A couple of weeks ago, I received an unsolicited spam text from The Epoch Times, informing me that their “documentary” called “The Real Story of January 6” was going to be available to view for free until January 6. Normally I’d immediately respond to such texts with “STOP” and move on with my day, but I know people who read The Epoch Times and I figured this was a good opportunity to see first-hand what they’re being told.
What is The Epoch Times?
If you’re not familiar with this publication, it’s one of the more prominent far-right “news” outlets. They claim to offer “real news other media outlets don’t report” and state that “independent and unbiased news is more important now than ever.” It’s true that a lot of what they offer is not reported in other media outlets, but their claims of being independent and unbiased don’t hold water. In particular, they have well-established ties to a Chinese religious movement called Falun Gong, and while their exact ownership structure is opaque, the company’s original mission was to promote their beliefs and positions in Western culture. The group’s opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and belief that Donald Trump is an agent for the CCP’s downfall has led them to engage directly in US politics in explicitly pro-Trump ways. Most notably, they were the second-biggest spender on pro-Trump Facebook ads in 2019. [source]
It’s also pretty obvious what their bent is by simply scrolling down to their endorsements from prominent conservative influencers such as Sean Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, Glenn Beck and Larry Elder:
To be clear, I’m not saying that opposition to the CCP is a knock against them. In fact, there are few positions more bipartisan than that in 2024. But a publication which supports Trump out of a belief that he will further their goal of bringing down the CCP is one with a clear agenda (not very America-first, either) which drives their editorial decisions more than a commitment to the truth or American democracy.
But whatever their motivations, they’ve become an influential piece in a larger conservative news ecosystem and therefore deserve to be taken seriously. My goal with this post is to evaluate the claims of their film to see if it is as propagandist as their reputation, and if so, demonstrate why Americans should not trust their reporting.
The Film
I watched this on their website for free over January 4 and 5 and took notes of the various claims and arguments throughout the film. While I won’t reproduce the entire play-by-play here, I’ll summarize and respond to the main points of the film below. I’ve broken this down into chronological sections indicated by timestamps.
00:03 - 00:20: Criticism of Riot Control Measures
The first segment focuses on the tactics and methods used by the Capitol police in controlling the riot. The film shows various clips of the conflict between police and protestors, with mostly straight-forward descriptions by Epoch Times Senior Investigative Journalist Joe Hanneman. The film is clearly trying to come across as Serious Journalism by not straying (yet) into heavy editorializing or speculation, and includes interviews with Stan Kephart, who seems to legitimately be an expert in police crowd control tactics, though one who is often sought when trying to argue cases of police misconduct (ie, an unsurprising choice for a film trying to make this argument).
This segment mostly focuses on specific instances of questionable police behavior, such as bodycam footage from a single policeman who was shouting about shooting at rioters and getting more riot control munitions, a policeman who pushed a rioter off a 20ft wall that he was attempting to climb over to get past a police line, a protestor who had a fatal cardiac event during the chaos, and a woman named Victoria White who claims to have been severely beaten by an officer.
Aside from some innuendo about the police activity inspiring the mob violence and some video clips in which their descriptions were difficult to verify (such as who the beating victim was), this segment seemed to be fairly factual. Yes, the police used riot control munitions such as flash bangs, tear gas and smoke grenades. And yes, while not meant to be lethal, they can be dangerous to those in close proximity. But honestly, most of the footage here just looks like any other situation involving police putting down a riot with commonly used riot control weapons, and in this case, the police were significantly outnumbered and underprepared, which may have led to more severe actions due to desperation. That is a legitimate criticism of the police leadership in this situation who left their officers in a bad situation that at times led to more excessive force than should have been necessary. It’s also not a unique one, as evidenced by the police union’s no-confidence vote in Capitol police leadership.
