th, or the Confederate insurrection of the
    Civil War. However, the only casualty of January 6th was an Air
    Force veteran and Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt.
        The objective was obvious: To stigmatize Republican
    protests and bludgeon President Trump and his supporters with
    bigoted labels such as White supremacists, White nationalist
    extremists, or racially or ethnically motivated violent
    extremists, or RMVE.
        This political narrative bears directly on the issue of why
    Chris Wray's FBI failed to identify the pipe bomb subject. The
    answer, in my opinion, isn't a sensational one. Therefore, it
    has eluded most of the podcasting class. It was simply a
    function of good leadership or the lack thereof.
        The Biden's FBI was directed to conduct the most sweeping
    investigation in the FBI's history, absurdly, of mostly Federal
    trespassers. The political narrative driven by Biden to his
    Attorney General Merrick Garland was myopically focused on the
    unicorn of violent White extremism.
        In simple terms, finding the pipe bomb subject was not a
    priority for Wray's FBI. The incentive structure was shifted,
    and FBI resources were squandered on chasing political
    chimeras. The obsession with persecuting Trump supporters left
    no institutional impetus to get to the bottom of the pipe
    bomber mystery.
        Elections matter, and the Trump victory has paid out some
    unexpected dividends. The appointment and confirmation of FBI
    Director Kash Patel and the appointment of former Deputy
    Director Dan Bongino has everything to do with finally
    discovering who planted those viable pipe bombs at the DNC and
    RNC headquarters.
        In short, Deputy Director Bongino recommitted FBI
    investigative resources and assigned a group of task force
    officers assembled from local and State jurisdictions.
        Combined with a new type of FBI CAST analysis, this group
    of FBI agents and TFOs worked seamlessly to bring about the
    identification and arrest of Brian Cole, Jr. The current
    disposition of this case comes down to a simple matter of
    priorities, an election of great consequence.
        Critics of Director Patel and the investigation into the
    pipe bomb subject have based their allegations on the
    conjecture of internet cranks, utilizing hobbyist analysis of
    cell phone tower data, among other things.
        Conversely, the CAST and TFO professionals formulated new
    and specifically tailored algorithms to demystify cell tower
    data that had been opaque to investigators up to that point.
        In essence, we're being asked to believe that the stalwarts
    of the conservative movement--Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI
    Director Patel, the former Deputy Director Bongino, and the
    esteemed U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro--have all
    concluded to railroad an innocent man.
        The bottom line is this: President Trump's FBI got their
    man by dint of good leadership. This bodes very good things for
    the American people and their FBI.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nantz follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Nantz. Mr. Romano, you may
    begin.

                     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. ROMANO

        Mr. Romano. Good afternoon, Chair Loudermilk, Ranking
    Member Raskin, and the Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation and its handling of the Capitol Hill pipe bomb
    case. It's an honor to speak with you all today.
        My name is Michael Romano. I was an attorney at the
    Department of Justice for almost 18 years, and immediately
    before my resignation I was a Deputy Chief of the Capitol Siege
    Section here in Washington, DC.
        It was a great privilege to serve the United States by
    prosecuting crimes arising out of the violent riot that
    happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
        I commend the department's work in identifying and
    arresting Brian Cole for planting pipe bombs outside the
    Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters on
    the evening of January 5, 2021.
        This was a difficult case to solve, given the needle-in-a-
    haystack nature of the evidence. Solving it was important, both
    because of the harm that the pipe bombs could have caused and
    because of the suspect's apparent motivation--political
    violence.
        Of course, the political violence at the Capitol did not
    end on January 5th when the pipe bombs were planted, nor on
    January 6th when they were discovered. That same day, a riot
    broke out as the President's supporters descended on the
    Capitol Grounds, broke down barriers, overwhelmed police, and
    stormed the building.
        This too was political violence. Rioters openly broke the
    law. In fact, they bragged about it, in some cases filming
    themselves and sharing their conduct on social media. Their
    willingness to self-identify made them much easier to apprehend
    than the pipe bomber was.
        Today, I speak as a career prosecutor who oversaw hundreds
    of prosecutions of Capitol rioters. Every day for four years I
    reviewed evidence of crimes committed at the Capitol. My
    experience helps me better understand the political violence
    that day, the damage it caused to our country, and the way that
    misdemeanor defendants enabled the violence by joining the mob.
        The evidence showed that the rioters understood their
    conduct in political terms. I saw some of them circulate in
    advance a picture of the United States Capitol with the
    following text superimposed over it, quote: ``Occupy Congress.
    If they don't hear us, they will fear us. The great betrayal is
    over. Election fraud is treason. January 6, 2021.'' Rioters
    sending that message planned to storm the Capitol in advance.
        One rioter I prosecuted, Cody Mattice, recorded himself as
    he marched to the Capitol, saying, quote, ``We're going to fuck
    shit up. It's about to be nuts.'' He was not peacefully
    marching to the Capitol.
        Mattice recorded his co-defendant, James Mault, asking
    officers to stand down because, quote, ``We had your guys' back
    when you were under attack,'' and promising that, quote, ``Your
    jobs will be here after we kick the shit out of Members of
    Congress.'' He was not instigated by the police.
        The evidence showed me that the mob shared their
    sentiments. Its purpose was to prevent the certification of the
    electoral college vote by violence or threats of violence.
    After rioters smashed their way into the building, they
    demanded of Officer Goodman, quote, ``Where are they counting
    the fucking votes?''
        At the main door to the House, I saw rioters overwhelm
    police, occupying the space outside the door. Then, I saw
    rioters, including misdemeanor trespass defendants, urge other
    members of the mob to ``use the helmet'' and ``use the
    crowbar'' to break down that door and get inside so they could
    target Member of Congress like you.
        Throughout the day, I witnessed rioters tell police
    officers they had a right to rebel. Some compared their
    behavior to the Revolutionary War. One defendant, Kevin
    Seefried, carried the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol.
        Capitol Police officers and others bravely stood in the way
    and suffered violence for it. Now the rioters who attacked them
    have been pardoned. On the five-year anniversary of that riot,
    the White House hosted propaganda on its official website,
    falsely claiming that the Capitol Police instigated the crowd
    and escalated tensions, falsely claiming that the Capitol
    Police invited people into the building, and falsely claiming
    that our work represented a political weaponization of the
    department against patriotic Americans. None of that is true.
        The pardons are a permission for future political violence,
    and the rioters understand them that way, as you can see in
    footage of violent rioters who came to Washington, DC, last
    week on the anniversary of the riot and taunted police
    officers.
        It is good that the pipe bomber suspect was arrested. It is
    good he will face justice. Just as planting those bombs was an
    act of political violence, we cannot forget the political
    violence committed by hundreds and abetted by thousands on that
    day.
        I'm here and I am happy to answer any questions the
    Committee has remaining about what happened on January 6th and
    to speak to the importance of my team's work. Thank you very
    much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Romano follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Romano. We'll now begin with
    questions. Reminding the Members that this hearing is about the
    investigation into the pipe bombs of January 6th.
        We'll begin proceeding under the five-minute rule. I would
    like to note for everyone here that we may have a second round
    of questioning, depending on time and pending votes. We'll
    address this at the end of the first round.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all our
    witnesses for being here.
        Let me start by explaining to the American people why we
    are here and why this new Committee is necessary.
        The previous Select Subcommittee, assembled by Speaker
    Pelosi, was a sham from the start. It was a total sham. For the
    first time in the history of Congress, the Speaker rejected the
    Minority leader's selections for who would serve on a Select
    Committee. Pelosi installed two of her puppets, Adam Kinzinger
    and Liz Cheney. They both hated Donald Trump and the MAGA
    movement.
        The stated the purpose of that Committee was to examine the
    security failures and events that led to the breach of the
    Capitol and to provide recommendations to ensure that it never
    happens again.
        That is not what the previous January 6th Committee did.
    Instead, it set out to destroy Donald Trump and the MAGA
    movement by convincing the American people that Donald Trump
    coordinated a violent White supremacist insurrection to
    overthrow the U.S. Government. They did this to justify the
    prosecution of his supporters and former administration
    officials and to ensure that he could never become President
    again. Today, we can say they failed.
        They put on a pretty good show. The first thing they did
    was hire someone to produce all their televised hearings who
    they knew would have a knack for making the President look bad,
    former President of ABC News James Goldston. Then, they set out
    to have a highly prescripted hearing, designated to play on the
    emotions of Americans.
        For example, the hearing with Capitol Police officers Dunn,
    Gonell, Fanone, Hodges, four Trump haters who gave highly
    scripted and preplanned testimoneys.
        All told, the sham Committee work cost the American people
    $18 million. That's right, $18 million. In the end, they
    released this 845-page report that failed to achieve the stated
    purpose of the Committee. Instead, it sought to blame the
    entire event on Donald Trump, whose name was mentioned 4,207
    times.
        The word ``insurrection,'' which not a single person was
    actually charged with, is mentioned 78 times. The Proud Boys
    are mentioned 218 times. While antifa, who intelligence
    confirmed planned to be present, is only mentioned 20 times,
    the words ``White supremacy'' and ``White nationalist'' are
    mentioned 23 times and MAGA is mentioned 17 times.
        Meanwhile, Ashli Babbitt, the only person who died by
    firearm, is mentioned just five times.
        Oh, and remember how we found out from the December 2024 IG
    report that the FBI had 26 confidential human sources, or CHSs,
    in the crowd that day. The CHSs are mentioned a total of zero
    times in this report.
        I know it's been a long time, but remember Ray Epps? Let me
    introduce you again to Ray Epps.
        Play the video.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Nehls. The night of January 5th, he is filmed yelling
    at the crowd that they are going to go into the Capitol, and
    again on the day in question. He is filmed at the front of the
    crowd at the barricades, just before the initial breach. He
    whispered something into the ear of the guy next to him, and
    that guy initiated the breach.
        Then, later at 2:43 p.m., a red flare goes off; 2:45 p.m.,
    red smoke pops; and at 2:46, Ray Epps is in video being
    extracted from the crowd of an eight-man team even though he
    was allegedly alone that day.
        Play that clip.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Nehls. Now, despite Epps' actions on that day and
    despite him being number 16 on the January 6th most wanted page
    for months, his name is mentioned zero times in that 840-page
    document. Zero.
