[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]