It’s also legitimate to point out that riot control gear is dangerous. Whether this means it should not be used is another question, though. The mob in this case had forcibly entered a restricted area, significantly outnumbered the police, and was in the process of pushing their way into the Capitol itself while lawmakers were inside. I’m sure plenty of people in that mob didn’t intend that day to threaten lawmakers and were just caught up in the moment and following the crowd, but that’s the case in every situation of mob violence. Similar tactics and methods were used to put down riots in the wake of the George Floyd killing, to the point where the city of Seattle temporarily banned their use. People can debate the legitimacy of such methods, but the suggestion that their use in this case was unusual or excessive doesn’t hold water given the circumstances.
The extent of the beating of White is hard to confirm from the footage as they don’t actually show any images of her injuries (her interview was filmed much later) nor video clearly showing her being beaten. There are videos showing her in altercations with police as part of a crush of rioters trying to push through a police line, and a disturbing video of what appears to be an officer hitting someone below them with their baton multiple times. Whether this is White isn’t visible in the video, but regardless, that does seem like excessive force on the part of that officer. The film includes extensive interviews giving White’s side of the story, but none of the evidence against her as detailed (with evidence) here. Police may have used excessive force in their attempts to subdue her, but the evidence does strongly suggest that she was not merely an innocent bystander and had actively engaged with police.
Overall, there’s very little in this section of the film that isn’t already widely known. There was a chaotic riot involving a mass of protestors who had forced their way past police barricades onto Capitol grounds that were closed to the public. Police used riot-control measures to combat it, unsuccessfully for hours, and there were multiple altercations between protestors and police which at times turned violent and led to injuries. This is pretty standard stuff for riots. The film focuses on criticizing specific tactical decisions which may indeed not have been “by the book” and at times unjustified, but ultimately this seems like the sort of criticism that could be levied against police in virtually every mob violence situation, and the film lays very little criticism on the individuals who never should have been there in the first place. These are defenses you frequently hear from conservatives when the rioters are not white conservatives, so the criticisms here, while not completely unjustified, is certainly hypocritical.
This section also includes some subtle hints at the larger narrative the film will try to paint, which is that the violence of the rioters was provoked by the police. This is highly speculative and ultimately not a defense of the protestors' actions.
00:20 - 00:25: Conspiracy Interlude
The film now abruptly shifts from granular critiques and subtle innuendo to laying out the thesis of the rest of the film, which is that January 6 was instigated by nefarious forces, not the thousands of pro-Trump protestors who actually participated, or Trump’s lies about the election. It starts by showing headlines from many mainstream news sources using similar language to describe the events (as insurrection, treason, etc.) and suggests this is evidence of coordination, though provides no evidence and it’s not really clear what the accusation even is - that journalists talk to each other on Twitter and know the same words?
The dictionary definition of “insurrection” is: “an act or instance of revolt against civil authority or an established government.” Although we cannot know the intentions of all of the protestors, and I’m sure many were not knowingly engaging in “insurrection,” the definition does objectively fit. The lawmakers within the Capitol were in the process of certifying the election of Joe Biden, and the purpose of many in the mob was to object and interfere with this process. This is evidenced by video footage showing them celebrating in response to news that the electoral vote count had been interrupted by their presence. By interfering with the transfer of power to the president-elect, their actions can reasonably be described as a revolt against the established government of the United States. They may have believed they were in fact fighting to preserve the established government, on the misguided belief that Biden had not in fact won, but this doesn’t change the facts of their actions.
We now get our first interview with Julie Kelly, contributor to the aggressively pro-Trump site American Greatness. She goes into a rambling litany of Trump-world grievances including the investigation into his campaign’s well-documented dealings with Russia and the lack of “punishment” for those who promoted the investigation, the “stolen election,” etc. She claims that this connects to January 6 but doesn’t make clear how. She ultimately suggests that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were framed for January 6 on account of their prior connection to Trump world (e.g. their presence in support of Roger Stone and mention by Trump in debate), claims the Capitol was “intentionally unsecure” on January 6 and that Pelosi and McConnell rejected pleas for help and refused to deploy the National Guard. This was all apparently planned to create political fodder against Trump and to criminalize political dissent.