        The previous Committee's report highlights that it believes
    some 2,000 protestors entered the U.S. Capitol Building on that
    date. It's on page 77. By conservative standards, that's less
    than two percent of the total estimated number of protestors
    present in the Capitol complex, 120,000, on January 6th.
        Why didn't the other 98 percent of protestors rush to the
    Capitol if that's what Trump supposedly wanted? Why did they
    not listen to Donald Trump's orders and commands? Why did the
    vast majority never enter the Capitol Building?
        The first breach occurred 20 minutes before Trump's speech
    ended. Why would Trump supporters leave a Trump speech and
    breach the Capitol before the grounds even ended?
        I yield back the balance of my time. I yield back.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman yields. Obviously, the Chair
    has given some latitude to our side on time. I will extend the
    same courtesy to the Members of the Minority.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, I thank you for your evenhandedness
    there, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that roundup of the worst
    conspiracy theories of the January 6th canon, and I hope that
    this Committee will help us to debunk all of them. All of them
    have been well debunked and repudiated online.
        In any event, the gentleman does not advance any counter
    story to what the January 6th Committee found after more than a
    year of talking to more than a thousand witnesses and looking
    at more than a million pages worth of documents and getting
    overwhelmingly testimony from Republicans, people in Donald
    Trump's world.
        If you go and you read the interviews and you look at the
    videos--and it's all online--you can see these were Donald
    Trump's people who told the story.
        I don't mind any of those flights of fancy, but none of
    them, again, have laid a glove to what was found by the
    bipartisan January 6th Select Committee.
        Now, Mr. Romano, you ended up by talking about pardons. I
    want to ask you, first, well, generally, what you thought about
    the validity and legitimacy of those pardons, pardons generally
    being reserved for people who show contrition and remorse and
    who have been reformed and rehabilitated and no longer are a
    danger to society.
        Second, I wonder if you would opine as to whether or not
    Donald Trump's pardon extends to Mr. Cole, if he is indeed
    convicted, as his lawyer is asserting.
        Mr. Romano. Certainly. Thank you for the question.
        Mr. Raskin. Turn your mike on.
        Mr. Romano. Thank you. I thought the pardons of the January
    6th defendants were tremendously ill-advised. These were people
    who had been convicted after trial or after guilty plea.
        Many of them, as we saw, remained proud of their conduct
    throughout the pendency of their case, remained proud of their
    conduct at sentencing. They certainly, as a group of people,
    broadly, did not show remorse. We can see that in the way that
    they have celebrated the pardons and tried to lie about what
    happened on January 6th.
        As for Mr. Cole, it's unfortunately an open question
    whether the pardon applies to him. I don't know that there's a
    clear yes or no, and I think that's a problem.
        Certainly, a pardon that was not rushed through on day one
    in the way that this could have been more targeted and could
    have not raised the sort of issues that are raised by this
    question.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi
    has actually advanced a very robust understanding of the scope
    of the pardon. Has the DOJ not? Isn't she taking the position
    it's even applied to other criminal offenses unrelated to
    January 6th if there was evidence that was assembled from the
    defendants after their January 6th arrest?
        Mr. Romano. That's true. For instance, when a home is
    searched and evidence of another crime is developed during the
    execution of that search warrant, the Department of Justice has
    taken that position.
        Mr. Raskin. One might expect that she could take a
    similarly robust interpretation of the pardon with respect to
    Mr. Cole.
        Look, we should really have a hearing on this Subcommittee
    about the people who were pardoned who have gone on to commit
    other serious offenses against public safety and against the
    people of the United States.
        I wonder, is there any case in your mind that you
    prosecuted or you oversaw which stands out in your mind as a
    particularly troubling one from the standpoint of public
    safety?
        Mr. Romano. Absolutely. The one that stands out in my mind
    is the case of Daniel Ball, who fought with officers at the
    Lower West Terrace Tunnel, the site of some of the worst
    violence that day, and then thew an explosive into the tunnel.
    He threw an explosive injuring officers, causing some to lose
    hearing.
        There's no world in which a person who uses an explosive
    device against police in close quarters should be pardoned.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, to be clear, did President Trump
    investigate his file and determine that he had shown repentance
    and remorse, that he would no longer be a danger to the public?
        Mr. Romano. I don't see how he could have given it when the
    pardons came out.
        Mr. Raskin. It came out on the first day, and it was en
    masse. It was everybody. The most serious criminals who leveled
    the most egregious violence against police officers, and those
    people who were just mere trespassers who just went in and
    maybe damaged some property or something else like that, all of
    them were swept in together, all of them treated exactly the
    same way.
        Well, what do you think, in general, the meaning of those
    pardons is going to be for American public safety and
    government going forward?
        Mr. Romano. The pardons are damaging to public safety, the
    pardons are damaging to confidence in the rule of law and in
    the ability of the Justice Department to fight crime. That some
    of the rioters have received the message that violence done on
    behalf of the President or in support of his administration is
    permitted and encouraged.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, finally, Mr. Chair, I would just
    commend to everybody the testimony of Pamela Hemphill, who was
    a convicted insurrectionist and yet was pardoned. She rejected
    her pardon because she said she didn't want President Trump's
    filthy pardon; that she was found guilty because she had
    actually committed an offense, and she wasn't going to
    participate in the sham of the pardons. Her testimony is
    something that would pay everybody well to check out. I would
    like to submit it for the record.
        I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Without objection. The gentleman yields
    back. I now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Romano, did you
    prosecute anyone related to January 6th for engaging in an
    insurrection?
        Mr. Romano. No, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Hageman. I didn't think so. Mr. Raskin's statement that
    someone was a convicted insurrectionist is actually inaccurate.
    Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Romano. I wouldn't say it's inaccurate. Well, a
    convicted insurrectionist--
        Ms. Hageman. He wasn't a convicted insurrectionist, was he?
        Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Hageman. No, I will not. Mr. Romano--
        Mr. Raskin. Do you accept seditious conspiracy is
    insurrection?
        Mr. Loudermilk. It's the gentlelady's time.
        Ms. Hageman. I will reclaim my time. Mr. Romano, did you
    prosecute anyone for engaging in an insurrection related to
    January 6th?
        Mr. Romano. For the crime of insurrection?
        Ms. Hageman. You did not, did you?
        Mr. Romano. No.
        Ms. Hageman. This Select Subcommittee is committed to
    undertaking the investigation that the first Select Committee
    never conducted: How did the security failure on January 6th
    happen, and how do we ensure it does not happen again. Since
    the pipe bomb split the USCP posture and thereby facilitated
    the breach of the Capitol, we must begin with this issue.
        My first question is: Why did a new team under Director
    Patel in just two months do what the FBI failed to do over four
    years with the exact same evidence? The answer appears to be a
    failure from the very start of the FBI's response.
        As a Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee that oversees
    the DOJ and FBI, it necessitates that we begin right here.
        According to what we have been led to believe, the pipe
    bombs were placed outside the RNC and DNC on the evening of
    January 5th.
        They allegedly sat there undetected for 17 hours before the
    device behind the RNC was discovered at approximately 12:38
    p.m., with the device at the DNC immediately discovered
    thereafter at 1:05 p.m.
        The pipe bomb outside the RNC was discovered by Karlin
    Younger, who lived near the RNC and discovered the pipe bomb in
    the unmarked alley between the Capitol Hill Club and RNC while
    doing her laundry. She alerted the RNC security who had then
    alerted the authorities.
        Oddly enough, no one from the FBI contacted Ms. Younger.
    Two days later, on January 8th, Ms. Younger had to proactively
    contact the FBI through an online tip to identify herself as
    the person who discovered the pipe bomb and to offer her
    assistance with the case because she had not yet been contacted
    by the FBI.
        Mr. Nantz, would you agree that it would be standard
    operating procedure and good investigative practice to
    interview all the eyewitnesss?
        Mr. Nantz. Yes, absolutely. That would be standard
    practice, to make sure that you cast a broad enough net so that
    you're interviewing any witness that could possibly provide
    information with regard to the progress of the investigation.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, can you think of any reason as to why
    the FBI did not seek to immediately speak to the person who
    actually found the bomb?
        Mr. Nantz. Well, no. That's a problem. That's a question
    that needs to be answered. Does it go to lack of resources?
    That's still very, very early. I find that to be extremely
    problematic.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, in her online tip, Ms. Younger stated,
    quote, ``I can confirm that the device must have been placed
    between 12:00 p.m. and 12:40 p.m. Eastern Standard time on
    January 6th,'' because it was not there when she first passed
    the area around 12 p.m.
        When was the bomb actually placed and by whom?
        The FBI finally interviewed Ms. Younger three days later,
    on January 11th, and it confirmed her testimony that the device
    outside the RNC was not there before 12 p.m. on January 6th.
        Ms. Hageman. This leads us to three significant data
    points.
        First, the bombs had kitchen timers for 60 minutes.
        Second, the witness who first discovered the bomb noted it
    was not there before noon, about 60 minutes before the meeting
    of Congress.
        Third, if, in fact, the bombs were placed the night of the
    5th, they sat there for 17 hours in a highly trafficked area,
    undisguised, without detection, until the most crucial time for
    security that day, which was when Congress was voting to
    certify the election.
        Mr. Nantz, what should the FBI have done with this
    contradicting evidence?
        Mr. Nantz. Well, the Bureau should have run that all to
    ground. Every resource should've been made available to make
    sure that those questions got answered. That simply did not
    happen. That had to do with a less-than-ideal leadership
    posture.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, that's the understatement of the
    century, Mr. Nantz, but I appreciate your remarks on that.
        Both devices were largely undisguised, invisible along
    heavily trafficked areas, yet they allegedly lay undiscovered
    for 17 hours, a point Ms. Younger disputes. Again, which, oddly
    enough, they were not detected by the Secret Service bomb
    sweeps at the DNC before the arrival of then-Vice-President-
    elect Harris that very morning.
        Does the fact that these devices were not detected for 17
    hours raise any questions for you?
        Mr. Nantz. Well, of course. I think it does for everybody,
    you know?