Hello, rank speculation and wild conspiracy theories! The film does not at this point address any of these directly, though by the end it will attempt to bolster this general argument.
00:25 - 00:37 Prosecutions
Attention now abruptly shifts back to a different topic - the prosecutions of January 6 rioters - and describes the large-scale deployment of law enforcement to track down perpetrators.
So far, around 1,229 individuals have been charged in the breach, out of the many thousands present. This includes hundreds charged with violence and obstruction of an official proceeding. The film tries to paint these prosecutions as heavy-handed, and elsewhere in the video an interviewee claims that this was in contrast to the treatment of Black Lives Matter protestors. For what it’s worth, approximately 14,000 individuals were arrested and charged in the racial justice protests of 2020.
The film tries to generate sympathy for those arrested by describing how they felt shunned by their community or were fired from their jobs. But isn’t it conservatives who are quick to say “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime?” Should people who break the law not be held responsible? Isn’t this their critique (mentioned later in the film) of lax treatment of petty theft in places like San Francisco? Ultimately this is a rather bleeding-heart progressive argument and I’m sure the ACLU would take their donations if this were a genuine concern that doesn’t only apply to white Trump supporters.
The rest of this segment continues along similar lines, describing the suicide of Matthew Perna who had pled guilty to charges of entering the Capitol and was awaiting trial. This is indeed tragic, and my heart goes out to his family. Although he had participated in the obstruction of Congress by participating in the mob that entered the Capitol, he wasn’t charged with destruction or violence and hopefully would have received a light sentence. The Justice Department isn’t known for holding back on charges that they believe they can prove, and the justice system isn’t known for moving quickly in most cases. I’m sure this was a very stressful experience for someone like Matt, and one could argue that our justice system is overly punitive of non-violent offenders. Again, this is an argument that many progressives would agree with and is hardly unique to this situation.
Matthew’s aunt does voice a few points that deserve responses. The first is the claim that the police invited protestors in. This is based on rumors spread online that purport to show police allowing protestors in, which is a speculative interpretation that, even if plausible in a few specific cases, was overwhelmingly not the situation shown in virtually all footage of the events in which protestors pushed through police barricades, broke windows, climbed walls and fought with police (using explosive munitions) trying to keep them out. This extended video paints a good picture of many of the moments outside and inside the Capitol, and while there are moments of calm between protestors and police, it’s abundantly clear the protestors were not supposed to be there and that these moments were more of a truce due to the police being significantly outnumbered.
The film then points to the use of solitary confinement for certain January 6 protestors deemed dangerous enough to be kept in custody. This is accurate, and indeed a concerning practice that Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin spoke against in these cases (in an example of what it looks like to consistently apply a principle even to perpetrators whose cause you oppose).
The film concedes that a small number of rioters perpetrated violence using improvised weapons, but argues they were less dangerous than those used in Black Lives Matter protests. The point is made that these were not representative of the overall protest. While nobody has claimed that most protestors were violent or used weapons, the idea that this was not a “violent protest” is simply not accurate. It was violent in many instances, enough to break through police barricades in multiple locations, assault over 100 police, and ultimately enter the Capitol from multiple entry points and endanger lawmakers trying to certify the election. It is against these individuals that the prosecutions and harshest charges are aimed. And it is because of their actions that the larger mass of rioters in and around the Capitol can accurately be described as violent.
Finally, the film tells the “real story” of officer Sicknick who at one point was reported to have died from injuries, including a thrown fire extinguisher, on January 6. In fact, the medical examiner ultimately ruled his death as being from natural causes. While it is true that many early reports were incorrect, the mainstream media did report the facts when they emerged. The “real story” is not hidden but clearly described on his Wikipedia page and elsewhere. That said, as explained on Wikipedia, there is still disagreement as to whether his stroke was truly unrelated to the trauma he experienced defending the Capitol, which included being sprayed by a protestor with pepper spray.
00:37 - 01:05 Deaths of Babbitt and Boyland
The film then shifts its focus to the deaths of 2 protestors: Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland.
Babbitt’s death was widely reported as she was the only protestor killed by police. She was shot while trying to enter the Speaker’s Lobby, a room immediately adjacent to the House chamber. She died shortly after, while receiving medical treatment. The film begins by scrutinizing the actions of the policeman that shot her. Kephart is back to break down the scene, making a few critiques and ultimately stating his belief that Babbitt was murdered:
Police officer (Byrd) fired “without a safe backdrop” (there were other people in the area behind Babbitt). Maybe fair, though the officer did wait until Babbitt was coming through the window and higher than those around her, so I think this is questionable.
Second officer also aiming at Babbitt didn’t fire, which is suggested as evidence that Byrd made an incorrect calculation. What, do they both need to fire at the same moment for it to be justified? Isn’t the fact that two officers were aiming at the same person an indication that both saw her as a threat?
Use of lethal force must require fear for one’s life. The Department of Justice’s investigation “revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.”
Claims that Byrd needed to immediately render aid, tape off the crime scene and wait for a crime scene investigation unit. This is absurd - if the police had enough control of the scene to leave their post in order to render aid and tape it off, then this never would have happened in the first place.
I’m no expert, but Kephart’s nitpicking seems pretty unfair given the circumstances.
The film returns to Julie Kelly who then claims that the lack of transparency as to Byrd’s identity was highly suspicious and unusual. While it is true that this was unusual, the reason is that the Capitol police are not legally required to release the names of officers involved in shootings as many other police departments are. That’s not a defense of this policy, but it also doesn’t make the delay unlawful or particularly suspicious as police departments regularly do as much as is lawful to protect their officers in these situations.
The film then introduces the notion of “suspicious actors.” This will be expanded upon later to suggest that the invasion of the Capitol was an “inside job” or some sort of “false flag” operation. In this scene, it is based on the apparent fact (hard to confirm) that many of the individuals breaking windows and being most aggressive in the Babbitt scene were behaving “differently” to the other protestors. The implication is that these were not normal protestors, and also notes that many have not been identified or prosecuted. Notably, however, one of these men who was identified is Zachary Alam. The film implies that his lack of conviction could mean he was working with the police, yet he has since been convicted (to be fair, the Epoch Times did report on this). Ultimately this whole notion of “suspicious actors” not being actual protestors is a lot of rank speculation without any proof. This is a typical form of misinformation in which a lack of evidence is presented as evidence itself, until contradictory evidence does emerge which disproves the claim, at which point the narrative simply moves on to something else.
Ultimately Babbitt is portrayed as an innocent bystander, pushed along by the mob and trying to escape the dangerous “suspicious actors” around her by entering the window. While I cannot speak to Babbitt’s intentions, it seems unlikely that if she was trying to escape, it made sense to do so by going through a broken window guarded by police, some with guns drawn (and nearby protestors shouting “there’s a gun!” as in this clip at 12:21). More importantly, it also seems quite reasonable that Byrd, who waited to fire until she had started climbing into the Speaker’s Lobby, the last room before the House Chamber from which lawmakers were still evacuating, felt that this was necessary to stop their advance and fulfil his duty of keeping lawmakers safe. Whether that was Babbitt’s intent is not relevant if that’s what Byrd credibly believed based on what he knew at the time.
I’m not qualified to determine whether Babbitt’s killing was a “good shoot.” It certainly seems so to me, but a new lawsuit filed by her family may shed more light. Regardless, it’s tragic that a young woman was so caught up in lies about a stolen election and exercised such poor judgement as to be at the front of a line of violent individuals forcing their way through locked doors on their way to lawmakers, and in a situation in which she appeared to pose a threat to police and lawmakers. The “real story” of January 6 should be focused on what led her and so many others to take actions that had such awful consequences.