        Though the January 6th investigation was just beginning and
    I suppose you could make an argument that resources were
    stretched thin, the gravity of the placement of where these
    pipe bombs were placed suggests that should've received at
    least the same or equivalent amount of resources that the
    broader J6 investigation--
        Ms. Hageman. Well, then, I appreciate not only did it not
    receive the attention, the January 6th Committee entirely
    ignored the placement of those bombs, which tells you that they
    had an agenda that they pursued that had nothing to do with
    what actually happened on January 6th.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I have a UC.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Crockett, is
    now recognized.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. This is from The New York
    Times. It's dated January 13, 2021, ``Trump Impeached for
    Inciting Insurrection: President Trump became the first
    president to be impeached twice, after the House approved a
    single charge citing his role in whipping up a mob that stormed
    the Capitol. He faces a Senate trial that could disqualify him
    from future office.''
        There were 10 members of his party that joined the
    Democrats in impeaching him for insurrection.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Without objection.
        Ms. Crockett. May I proceed?
        Mr. Loudermilk. You've been recognized.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
        I don't know where I want to start. I am so frustrated with
    this country, and I don't think that I'm the only one. To know
    that we have former law enforcement here, as someone who worked
    with law enforcement consistently as a practicing lawyer, I'm
    quite concerned. I'm alarmed by some of the things that you
    said.
        Specifically, Mr. Speciale--am I saying it correctly? OK.
    Mr. Speciale, you said--and I may quote you incorrectly, so
    correct me--you were warning your family about the possibility
    of the FBI busting into your home. Is that correct? Close
    enough?
        Mr. Speciale. Yes, because they were raiding American
    citizens all over the United States for trespass.
        Ms. Crockett. You'd agree with me that's--I mean--
        Mr. Speciale. No, I don't agree that you should use FBI
    tactical teams to raid people who are trespassing.
        Ms. Crockett. That's not what I was saying. Sorry, I was
    moving a little slow, because I wanted to make sure I quoted
    this correctly. Are you aware that the FBI recently executed a
    search warrant at a Washington Post reporter's home?
        Mr. Speciale. No, I'm not aware of that.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. You'd agree with me that doing something
    like that with the FBI sounds like what you were afraid of
    happening. To be clear, that never happened to you, correct?
        Mr. Speciale. No, it didn't, but I was aware of the FBI
    investigation for 2\1/2\ years.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. OK. Hold on. It is my time. You did not--
    so they never busted into your home. You were concerned, and
    you felt like that would be wrong.
        What I'm trying to understand is that there's a lot of
    complaints about the Wray FBI, and I won't opine on that, but I
    will make it clear--Mr. Romano, help me out if I'm wrong, but
    was Mr. Wray appointed by Donald J. Trump himself?
        Mr. Romano. Mr. Wray? No.
        Ms. Crockett. Mr. Christopher Wray, who was the FBI
    Director.
        Mr. Romano. Oh, yes.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. He was appointed by Donald Trump. Right
    now, it is interesting, because we're sitting here and we're
    talking about domestic terrorism, and every day there are
    Americans concerned about ICE and what ICE is doing.
        Let me ask you a different question that you may be
    familiar with. As it relates to the training that the average
    FBI officer gets before they are admitted as officers, is it
    longer than 47 days, yes or no?
        Mr. Speciale. I don't think that I'm the person that you
    should be asking that question. I think that the retired FBI
    agent should be--
        Ms. Crockett. Anybody want to answer that who's been in law
    enforcement?
        Mr. Piehota. Yes, ma'am. The FBI Academy ranges anywhere
    from--it changes in length and duration. It can go from 12-16,
    up and up to 18-20 weeks at a time.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. Thank you so much. So, here it is. We
    have people--I know that there have been conversations about
    political opponents. I believe it may have been you, Mr.
    Piehota, that you talked about political opponents being
    prosecuted.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Romano, though. Are you aware that this
    DOJ has gone after Jerome Powell, or going after Jerome Powell?
        Mr. Romano. I'm aware of reporting to that effect, yes.
        Ms. Crockett. Are you aware of this DOJ going after Tish
    James?
        Mr. Romano. Yes.
        Ms. Crockett. Are you aware of this DOJ going after James
    Comey?
        Mr. Romano. Yes, after the President tweeted that they
    should.
        Ms. Crockett. Are you also aware that James Comey is not
    currently being prosecuted, his case was dismissed?
        Mr. Romano. I am.
        Ms. Crockett. Are you also aware that Tish James's case was
    dismissed?
        Mr. Romano. Yes.
        Ms. Crockett. Are you also aware that a number of times
    that they tried to indict Tish James they were unsuccessful?
        Mr. Romano. I am.
        Ms. Crockett. Now, as a career prosecutor, how many times
    did you have to try to get people indicted before you could
    finally secure an indictment?
        Mr. Romano. I never had the grand jury reject an indictment
    that I presented--
        Ms. Crockett. Oh, OK. All right. Well, it seems like maybe
    they still need you there, because they are struggling.
        In addition to that, I want to talk--because the conspiracy
    theories are driving me insane. Maybe it is because I'm used to
    the law just being the law and practicing and getting into a
    courtroom, and maybe it's because I've been there. I am so
    confused about how they're like, ``Oh, these poor little
    people, they did nothing wrong, and that's why the President
    let them all out of prison.''
        Let's talk about the process, OK? Because you can say that
    an investigation has been flawed--and Lord knows, as a criminal
    defense attorney, it was my job to make sure that I dug into
    every single flaw. Because I can tell you, in almost every
    single prosecution that I've had to go up against, the only
    thing I was looking at is how much did you mess up, so that I
    could represent my client well, right? It didn't mean that I
    would get them off.
        I'm trying to figure out, did these people, over a thousand
    people, get convicted of something that they did in a criminal
    way on January 6th, yes or no?
        Mr. Romano. Yes.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. Then you come back--and they were
    convicted by, what, a jury, some of them?
        Mr. Romano. Mostly juries, some judges.
        Ms. Crockett. Some people actually did what we call a plea
    bargain, correct?
        Mr. Romano. Correct.
        Ms. Crockett. Meaning that they walked in and they said,
    ``I am guilty,'' correct?
        Mr. Romano. Yes.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. The final point that I'll make, because I
    know I'm running out of time, is, there was some stuff about
    White supremacists and the concerns about people being alleged
    to be White supremacists. Some of the people that got convicted
    were neo-Nazis. Have they been clarified as White supremacists
    or not?
        Mr. Romano. Yes.
        Ms. Crockett. Some of the people were Proud Boys. Have they
    been declared as White supremacists or not?
        Mr. Romano. I believe so.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. Then, the Confederate flag, has that
    sometimes been associated with White supremacist groups?
        Mr. Romano. I would certainly say it was during the Civil
    War and since.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. Then, there's this sign, I'm not going to
    do it, but it looks like the ``OK'' sign with the hand gesture.
        Mr. Romano. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Crockett. Has than been associated with White
    supremacy?
        Mr. Romano. Yes.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. As one of the prosecutors that prosecuted
    some of these cases, did you not have defendants that you felt
    like may have been White supremacists based on the
    investigations?
        Mr. Romano. Yes. In some cases, we had evidence explicitly
    of it.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank so very much. I'll yield.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentlelady's time has expired. I'll now
    recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Mr. Romano, let's first clear up the ``OK''
    sign. The ``OK'' sign is more predominantly just used to say
    ``OK,'' is it not, than for White supremacy?
        Mr. Romano. Sometimes it is. Historically, yes.
        Mr. Griffith. Historically--
        Mr. Romano. Sometimes it's used to--
        Mr. Griffith. Used today, a majority of the time,
    worldwide, it's not a White supremacist sign. Wouldn't that be
    true?
        Mr. Romano. I don't know if I could speak to the majority
    of cases now.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. Let's move on. I've got so many
    things to ask.
        I've been concerned with this whole pipe bomb situation for
    some time, and I want to ask you some questions, because, as a
    prosecutor, I, too--as Ms. Crockett just pointed out, was a
    criminal defense attorney--I, too, was a criminal defense
    attorney.
        Absent a confession, would you agree with me that, with the
    evidence that we know, that the pipe bombs were allegedly
    planted--allegedly--by Mr. Cole on the night of January 5th,
    but we have the witness at the RNC who says they weren't there
    then and we have the situation where the folks came through
    with the explosive-sniffing dogs before the pipe bombs were
    supposed to be there, but before they were found and didn't hit
    on the pipe bombs. Wouldn't you agree that, as a prosecutor,
    absent the confession by Mr. Cole, you have a hard time getting
    a conviction? Wouldn't you agree with that?
        Mr. Romano. Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the rest of
    the evidence, which I understand includes evidence of financial
    transactions that he engaged in license-plate-reader hits, that
    sort of thing.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes, intending to do something and actually
    succeeding in doing it are two different things. If you've got
    dogs and people saying the bombs weren't there when they were
    supposed to have already been planted by him and he's confessed
    to planting them the night before, I win that one. Now, we can
    disagree about that and talk about it later.
        Let me ask you some additional questions, if I might.
        Were you ever advised, as you were doing your
    investigations, of any FBI agents on January 6, 2021, being
    inside the Capitol and observing the January 6th rioters?
        Mr. Romano. I'm not sure what you mean. There--I wasn't
    aware of, nor did I see any evidence of, FBI agents within the
    crowd or planted there, if that's what you're getting at.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. How about FBI-paid informants?
        Mr. Romano. I understand there were people who had been
    signed up as informants by the FBI who went there, not at the
    direction of their FBI handlers, but individually. There were a
    small handful of such individuals.
        Mr. Griffith. Did you interview those individuals?
        Mr. Romano. No.
        Mr. Griffith. Did your office--did anybody in your office
    interview those individuals?
        Mr. Romano. They may have. I'm not certain as I sit here
    today.
        Mr. Griffith. You're not certain. You didn't call any of
    those individuals as witnesses in any of the cases?
        Mr. Romano. I did not. I, again, couldn't say that it
    didn't happen in any case, but I did not.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. Did anyone--while you were the
    prosecutor and working on this, did anyone bring you
    information regarding Congressman Barry Loudermilk?
        Mr. Romano. No.
        Mr. Griffith. Did anybody bring you any information about
    any wrongdoing ever done by Congressman Barry Loudermilk?