The final story on this theme is about Rosanne Boyland who also died in the riot. Like Babbitt, she was near the front of a line of protestors pushing against a police line, this time trying to enter through a tunnel. The film describes her death as resulting from breathing chemical irritants in an enclosed space and then being trampled by escaping rioters. There is also a couple of clips which purport to show a police officer named Lila Morris beating her on the ground, though this is not at all clear from the video shown. If the person on the ground is indeed Boyland, it’s not clear that the officer striking at protestors standing right around her hit her or intended to, and I couldn’t find any other footage that painted a clearer picture.
The New York Times has a play-by-play that attempts to describe the events surrounding her death. The beating isn’t mentioned, probably for the reasons above that it appears to be highly speculative, but otherwise paints a similar picture.
The film does make some further misleading claims. One is that the police filled the tunnel with enough chemical irritant to cause the protestors to not be able to breath and collapse. A lengthy uninterrupted video filmed by someone in the mob is worth watching to get the full context of what unfolded prior to Boyland’s arrival, though I’ll warn that it’s pretty disturbing. In it, we see a crush of rioters pushing against a phalanx of police officers. Initially, there’s only pushing, but as the attempts to simply hold them back fail, the police start to engage in more forceful tactics, including stabbing with batons and short sprays of chemical irritant. At this point, the scene becomes more violent on both sides, and at one point (12:28) a protestor empties a can of irritant into the air. Calls for “fresh people” can be heard from rioters and to “push” can be heard. Exhausted police slowly push forward as irritant is sprayed in both directions. A protestor tries to rip a gas mask off of an officer as protestors form a human battering ram to try to get through. A police officer yells for help as he’s crushed between two doors. A protestor wearing tactical gear tells the police that the rioters are with them and don’t want to hurt them and that they should turn around and arrest the people inside the Capitol or go home (23:00). At the end of the video (27:00) the police finally manage to push protestors out of the tunnel.
At no point in this entire video did it appear that people were collapsing due to being out of breath, though coughing from irritant can be heard. It seems unlikely that in the brief push that Boyland was apparently involved in, more spray was used than shown in the previous clip which did not apparently cause mass collapses, even much deeper into the tunnel. Her body was also found at the opening of the tunnel where there would have been much more air circulation.
I’ll also note that the medical examiner determined Boyland’s death to be due to amphetamine intoxication, not suffocation or physical injuries. Unlike in the case of officer Sicknick, the film does not raise this as evidence that her death was completely coincidental.
Finally, we have Julie Kelly claiming that the police were the violent and aggressive ones. I again recommend watching that uninterrupted video since short clips can be edited to tell any story, but 30 minutes of the scene makes it much clearer. Were the police violent at times? Yes, but they were the defenders. The aggressors were by definition the rioters who were trying to push into a restricted area against a defensive line of police. The idea that the police were responsible for the violence in the tunnel is ludicrous. If they were a bit excessive in their use of force after more than 30 minutes of being beaten, pepper sprayed and shoved by aggressive rioters while they defended the Capitol, well, I may have done the same in their shoes. The rioters’ behavior was beyond the pale. This segment ends with the claims that the rioters were fighting the police in order to protect Boyland, but while this might have been true of a couple individuals, it was by no means the motivation behind most of the conflict, including that which preceded her collapse.
There’s a final person whose story overlaps with Boyland’s, and that is of Luke Coffee. Luke is from Texas, was dressed in Texan attire, and claims to have entered the area trying to stop the chaos. He noted finding it strange that people were leaving the area while calling on people to come forward. He suggests this made it seem like a “false flag” operation, egged on by provocateurs. While it’s not clear where this happened, he ended up at the same tunnel entrance shown in the video above, in which we could see pepper-sprayed people leaving and calling for “fresh people.” While we’re speculating, perhaps it was people trying to get him to help replenish the exhausted rioters at the front to keep pushing into the tunnel, not undercover operatives? Just a thought.