        Mr. Romano. No, I certainly didn't receive any evidence of
    wrongdoing by the Chair.
        Mr. Griffith. If there was a thorough investigation and at
    one point mentioned that there might've been a problem and then
    that final report didn't have any report saying that there was
    no problem, that might be an issue of contention, wouldn't you
    agree? Wouldn't you agree with the premise that there could be
    an issue of contention there?
        Mr. Romano. I'd have to know more about the circumstances.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that. That being
    said, let me go to Mr. Piehota.
        We've heard all kinds of allegations, but how do you
    explain that the Patel FBI was able to identify a pipe bomb
    suspect once they put their attention to it within about six
    weeks, but the Wray FBI failed to identify a single suspect or
    make one arrest in four years? What does that tell you about
    the way the investigation was handled?
        Why did it take so long for the Wray folks to even look at
    doing a pipe bomb investigation? Can you give me some insight
    on that?
        Mr. Piehota. Certainly. What you saw with the incoming
    leadership team from Director Patel was a renewed focus,
    renewed energy, resourcing, and new perspective on what they
    were looking for.
        Under the Wray FBI, this case was allowed to languish. It
    started to lose energy. Over time, there was a split of
    resources, there was a split of attention. What happened--
        Mr. Griffith. Well, it looked like that happened within the
    first couple of months. Would that be standard at the FBI in
    the case of a pipe bomb being left outside the Republican
    National Committee headquarters and the Democrat National
    Committee headquarters? Does that make sense?
        Mr. Piehota. No, it's highly unusual. They did have the
    larger events that happened on January 6th that they diverted
    attention, energy, and resources to. The headquarters' senior
    leadership and the Washington Field's senior leadership
    diverted their attention.
        Mr. Griffith. Wouldn't you have been concerned--because I
    certainly would be, as a Member of the Republican Party, for
    the Republicans and for my friends on the other side of the
    aisle at the Democrat headquarters--if somebody planted a bomb
    and they have no idea who it is, that there might be a repeat
    offense and that we really ought to dig into that because both
    Republican lawmakers and Democrat lawmakers were at risk?
        Mr. Piehota. Absolutely. It was a public safety issue. They
    failed to do that, and it was a lack of focus.
        Mr. Griffith. I think it is more than a lack of focus. I
    yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz. Sorry.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
        First, let me say a thank you to the FBI and the Department
    of Justice and law enforcement for catching the pipe bomber.
        The other side of the aisle came with videos showing the
    riot on January 6th. Keep showing those videos. We can sit here
    and let's watch a couple hours of that footage. I don't know
    why you think that helps you. It just reminds the American
    people what they saw with their eyes: Thousands of people
    storming into a building and beating police officers.
        If we wanted, at the next hearing, Mr. Chair, a documentary
    standpoint, maybe we should watch all the film from that day. I
    think that would be good.
        Also, it's a weird question to ask, why wasn't the riot
    worse? Why didn't even more people go in? Why wasn't it even
    worse? We had a couple thousand; why wasn't it 10,000? Why did
    some people decide not to break the law? That's a weird sort of
    thing to ask.
        Oh, then we've got Ray Epps. Love this. Ray Epps, OK?

            Ray Epps told us to do it. He told us to break the law and
            break windows and doors and beat police officers and hang Mike
            Pence and try to break onto the floor of the House of
            Representatives and wipe feces on the walls. We only did it
            because Ray Epps told us.

    How pathetic. Who are these lemmings that broke into the
    Capitol because Ray Epps told them to do it?
        By the way, if you go to Ray Epps's Wikipedia page, Ray
    Epps says he's an American wedding planner and Oath Keeper
    chapter president. Number-one wedding planner to the Oath
    Keepers. I will say, weddings are a place that you give an
    oath. That's totally fair.
        By the way, the head of the Oath Keepers is here with us in
    the audience. Stewart Rhodes is here today.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Moskowitz. It's not every day, of course, you get to
    meet someone who was convicted of seditious conspiracy against
    the United States. Hasn't happened in 30 years. Of course,
    sitting in the front row in the reserved section, which is
    controlled by my colleagues across the aisle.
        Not sure why he's here. I don't know if he's here to tell
    us about the Oath Keepers' secret handshake or what treehouse
    they meet in or whether girls are allowed in. I've always
    wondered that about the Oath Keepers, but, yes, he's here.
        I don't know, do you have any questions, my colleagues
    across the aisle, for the head of the Oath Keepers that's
    sitting in the reserved section of this hearing?
        He wasn't pardoned. He's still convicted of seditious
    conspiracy--something you guys say didn't happen, right? If
    there wasn't an insurrection, I don't know how you get
    convicted of seditious conspiracy.
        Then, we've got Mr. Speciale, who says the reason we didn't
    catch the pipe bomber is because we were so focused on trying
    to catch Trump people, Trump supporters.
        Well, Mr. Speciale, breaking news: As it turns out, the
    pipe bomber is a Trump supporter. You're right. They were
    focused on trying to catch people. Turns out, it's just that
    person, the person you're talking about.
        I went to your website, because you mentioned it, Mr.
    Speciale. You put on your website that January 6th should not
    be forgotten, like the Holocaust and 9/11.
        It's interesting that you chose those two events--two
    events that also have terrible conspiracies about them, right?
    Like the Holocaust didn't happen or it wasn't as bad, or that
    9/11 was done by the Jews or an inside job, right? It's
    interesting that you lump in this one with those. I find that
    fascinating.
        Did the Holocaust happen, Mr. Speciale?
        Mr. Speciale. That's an asinine question. Of course it did.
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Did 9/11 happen?
        Mr. Speciale. Of course it did.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Was 9/11 done by the American Government?
        Mr. Speciale. I don't believe so, no.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Was it done by the Israelis?
        Mr. Speciale. No, I don't think so.
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Six million people died in the
    Holocaust, right?
        Mr. Speciale. Yes, I think that's the number.
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK. You--
        Mr. Speciale. I think it's actually worse than that--
        Mr. Moskowitz. It was, yes.
        Mr. Speciale. --when you think about all the consequences
    of all the other--all the soldiers and all the--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Tens of millions of people died in World War
    II.
        Mr. Speciale. Yes, yes, yes.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Yes, 70 million, actually, I think is the
    number of total people that died in World War II. This was a
    conspiracy.
        Mr. Speciale. Yes. That's the frustrating part for me, is
    that we've got Congressman Raskin up there smiling while he's
    watching videos of one of the biggest tragedies that our
    country has ever faced, and he's over there giggling about
    how--and you're saying we should watch it over and over again.
        We should watch it over and over again. We absolutely
    should. Because I think, that day, were it not for Donald Trump
    saying, ``Thank you, everybody; go home,'' it could've been
    worse. Instead--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Oh, yes, yes, no, no.
        Mr. Speciale. --he said, ``Go home.''
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. Reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Speciale. So, no, listen--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Reclaiming my time. I love that. After the
    President told everyone to break the law, mid-law-breaking--
        Mr. Speciale. He didn't tell everybody to break the law.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. Mid-law-breaking, he was like,
    ``OK, pull back, pull back.''
        Mr. Speciale. He didn't tell everybody, ``Break the law.''
    He said, ``Go there peacefully.'' The media distorted what he
    said.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Was that peaceful?
        Mr. Speciale. They edited the clips.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. Was it peaceful?
        Mr. Speciale. Then the January 6th Committee distorted it
    for all the American people.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on, Mr. Speciale. Was it peaceful?
        Mr. Speciale. The truth of the matter is--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. Was it peaceful?
        Mr. Speciale. --Donald Trump said--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. Was it peaceful?
        Mr. Speciale. --``Go home; you've made your point,'' and
    they did.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Was it peaceful?
        Mr. Speciale. No, it wasn't peaceful.
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK, OK. Hanging Mike Pence, not peaceful.
        Mr. Speciale. That's asinine. Of course not.
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK. It wasn't peaceful.
        Mr. Speciale. I can explain better--if you'd give me time,
    I would happily explain to you--
        Mr. Moskowitz. No, no No, no, it wasn't peaceful because
    Ray Epps told people--
        Mr. Speciale. No, it wasn't peaceful because the body of
    the--I've made this analysis--I've made this analysis over and
    over again, and it's very important, and it's lost on many
    people.
        The crowd of people that were there in attendance that day
    were, a vast majority of them, veterans and law enforcement--
    retired veterans and law enforcement. They were standing
    around. Most of them, 99 percent, were peaceful.
        Then the Capitol Police, I believe, panicked. I believe
    that they lost command and control in the Capitol Police and
    they started CS-gassing the crowd.
        Well, veterans are trained to do one thing and one thing
    only, and that is fight tyranny and fight injustice.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Break into the Capitol, apparently.
        Mr. Speciale. That is what we're trained to do. When the
    Capitol Police began CS-gassing the crowd, the veterans and the
    law enforcement stepped forward to protect the crowd.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Speciale. That right there is called a black swan. It
    is what I warned of in October 2020 to the FBI domestic
    terrorism task force. That's how these things happen all around
    the world. They happen in Iran, they happen in Syria, they
    happen in Saudi Arabia, and they happen in Libya. That's how
    it's done. I was warning of that.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman's time--
        Mr. Speciale. In this particular crowd--sorry.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman's time has expired. You can
    submit the remainder of your comments for the record. I now
    recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Speciale, you can
    take great honor to know that Mr. Moskowitz would've treated
    you with much more kindness had you been an illegal appearing
    before this Committee.
        Mr. Moskowitz. That's a lie, but OK.
        Mr. Higgins. Mr. Romano, have you been deposed by this
    Committee, sir?
        Mr. Romano. No, not by this Committee.
        Mr. Higgins. Would you be willing to participate in a
    deposition by this Committee?
        Mr. Romano. Absolutely.
        Mr. Higgins. That's gonna happen.
        Mr. Chair, the COVID-era government oppression was very
    real and impacted American citizens. Our freedom to travel the
    land was greatly restricted--our freedom to congregate, our
    freedom to worship, and our freedom to speak. The government
    oppression that America suffered in the COVID era leading up to
    the November election cycle of 2020 was unprecedented.
        The Biden FBI did penetrate legitimate First Amendment
    communications in groups of American patriots who had the
    audacity to object to government oppression. The Biden FBI,
    trained to manipulate and agitate, did foment rage within these
    groups of American patriots.
        The November 2020 election cycle was compromised. The Biden
    FBI did have undercover agents and confidential informants
    embedded within the rally crowds on J4, J5, and J6. The Biden
    FBI did conspire to entrap MAGA Americans prior to J6 and then
    successfully entrapped several hundred Americans on J6.
        The Biden FBI and DOJ did unrighteously persecute, arrest,
    and imprison entrapped Americans.
        The FBI Director Wray did lie to Congress repeatedly about
    all this abhorrent government oppression against the American
    people. President Trump did rightfully pardon the Americans who
    fell prey to the Biden FBI and DOJ.
        Within months of his inauguration, the Trump FBI did
    identify and arrest the J6 pipe-bomber suspect, using only the
    evidence that had been in the possession of the Biden FBI since
    2021.
        Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to present for the
    record a letter dated January 11, 2021, to the Administrator of
    TSA, signed by Bennie Thompson, then-Chair of Homeland Security
    Committee, and John Katko, the Ranking Member of Homeland
    Security Committee, a renowned moderate, New York, leaning-
    liberal Republican now gone from Congress, identifying Trump
    supporters as insurrectionists and suggesting efforts by the
    TSA to disrupt the travel of White supremacists and other
    domestic terrorists, to quickly deny air carrier services to
    individuals identified as members of those groups, and to
    encourage efforts to identify and add to watchlists the
    perpetrators and members of American organizations that had the
    audacity to challenge the narrative that was presented under
    the COVID era and the oppression that the American people
    suffered.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Without objection.
        Mr. Higgins. Mr. Nantz, drawing from your expertise,
    longstanding, with the FBI, can you find any reason, good sir,
    that the FBI would not have solved the pipe-bomber crime based
    on the evidence in their possession, including cellular
    analytics that--we were advised by whistleblowers that under
    200 possible cell numbers were identified and presented to the
    FBI and the illegitimate J6 original Liz Cheney Committee. Why
    did the FBI not solve that crime, good sir?
        Mr. Nantz. Well, the rapidity of the Patel Administration,
    or directorship, in solving this case demonstrates exactly why
    the Wray FBI failed to do so. As has been stated before, this
    was a matter of leadership. This was also a matter of
    messaging.
        People need to understand the relationship between DOJ and
    the FBI, that the FBI investigates criminal activity, or should
    be, and DOJ conducts prosecutions--
        Mr. Higgins. How could the FBI be that inept, I just ask
    you? To me, I believe it was purposeful. I believe they
    identified their suspects in the under 200 numbers, and none of
    them fit the profile of the so-called alleged White supremacist
    MAGA activists, so they stepped away from that investigation. I
    believe that there's no way they could be that inept.
        Mr. Chair, my time has expired, but my passion on this
    subject has not.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman has yielded back.
        The Chair notes that there is a lot of passion regarding
    this topic. It is something that's passionate on both sides of
    the aisle here. Our objective, or my objective, in this
    Committee is to get to the truth, without political bias, of
    what happened.
        The question remains: How did the previous FBI go five
    years without even a lead, using the exact same data, no
    exception?
        Recently, I've talked to the FBI agents that are currently
    at the FBI, were at the FBI before. They confirmed to me that
    there was no new evidence brought forward. New eyes were
    brought into this process. A Red Team was brought in, which
    also included non-FBI agents that come from teams that are
    out--task forces. They took a look at the same evidence.
        The question being--there's a lot of good information
    that's been brought up, and a lot of questions--is there
    political bias involved in the decision? Is it just a lower
    priority? We know that a lot of the resources were shifted over
    to prosecuting those who trespassed at the Capitol.
        What I'd like to do for a moment is actually look at the
    data that was there during the Biden-era FBI, the same data
    that was looked at by the Patel-era FBI.
        One of the things--Mr. Piehota, let me start with you.
    You're familiar with the CAST team; is that correct?
        Mr. Piehota. Yes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Can you briefly describe what the CAST team
    is in the FBI?
        Mr. Piehota. They're a communication analysis team. They do
    cellular phone communication reviews, analysis of records, and
    dispositions. They can tell you who was where and when. They
    look at the communications network and how it was leveraged
    during certain situations.
        Mr. Loudermilk. We also have from an FBI report that the
    members of CAST were frustrated that they were put on the back
    burner when it came to the pipe-bomb investigation. Would that
    be something that would normally be done within the FBI?
        Mr. Piehota. In my experience, no. You take those
    specialized resources as they come.
        Unfortunately, what they might've run into were turf
    battles, personality issues, and things that tend to hinder
    investigations, where that's where that engaged leadership
    would come in and bulldoze right through those challenges and
    make sure that internal FBI resources were properly and
    completely engaged, which did not happen, it appears, across
    this investigation.
        Mr. Loudermilk. OK. There's no doubt there was violence on
    January 6th. None of us have denied that. I do appreciate our
    Capitol Police, who defend us here and have been here to
    protect us and the other that people are here.
        Now, one of the concerns I had with the Select Committee on
    January 6th is: They had an entire team that was supposedly
    dedicated to investigating how did the breach happen here at
    the Capitol. Now, there's really nothing in their 700-page
    report regarding security failures. However, Republicans
    investigating this, all the way back to Representative Banks,
    who's now Senator Banks, as well as my previous investigation,
    uncovered what appears to be a massive intelligence failure.
        One of those that we're actually getting more information
    right now are these CHSs, confidential human sources, which we
    know that there were several embedded, which that's important,
    for the FBI to have these informants embedded in extremist
    groups.
        We have multiple reports of that, some even indicating that
    it very well could have been much worse, as I've been reading
    over these reports, by some reports coming in that it was going
    to be armed, it was going to be a takeover of the government.
    Fortunately, that didn't happen.
        It is beyond the question that the FBI, through these
    reports, knew that there was going to be violence at the
    Capitol. However, we have been unable to find any evidence that
    this information was transferred from the FBI formally to
    anyone else, including the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S.
    Capitol Police intelligence division. We're still looking at
    that.
        Is that normal operating procedures? Is this turf battle so
    tight within the FBI that they would not report actionable
    intelligence that there very, very likely is going to be
    violence at the Capitol?
        Mr. Piehota. What you found here was a communication
    failure. They downplayed the information. They probably saw
    that it wasn't actionable or it came from sources of
    questionable reliability. They downgraded the veracity of the
    information, chose not to disseminate some of it to the
    partners, and let them make their own decisions.
        In my opinion, it was a bad judgment call inside the Bureau
    not to have that pre-event call, share that information with
    them, let the partners make their own decisions, and combine it
    with information that they may have developed separately. I
    would say it was an intelligence shortfall.
        Mr. Loudermilk. It is clear the intelligence was there,
    because even the Metropolitan D.C., their own emergency
    management department ordered hospitals to double their blood
    supply just based on their intelligence of what was coming in.
        That we would not be able to use these agencies that work
    together to make sure that we weren't caught flatfooted, as we
    were on January 6th.
        One other question I have about the CAST. Now, we do know
    that there was a data request made from all the carriers, and
    it was a huge request of cell phones that were in/around the
    Capitol January 5th-6th. That's the data of which the current
    FBI was able to narrow down, with a combination of the videos
    so they'd know where the suspect was, they were able to track
    him down, and then they were also able to go out and find the
    purchases. This is what pulled things together.
        It's confusing me how that could not have been done by the
    previous administration. I believe it could have; there was
    just a lack of will.
        There's another--something else that was brought up by one
    of my colleagues here was the gallows that were erected. It
    appears from my previous investigation that the FBI put no
    resources into identifying who erected the gallows.
        It's always bothered me that the gallows were allowed to
    stay up all day long. They weren't even taken down until late
    that evening. They were erected at 6:00 in the morning when
    hardly anyone was around.
        Based on this CAST team and this digital data that was
    there, shouldn't the FBI be able to just go look at that same
    data and identify whose phones were pinging right at that area
    where the gallows were erected at 6:00 in the morning? Seems
    like that should be an easy--
        Mr. Piehota. The same investigative model would apply.
        Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Maybe this is something the current FBI
    could tackle. I've exceeded my time. We'll begin our second
    round. The Chair recognizes Mr. Nehls.
        Mr. Nehls. Hey. Thank you, sir. I was running out of time,
    but I finished talking about that first breach. This entire
    document is about Donald Trump. It's about blaming Donald
    Trump. ``Donald Trump commanded--he ordered his followers to go
    to the Capitol to storm the Capitol.''
        I find it interesting, because the first breach occurred 20
    minutes before Trump's speech ended. Why would Trump supporters
    leave a Trump speech and breach the Capitol Grounds before the
    speech ever ended? I've been to rallies, this and that. When
    the boss is up there speaking, nobody leaves early. Nobody
    leaves early.
        I'll tell you why: Because there was never a call to
    violence. There was never a call to violence or a call to storm
    the Capitol.
        That was something the militia groups were craving and
    created on their own. The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, antifa,
    Three Percen-ters--bad actors that day. Gotta say it: Bad
    actors. They were acting alone and not listening to Trump.
    Stewart Rhodes stated that, ``if Trump didn't do what they
    wanted, they would have to do it themselves.''
        The January 6th resulted from a gross failure of
    intelligence, not the actions of Donald Trump.
        Capitol Police Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman was in
    charge of the intelligence division of the U.S. Capitol Police
    in days leading up to January 6th and produced a report, the
    ``January 3rd Special Event Assessment,'' and stated, quote,
    ``Congress itself is the target on January 6th,'' and, quote,
    ``Protesters may be inclined to become violent,'' and, quote,
    ``There have been some worrisome calls from protestors to come
    to these events armed.'' Another quote: ``The sense of
    desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive
    to become violent.''
        Even worse, Pittman testified to the Senate that she had
    shared the appropriate intelligence with the Assistant and
    Deputy Chiefs of the Capitol Police, which is unconditionally
    false. It was never sent or shared.
        Why can I say that? I can say it with certainty because if
    you look at Harry Dunn, Officer Harry Dunn's testimony in the
    previous Committee, he states that, ``he believed that January
    6th would just be like any other day. He had no independent
    reason to believe that there would be violence.'' In his own
    words on July 27, 2021, testimony, Harry Dunn stated, ``he
    thought there was going to be peaceful protests and received no
    threat warning from the chain of command.''