Luke claims to have been there to de-escalate, and indeed there is footage of him appearing to try to calm the crowd down before standing as a barrier (“standing in the gap” in his words) between rioters and police, using a crutch as a type of shield. I’m honestly inclined to believe that he wasn’t there to cause trouble, though it’s also important to note that prosecutors have video evidence of him coming into contact with police, which is not shown in the film. Whether this was instigated by him or the result of a crush of protestors pushing him into the police isn’t clear from the evidence I could find, but as he failed to mention this in his interview, it does suggest that he may not be quite as innocent as the film portrays. Still, he seems like a decent person who’s experienced some true hardship and I hope he doesn’t get too harsh a sentence (his case is pending).
01:14 - 01:30 Oath Keepers & “Suspicious Actors”
The film now shifts to an attempt to exonerate the far-right militia group Oath Keepers, one of two organizations that received the most attention from prosecutors and convictions of “seditious conspiracy.” The film does not address the other such group - the Proud Boys - perhaps because they couldn’t find similar anecdotes to tell a different narrative.
The first claim references a theory put forth by Brad Geyer, a defense attorney for Oath Keeper Kenneth Harrelson who was ultimately found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, though not seditious conspiracy (as some co-defendants were). The theory, used as an attempt to raise doubts about his guilt, was that there were 80 “suspicious actors” or “material witnesses” that were working up the crowd and instigating violence. The claim was that this was evidence that the violence was staged, and the film says that because many of these individuals had not been identified, this suggests there is truth to this theory. The only source I could find for this specific claim goes to this specific lawyer’s failed attempt at securing a not guilty verdict for his client. The film of course makes no reference to instigators like Guy Reffett who were identified, and who clearly were motivated by the same lies as the rest of the protestors.
The film attempts to bolster this theory by raising the conspiracy theory surrounding Ray Epps. Epps was a former Oath Keeper who is seen on video outside the Capitol grounds trying to tell other protestors to go to the Capitol (as other protestors yell “Fed!” at him), yet apparently does not cross the barricades himself. Another clip shows him talking to a protestor who then knocks over a barricade (both Epps and the protestor deny that he encouraged this). This has led to a theory that Epps was an FBI agent trying to stir up the crowd as part of a “false flag” operation. The film also suggests that the fact that he wasn’t charged for his actions is evidence of his Fed connection (he was in fact later charged, and the reason for the delay appears to have been due to a prior lack of evidence showing that he entered the Capitol grounds).
The theory for why the FBI would do this is never really explained. Julie Kelly’s earlier interview suggested it was somehow meant to harm Trump politically (why they waited until after he lost an election is unclear) and justify subsequent crackdowns or something, but the idea that the FBI or authorities (of Donald Trump’s government, let’s remember) would want Trump supporters to endanger lawmakers of both parties is never really fleshed out. Nor is the apparent inability on the part of thousands of “Stop the Steal” rally-goers to resist the exhortations of random people encouraging them to break the law. Or why, if this was all meant to make him look bad, Trump resisted (for hours) pleas from his own children and Fox News personalities to forcefully tell protestors to go home.
And of course, the fact that Epps and the FBI strenuously deny any involvement or employment history, Epps’s history of pro-Trump activity or prior membership in the Oath Keepers (seems this detail on his resume might have hurt his employment chances at the FBI), is not considered relevant. Again, no hard evidence, just a lot of innuendo without a coherent thesis behind it.
The film now makes the claim that the Oath Keepers were actually there to provide security and help the police, by pointing to one situation involving an Oath Keeper named Michael Nichols who did in fact cooperate with a police officer wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat (that he apparently picked up from the scene). In the scene we also see protestors praising and hugging officers. This sequence of events is indeed interesting, as described in this article. Nichols claims he was trying to help the police restore order and may have been. It’s also possible he was tricked into believing these officers were on the mob’s side, which appears to have been the officer’s intent by wearing the hat. The welcome reception by protestors of the line of police leaving the Capitol (including a woman hugging them) would suggest that this is what many in the crowd thought and is corroborated by the shouts of protesters saying “they’re leaving, we won!”