        The question is, who lied? Harry Dunn, you're lying, or
    Yogananda Pittman, who's got a nice job. Pelosi gave her a nice
    capital--a nice job there in California.
        Now, we know why the Capitol Police was so ill-prepared. We
    know why. Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman never shared the
    intel.
        Now, let's talk about the deployment of the National Guard.
    For the Capitol Police to request outside assistance, the three
    members of the Capitol Police Board must declare an emergency.
    This wasn't done--wasn't done until very late. Isn't it
    interesting that there is not a single word in the report from
    any of the three voting members on the board? How could there
    not be?
        Finally, the subject of this hearing, the pipe bomb, only
    mentioned--guess what--five times in this appendix. It's in the
    appendix at the end of the report, even though the pipe bombs
    were by far the most serious thing that occurred that day, as
    they could've killed, maimed many people--the VP, the Vice
    President-elect of the United States. The previous committee
    nor the FBI cared. They didn't care about it at all.
        Understand the effect of the discovery of the pipe bombs in
    the timeline.
        The first pipe bomb was reported to law enforcement at
    12:42 p.m., which drew half of the police--half of the police
    away from the Capitol Building. The officers began arriving two
    minutes later at 12:44 p.m. Then, the bike-rack perimeter is
    breached minutes later at 12:53 p.m.
        Now, that security at the Capitol has been softened--it's
    smart. This was organized. This was an operation, folks. Then,
    at 12:59 p.m., six minutes later, Congress convened to certify
    the election. It's very interesting that the pipe bomb is
    reported just minutes before the joint session convenes.
        Here's the key the American people need to understand: The
    FBI, Patel's FBI, didn't get any new information, no new
    information to find the pipe bomber. They had all the evidence
    to identify him and had been in possession of Christopher
    Wray's FBI for the entire Biden Administration.
        It is extremely bizarre, folks. It's bizarre, because the
    January 6th investigation was the largest and most extensive in
    the history of the FBI. This is the article. The Wray FBI
    aggressively pursued and charged nearly 1,600 individuals in
    all 50 States, including elderly individuals who committed no
    acts of violence.
        They identified and tracked these people down at breakneck
    speed using every tool at their disposal, left no stone
    unturned, when we had an FBI whistleblower disclose to us that
    they were even pulling agents off porn cases, child porn cases,
    so they could catch trespassing grandmas. For the pipe bomber,
    there was comparatively no effort to find this person.
        I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record of today's
    hearing this CNN article titled, ``Biggest Investigation in FBI
    History Still Has Merrick Garland in the Hot Seat.''
        I'd also like to enter into the record--this is good to
    help my colleague from Texas on the other side that talked
    about impeachments, impeachments, impeachments--November 6,
    2024, the Los Angeles Times, ``Trump is elected 47th president,
    soundly defeating Harris to retake the White House.'' This is a
    beautiful one here.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Without objection.
        Mr. Nehls. Everybody read it. I yield back.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from
    Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It looks like a new
    conspiracy theory is born.
        Originally, the pipe bomber was supposed to be an anti-
    Trump person, which was why the name wasn't revealed. Then,
    that's out the window when it turns out it's a pro-Trump
    election denier.
        Well, then they were saying, ``No, it's an inside job. It
    was by a former Capitol Police officer.'' That's out the
    window. That's not who the person was.
        Now, the claim is, ``Well, they got the person--yay for the
    FBI, hurray for Kash Patel--they got the person, but it took
    too long for them to do it.'' That's what the conspiracy theory
    has come to, and this is just pathetic.
        Look, let's start with this. They tried to blame January
    6th on antifa on January 6th. Donald Trump did it himself in a
    conversation with Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy called him up from
    his office, desperate, saying, ``We're being overrun. We're
    besieged here. You've gotta call off your people, Donald
    Trump.'' Trump said, ``Oh, it's not my people; it's antifa.''
        McCarthy said, ``No.'' Effectively, he said, ``No.'' I'm
    paraphrasing here. He said, ``They're in my office. They're
    your people, Mr. President.'' Then, Trump said, ``Well, maybe
    they just care a little bit more about a fair election than you
    do, Kevin.'' Again, paraphrasing, but that's the sum and
    substance of the conversation.
        Immediately, they wanted to try to pin it on antifa. That
    was the whole methodology. That's what Matt Gaetz did when he
    came to the floor, even after we were driven out of our
    chambers by MAGA, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other
    extremists who had been called to storm the Capitol. Because
    you've got to go and ``fight like hell,'' Donald Trump said,
    ``and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a
    country anymore.'' They went to ``stop the steal.'' That was
    the slogan. They did exactly what they set out to do. Then,
    they tried to blame it on antifa. What a fraud it was.
        Was there any evidence, Mr. Romano, that antifa was
    actually behind it? Did Donald Trump just pardon nearly 1,600
    antifa fighters? Is that what he did?
        Mr. Romano. No, there was no evidence of that. In the
    hundreds of cases that I supervised, I saw no evidence that any
    person we charged was antifa or was motivated or driven by
    antifa.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, if it wasn't antifa, surely it was
    undercover FBI agents who made all those people go out there
    and smash police officers in the face and storm the Capitol and
    try to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election, right?
        What about the theory that this was really FBI sources,
    undercover sources, who did it?
        Mr. Romano. I've seen no evidence of that. As I said
    before, there were informants who were present in the crowd,
    not at the direction of their FBI handlers. There were no
    undercover FBI agents directing the crowd. That is false
    information based on a statistic taken out of context.
        Mr. Raskin. All right. Essentially, what are our colleagues
    inviting us to believe today?
        Well, let's see. Ms. Hageman wants us to believe there was
    no insurrection, despite the fact that the House of
    Representatives voted that Donald Trump incited an
    insurrection. She wants us to believe it didn't happen, despite
    the fact that you can find calls replete throughout the crowd
    and throughout the extremist groups calling for an overthrow of
    the government, calling for the assassination of Mike Pence and
    Nancy Pelosi, calling for the killing of Members of Congress.
    No, that didn't happen.
        They want us to believe that Trump, Giuliani, and Sidney
    Powell and their associates didn't lie by claiming the
    elections were stolen. In other words, they want us to believe
    the original lie that set America off on this path of chaos and
    division.
        They want us to believe that Donald Trump actually won the
    2020 Presidential election, which he lost by more than seven
    million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college, with more than
    60 Federal and State court decisions, including by eight judges
    nominated to the bench by Donald Trump, rejecting and
    repudiating every claim of electoral fraud and corruption that
    Trump and his forces put forward in court, and they want to go
    back to it.
        They want us to believe that January 6th was provoked by
    the FBI. Even Director Patel said that was false. Even Patel
    rejects that one.
        They want us to believe that the Capitol Police are
    responsible for hundreds of rioters attacking them. Sergeant
    Gonell, who fought in Afghanistan and said that he saw no
    violence abroad that remotely compared to the medieval mayhem
    and violence unleashed on the police officers that day, that he
    was at fault for it? Sergeant Gonell, who had to resign from
    the force because of injuries to his rotator cuff, his
    shoulder, and his left foot, because he couldn't any longer
    meet the physical demands of the job, that this is something
    that he wanted? These officers who've suffered brain
    contusions, heart attacks, strokes; Brian Sicknick, who died
    the next day after injuries inflicted on him by the mob; that
    this was somehow their fault? It's obscene. It's absurd.
        I certainly hope we can expect more out of this
    Subcommittee than that, Mr. Chair.
        There are some lingering questions. Most of them could be
    answered by Donald Trump, who's never once testified under oath
    about what he did on January 6th other than sit on his hands
    and probably order hamburgers and french fries while he watched
    the whole scene on TV unfold. Did nothing to send out the
    National Guard, under his unilateral direct control in the
    District of Columbia.
        If you don't believe me, look it up, Ms. Hageman. Look it
    up. The President controls the National Guard in the District
    of Columbia. I'll bet you a lunch with your former occupant of
    your office, your predecessor, Ms. Cheney, who is somebody who
    brought great honor to this institution.
        Ms. Hageman. Great--OK.
        Mr. Raskin. I'll tell you this: The truth is a resilient
    thing. We're not going to put up with a pack of lies in this
    Subcommittee and a bunch of conspiracy theories. We're not.
    We're not.
        Have at it. Throw what you want against the wall. You'd
    better learn the first lesson they teach lawyers when you pass
    the bar: When you go to court, you'd better bring the evidence
    with you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman's time has expired. The
    gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is now recognized.
        Mr. Griffith. Let's talk about the evidence. If you learned
    that you're supposed to bring the evidence with you, I submit
    to my colleague he should've brought the evidence onto the
    National Guard. Because in our prior hearings held by Mr.
    Loudermilk, we discovered that not only did the President
    authorize the National Guard in advance of January 6th, but
    that offer was turned down, and then there was some obstruction
    on the National Guard getting here, because he gave the order
    for the National Guard to be brought, and the general in
    charge, according to four officers who were with the National
    Guard that day, with the commander of the Washington, DC,
    National Guard--four of them testified under oath that the
    general never transmitted that order for well over two hours
    after the President gave the order.
        That's the evidence that's out there, and those are the
    facts on that.
        Now, it was made in the prior hearing on this--somebody
    said, ``Well, why didn't the President just call directly?'' We
    all know what would happen. I said so at the time. We all know
    what would happen if the President had done that. They would've
    said he's not following the chain of command, because he's
    supposed to give the orders to the general, and the general is
    supposed to give the order to the National Guard. There was a
    failure there as well.
        Now, that's not what we're here about today. We're here
    about the pipe bombing.
        Let me say this to my colleague on the other side of the
    aisle: It took too long to capture the pipe bomber. It took too
    long. He threw that into his litany of conspiracies. He says
    it's now a conspiracy that it took too long to find the pipe
    bomber. I'm telling you, my friend, it took too long. That's
    not a conspiracy. That is the evidence and the facts. It took
    too long to find this individual, and there was sloppy work at
    the FBI.
        Now, I'm concerned about our safety, because there's sloppy
    work all around on this thing, and I don't understand why.
    Because we saw in the previous investigation through the House
    Admin Subcommittee on Oversight, we saw a video where they
    bring in the detonation robot, or the robot to take apart or to
    make sure there's not a problem with one of the pipe bombs, and
    they didn't secure the area around it.
        In the film, the Chair will agree; he saw it too--you see a
    pedestrian walking by. All the police are standing back. Here
    comes a pedestrian walking by where the pipe bomb is.
        Mr. Piehota, does that make any sense? Why are you allowing
    pedestrians in the neighborhood where you're about to try to
    get a robot--you've sent a robot in to detonate, and you don't
    have the area secured? Does that make any sense to you?
        Mr. Piehota. It makes no sense. The safety of the public
    would be your paramount objective first, to secure the area,
    clear the area of civilians, and make sure that there aren't
    any unnecessary personnel close to the device.
        Mr. Griffith. It raises the issue--and I don't have any
    conspiracy--or, I have no idea why, but it raises the question,
    why? Maybe it was just sloppy work.
        Mr. Piehota. I think you're looking at adrenaline, bad
    training--ineptitude.
        Mr. Griffith. OK. All right. If you can do it quickly,
    because I've only got a minute and 50 seconds left because I
    got wound up about the National Guard, but Patel FBI created a
    Red Team. What's a Red Team? What's the process of setting it
    up? Who makes the decision to set it up?
        Mr. Piehota. OK. A Red Team, it's a term of art. It's a
    review team. He did a case review team.
        He took people who had certain backgrounds and
    investigative experience that were consistent with what he was
    looking to accomplish, put them together, gave them resources,
    gave them priority, and gave them the charter to take all this
    information. He removed all obstacles, and he gave them the
    charter to find out what's going on, look for any investigative
    gaps.
        What the boss is interested in gets done. What the boss
    checks gets done well. That's what you saw here.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, if he did that in 2025, do you think
    that, while the Wray team was focused on something else--and
    you mentioned that earlier--do you think that by 2024 or 2023
    they would've been able to focus and do a Red Team in the Wray
    FBI if they thought that there was a reason to do so or they
    felt that it was important?
        Because I'm concerned about the safety of people who go to
    the RNC and the DNC.
        Mr. Piehota. The senior leadership did not make it a
    priority. The resources weren't dedicated. It didn't happen.
        Mr. Griffith. The safety of Members of Congress going to
    their respective political party headquarters was not a
    priority for the FBI at that time.
        Mr. Piehota. Did not appear so.
        Mr. Griffith. I thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from
    Louisiana is recognized.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I ask
    unanimous consent to enter the criminal indictment of Mr. Brian
    J. Cole as the defendant in the pipe-bomb case.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Without objection.
        Mr. Higgins. Mr. Nantz, the investigation on the pipe
    bomber, that commenced under the Trump Administration FBI.
    Seemed to be initiated just based on a focused effort of
    leadership within the FBI to direct investigative assets and
    procedures to put, quote ``a new set of eyes'' on the existing
    evidence. That's where they intended to begin.
        They had no way of knowing that the evidence that they were
    already in possession of, that the FBI had been in possession
    of since 2021, would produce a relatively short list of
    potential suspects based upon cellular analytics of possible
    cell phone numbers that could have planted these bombs. They
    had no way of knowing that the evidence in their possession
    that they were going to put a fresh set of eyes on would
    produce a solid suspect and, ultimately, probable cause for an
    arrest.
        Their intention was just to review the existing material so
    that they had a good investigative foundation to move forward
    with an aggressive investigation and to solve the pipe-bomber
    case.
        Does that sound like the kind of solid leadership you would
    expect out of the FBI?
        Mr. Nantz. Yes, absolutely. That's what you would expect
    from what we used to call our country's leading law enforcement
    agency.
        Mr. Higgins. Well, I concur. I think they're reclaiming
    that recognition--
        Mr. Nantz. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Higgins. --and that solving the pipe-bomber case was
    quite significant.
        The cellular analytical data--is it true that the FBI and
    our intel services have contractors that specialize in the
    collection of that data and the analytics of that data? It's
    not necessarily a direct CAT FBI employees, but that the FBI
    itself uses contractors to provide some of that data as
    additional assets to the FBI's own CAT. Is that correct?
        Mr. Nantz. Yes, to a limited degree, yes.
        Mr. Higgins. To a limited degree. Would you say to a
    specialized degree?
        Mr. Nantz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
        Let me just clarify, Mr. Chair and for Americans watching:
    Whistleblowers came forward--a particular whistleblower came
    forward in 2022 that is a specialized contractor for cellular
    analytical data that had initiated his own review of cell data
    after J6 happened and the J6 pipe-bomb event was revealed to
    America and that investigation was ongoing, and this
    whistleblower identified telephone numbers and provided them to
    the FBI and, we're advised, to the original J6 select Liz
    Cheney Committee--Subcommittee--the Select Committee, and that
    data went nowhere.
        I ask again, Mr. Nantz, Mr. Speciale, good sir, Mr.
    Piehota, how is it possible that the FBI could be that inept?
    Would you say that it's reasonable to suspect that there was a
    purposeful intent to ignore the evidence that they were in
    possession of? Or is it more likely that the FBI was that
    inept?
        Mr. Nantz?
        Mr. Nantz. It's a matter of narrative. The controlling
    narrative at the time was that the threat to the American
    people was coming from the RMVE threat, the White supremacist
    threat. That was the constant--
        Mr. Higgins. Well, how would they know without analyzing
    the data if it wasn't a MAGA Republican? How would they know?
        Because that's how they identified alleged White
    supremacist domestic terrorists. If you were a MAGA guy, a MAGA
    American, you were in that category.
        How you would know it was not a MAGA guy unless they had
    analyzed the data?
        Mr. Nantz. Well, it's possible that they knew that Cole,
    perhaps in late 2021, was a Black male individual from
    Woodbridge, Virginia, that did not fit that narrative.
        Mr. Higgins. You agree that's possible.
        Mr. Nantz. It is possible, yes.
        Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chair, I find that to be a reasonable and
    disturbing suspicion.
        To my friend and colleague, the Ranking Member, I would
    suggest, it's not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be
    true. We shall see.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman yields. Mr. Raskin's
    recognized for a UC.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I've got several UC
    requests, Mr. Chair. First, ``Defense Secretary Christopher
    Miller: Trump Gave No Order to Prepare Troops Before January
    6th.''
        Second, Associated Press Fact Check: ``Pelosi Did Not Block
    the National Guard from the Capitol on J6.'' That's July 23,
    2021.
        Third, this is the decision of the United States District
    Court for the District of Columbia in RNC v. Nancy Pelosi,
    rejecting all the claims of procedural irregularities in the
    January 6th Committee that were voiced by the gentleman from
    Texas.
        Fourth, Yahoo.com, ``Trump Forgets He Was President During
    Capitol Riot, Blames `THE BIDEN FBI' for Placing Agents in the
    Crowd in the Dead of Night on January 6th.''
        Finally, just two others: This is the staff report that we
    did on the Minority side, Mr. Chair. ``One Year Later:
    Assessing the Public Safety Implications of President Trump's
    Mass Pardons of 1,600 January 6th Rioters and
    Insurrectionists.''
        Then, finally, from Politico.com, ``Trump May Have
    Accidentally Pardoned the January 6 Pipe Bomber.''
        Mr. Loudermilk. Without objection. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentlelady from Wyoming.
        Ms. Hageman. The Ranking Member indicated that the first
    lesson that you teach lawyers is you better bring the evidence
    with you.
        Another lesson that we learn is that you should also know
    the elements of the crime and the relevant statute if you're
    going to claim that somebody committed a crime.
        It's a pretty slimy tactic to use the word ``insurrection''
    over and over and over and over and over again, and yet try to
    hide the fact that the gentleman who's sitting here before us
    today, who was responsible for prosecuting many of the people
    on January 6th, never once charged anybody with violating 18
    U.S.C. 2383.
        You never charged anybody with violating that statute. You
    never convicted anybody of violating that statute. Sitting here
    and using that word over and over again means absolutely
    nothing.
        We are here today focusing on the pipe bomb because of what
    happened that day. It clearly played a pivotal role in
    facilitating the breach of the Capitol, and we need to get to
    the bottom of what happened there.
        These devices were discovered outside the RNC and DNC
    within 20 minutes of the joint session, and the U.S. Capitol
    Police were forced to divide the forces while a crowd of
    protestors moved toward the Capitol.
        The U.S. Capitol Police was not dealing with just the force
    division, but also with the fact that 500 bike racks had been
    removed the night before.
        Who ordered the removal of the 500 bike racks and why? The
    staff of the Architect of the Capitol testified that the
    evening of January 5th, roughly around the time the pipe bombs
    were allegedly planted, the order came down to remove 500 bike
    racks from around the Capitol.
        Mr. Piehota, can bike racks help law enforcement with crowd
    control and deterrence?
        Mr. Piehota. Absolutely. They form a physical barrier
    between the crowd and a protected location, or they can be used
    to help funnel a crowd to or from a location.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, can they also serve as a visual cue for
    nonlaw enforcement personnel about what lines they are not
    allowed to cross? Could removing them spell legal jeopardy for
    protestors who cannot identify what is the line of trespass?
        Mr. Piehota. It creates ambiguity for the public. They
    don't know where those barriers are.
        Ms. Hageman. Did this actually result in legal jeopardy for
    many of the people who were on the Capitol Grounds on January
    6th?
        Mr. Piehota. It ended up that way.
        Ms. Hageman. OK.
        According to the Select January 6th Committee's final
    report, quote,

            At 1:28 p.m., USCP requested the AOC deliver 400 additional
            bike racks to the East Front to serve as protective barriers,
            even though rioters were using bike racks as weapons. The pipe
            bomb discovery at the DNC prevented the AOC from delivering
            them.

    Clearly, the Capitol Police viewed the bike racks as a
    necessary tool for that day, and their removal is absolutely
    baffling. This Subcommittee should focus on identifying who
    gave that order, why, when, and who was involved. We need to
    get to the bottom of this. The previous January 6th Committee
    didn't look into it. They're not the ones who actually
    investigated what happened here and why.
        This statement is also clear that the impacts of the pipe
    bombs continue to be felt by the U.S. Capitol Police officers
    responding to the incident. Mr. Piehota, does this raise even
    more questions about why the Wray FBI did not take this pipe
    bomb investigation seriously?
        Mr. Piehota. The Wray FBI did not prioritize this
    investigation. Again, their resources and their attention were
    split into the other events of January 6th. Over time, what we
    saw was then, I would say, a weak or inept case management
    approach where this investigation eventually stalled.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Speciale, do you have anything you
    would like to briefly add to the discussion today?
        Mr. Speciale. That probably the biggest takeaway in all
    this is that there are 1,600 American citizens that were baited
    into a trespass trap to a great extent.
        Yes, certainly, absolutely, some of them were violent, or
    investigations and prosecutors were warranted. I have an
    estimate that it was almost a billion dollars that was spent on
    prosecuting American citizens. It's a lot of money that we
    spent on trying to prosecute patriotic American citizens.
        Then, you add on top of that the thousands of American
    citizens that, like myself, were also weaponized against for
    deterrence purposes, all the tactical resources. It was really
    a terror campaign.
        I would refer you to the National Counterterrorism reports
    available on my website, and it's highlighted where they want
    an FBI domestic terrorism statute, quote, ``for deterrence
    purposes.'' They want to be able to silence free speech. They
    did that with all this.
        The cause, bottom line, is 51 intelligence officers' memo,
    Hunter Biden laptop. It's all these things where the American
    citizens that showed up that day were at their wits' end on
    having faith in their government. They were vulnerable, as I
    warned, they were vulnerable.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, then, Hunter Biden is a good name to
    bring forward with Mr. Romano here when we talk about the
    appropriateness of pardons.
        Mr. Nantz, do you have anything to very briefly add?
        Mr. Nantz. One of the biggest things that the American
    people need to take away from this is the understanding of how
    dangerous narrative-led investigations can be. What we have
    going on here in large measure are narratives driven by the
    Biden White House through the Garland DOJ. These are, of
    course, communications happening headquarters to headquarters.
        Director Wray, as any leader, can present the commander's
    intent without explicitly doing so. If he's getting
    communications from his boss, who is the Attorney General, that
    the narrative needs to be, ``We need to prioritize and stick
    with the J6 insurrection narrative, the pipe bomber narrative,
    or the pipe bomber investigation,'' in my opinion, was
    deprioritized because of that narrative coming from potentially
    the White House.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, I appreciate your testimony. Thank you
    for being here. Thank you for being willing to expose this.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Loudermilk. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
    for a UC.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is just the website
    from the District of Columbia National Guard stating the D.C.
    National Guard is the only National Guard unit which reports
    only to the President.
        Then, I would like to submit for the record, also under UC,
    18 U.S.C. 2384, defining conspiracy ``to overthrow, put down,
    or to destroy by force the Government of the United States . .
    . or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to
    prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the
    United States,'' as seditious conspiracy, which is synonymous
    with insurrection.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Without objection. I now recognize myself
    for the final few moments of questioning.
        Mr. Romano, you had mentioned to Mr. Griffith earlier--and
    correct me if I'm wrong--that you were not aware of FBI agents
    being inside the Capitol during the violence on January 6th.
        Mr. Romano. What I said was that I wasn't aware of FBI
    agents being undercover in the crowd or inciting action of the
    crowd. I know that FBI agents went to the Capitol as part of
    the law enforcement response.
        Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Yes. We just found that out recently,
    in the last few months, that over a hundred FBI agents were
    deployed as crowd control, which is something that they're
    really not supposed to do, according to after-action reports
    that we've read. That apparently was never made public during
    the trials.
        Did you ever have an FBI agent, one of those agents there,
    testify on behalf of the defense or the prosecution?
        Mr. Romano. I had FBI agents testify. Typically, they were
    case agents who were part of the investigative team who--
        Mr. Loudermilk. These agents would have been witnesses.
        Mr. Romano. Oh, no--
        Mr. Loudermilk. Because they were in the crowd, but nobody
    knew they were in the crowd.
        Mr. Romano. The witnesses who testified in my cases were
    typically Capitol Police and MPD officers.
        Mr. Loudermilk. OK. What I'm getting at is, would they be
    someone who could be compelled to testify as a witness had it
    been known that they were there witnessing some of this?
        Mr. Romano. If they were used for crowd control, I'd be
    skeptical--
        Mr. Loudermilk. If they were inside the Capitol when things
    were going on, would they not be a witness either for defense
    or prosecution?
        Mr. Romano. It's possible.
        Mr. Loudermilk. If the FBI held that back that they were
    there, is that not withholding evidence that could be
    exculpatory?
        Mr. Romano. I would struggle to think how it's exculpatory.
    Most things in the Capitol were recorded by cameras, which we
    produced.
        Mr. Loudermilk. There are plenty of areas that are not
    covered by cameras. I've watched most of the footage.
        Mr. Romano. Sure.
        Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Thank you. Let me clear something
    regarding the D.C. National Guard before I move on to my final
    question.
        The gentleman from Maryland is right, the President does
    have the power to deploy the D.C. National Guard, but there is
    something that is more powerful than the President, and that is
    Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers.
    He cannot just send the National Guard, unless the National
    Guard is requested by the Legislative Branch.
        There were multiple requests made by the former Chief of
    Police for National Guard before the request to call them was
    given, and that was only after shots were fired in the Capitol.
        That request was made to the Department of Defense in the
    one hour on January 6th. However, the D.C. National Guard was
    not deployed, the order was not given to them for more than
    3\1/2\ hours after the request was made.
        On January 3rd, according to General Milley's own
    testimony, which I have not only his testimony that he gave to
    the D.C. National Guard--or to the Department of Defense IG--
    but also in his daily log that we've had for some time.
        On January 3rd, he reported that President Donald J. Trump
    told him to have the D.C. Guard ready to deploy to keep the
    people safe and what other resources he may need to keep the
    people safe on January 6th.
        That was delegating to the Department of Defense. There was
    no question that that was done because there were plenty of
    discussions, which we have the evidence through depositions and
    transcribed interviews, between the officials who were there
    and the DOD IG. The discussion was whether or not we should go
    ahead and deploy them. They knew that they had the authority to
    deploy the D.C. National Guard.
        There was a lot of concern over optics. One of the TIs--or
    one the DOD officials said: ``We did not want it to appear that
    we were participating in an insurrection.''
        If you believe it was an insurrection, by holding the D.C.
    National Guard back, therefore, you participated, right,
    because they were there to help. They would have been a huge
    deterrent had they been there when Chief Sund originally
    requested them.
        I just want to clear the record on that, and there is
    evidence to that.
        Mr. Nantz, is it plausible, given the high-profile nature
    of this case, that the Biden DOJ influenced how the FBI
    prioritized the pipe bomber's apprehension?
        Mr. Nantz. Yes, that's the point that I've been making
    throughout this proceeding, is that there was a narrative that
    was being pushed by the Garland DOJ.
        When you have a careerist like Director Wray, individuals
    like that aren't really motivated to push back on narratives
    that they disagree with.
        In large part that's what happened. You had a narrative
    that was being presented by the Attorney General and was
    communicated to the FBI Director. Therefore, that led to the
    depriori-tization of the pipe bomb case.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you for that.
        There is evidence pointing out that Brian Cole, Jr., was
    present in all three of the FBI's most obvious evidentiary
    buckets: Cell phone data, license plate reader data, and
    financial transactions.
        Is it plausible that FBI investigators knew Cole's identity
    as early as February 2021?
        Mr. Nantz. It's not just plausible, I think it's likely.
        Mr. Loudermilk. If you could remind us, what's your
    experience with the FBI?
        Mr. Nantz. Well, 20-year veteran with the FBI. I started
    out in the Miami Field Office working counterintelligence and
    moved on to dignitary protection, and then finally as a
    supervisory special agent over ground surveillance and aviation
    assets.
        Mr. Loudermilk. There's been a lot of talk about conspiracy
    theories and narratives. Quite often they can interconnect,
    right? What to one person is a conspiracy theory, to another
    could be defined as a narrative.
        I would submit that there is plenty of narrative that came
    out of the former Select Committee on January 6th that just is
    not factual, such as the D.C. National Guard. In fact, they
    reported they took what the DOD IG at the time told them, that
    the D.C. National Guard was not ready. However, they were
    sitting ready at the Armory as early as daybreak, because they
    had been--they mustered, and they were recalled, ready to
    deploy, because of Donald Trump's order.
        The handwriting of a note that the Select Committee
    attributed to one of the witnesses, which a handwriting
    analysis clearly defined and identified, a nine-year-old can
    look at the handwriting of this note and identify that it was
    one of the counsels at the White House.
        There are a number of statements, blatant statements made
    in the January Select Committee's report that just aren't--they
    just don't pass the evidentiary test because the evidence is
    opposite.
        It still confounds my wisdom is why was no one on that side
    interested in the pipe bomb when it was a Democrat Vice
    President-elect who was within feet of the pipe bomb. There's
    basically no reference to that in the report.
        Before we adjourn, I do want to submit a couple of things
    for the record.
        An article, ``Governor Pritzker's Sanctuary Illinois
    Released More than 1,700 Criminal Aliens, Including Murderers,
    Pedophiles, and Kidnappers.''
        An article, ``Sanctuary New York Released Nearly 7,000
    Criminal Illegal Aliens, Including Murderers, Terrorists, and
    Sexual Predators.''
        That's evidence--there's been a lot of talk about pardons
    in here. There's definitely evidence here that violent
    offenders are regularly being released back into the community
    by some of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the
    aisle.
        This is a press release from September 20, 2024,
    ``Transcripts Show President Trump's Directives to Pentagon
    Leadership to `Keep January 6 Safe' Were Deliberately
    Ignored.''
        Also, an article from August 28, 2024, ``Pelosi admits
    blame for `stupidity' in Jan. 6 security failures in new
    released video: `I take full responsibility.' ''
        Without objection.
        This concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for
    appearing before the Select Committee.
        Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
    days to submit additional questions in writing for the
    witnesses or additional materials for the record.
        Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the Select Subcommittee was
    adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Select Subcommittee To Investigate the Remaining Questions
    Surrounding January 6, 2021, can be found at: https://
    docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118824.

                                     [all]