Nichols is not one of the Oath Keepers charged by prosecutors and appears to have been independent of those that were. In his words, “you might be a Boy Scout but you don’t know all the Boy Scouts in the world.” The Oath Keepers is a large and loosely-organized group of between 5,000 and 38,000 members. There were multiple groups of members at the protests on January 6 who were indicted and ultimately convicted, as described here. It seems entirely plausible that he was acting alone and not representative of other Oath Keepers at the Capitol.
The film also claims there were two other instances of Oath Keepers helping police, though doesn’t give names or many details. But as with Nichols, this doesn’t really invalidate any of the claims against other Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy. And the fact that the prosecutors singled out members for whom there was evidence of criminal behavior, not all Oath Keepers, indicates that they did not treat all Oath Keepers as criminals. The film shows a couple other instances of violent protestors vandalizing the Capitol and tries to make them out to be “agents” (the “straight reporter” Hanneman even refers to one as an “agent” before correcting himself) trying to provoke rioters into entering the Capitol. Again, there’s no actual evidence of this - it’s just a motivated interpretation.
01:30 - 01:39: Trump’s Role & Police Unpreparedness
We’re 15 minutes from the end and the film finally asks about Trump’s role in the day’s events, a gathering that he promoted on X/Twitter (“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”) and which was based on the claims he and others (including the Epoch Times) had been spreading for weeks about the election being stolen. But the film doesn’t mention any of this. Rather, it provides a single interview with Kash Patel, a Trump loyalist who had been appointed as acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller’s chief of staff a couple months before the riot. Patel argues that the accusations that Trump was too slow to act in defense of the Capitol are false, because he had previously offered and authorized 20,000 National Guard troops to defend it. He claimed that Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser was offered and refused the guardsmen. The suggestion is that Trump was concerned about violence at the Capitol and wanted to prevent it, but Chris Miller characterized it rather differently in testimony to the House, saying Trump instructed them to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." In other words, Trump did authorize National Guard to be deployed, but his interest was in protecting the protestors.
As for Bowser’s apparent refusal to request them, she actually did request National Guard support prior to the 6th, and they were deployed, though in smaller numbers and not specifically to the Capitol. It’s true that the Guard was not requested to the Capitol until the riot had started, but their delay in arriving was apparently due more to delays on the Department of Defense side, not Capitol police or the DC Mayor. It is generally understood that multiple agencies failed to adequately prepare for the violence that transpired, but the evidence suggests this is more due to a failure of imagination about what might transpire, lies from rally organizers, and a concern over optics than anything more nefarious as implied by the film.
The film also claims that Pelosi and others asked for tanks and belt-fed machine guns. No evidence is given, and I could not find this claim elsewhere.
The film finally argues that the police behavior on January 6 could be considered entrapment, because of the speculation of nefarious reasons for the insufficient police presence and supposed provocateurs. Supposedly this meant the police secretly wanted the rioters to enter and commit crimes so they could be arrested and abused. This claim is absurd unless you accept the highly speculative conspiracy theories offered without evidence in this film. Sure, entrapment could be a valid charge if this was indeed a false flag operation in which thousands of mindless dupes were lured into committing violence against police and forcing their way through windows, but that is a wild claim that’s not remotely proven by the film and overwhelmingly at odds with the larger body of evidence of what happened that day.
01:39 - end
The film concludes with the following narration:
"The real story of January 6 is not the one that has largely been shown to the public. Normal protocols on a riot were not followed and many people violated laws they did not know they were violating. The most serious acts of violence were on behalf of the capitol police, yet the violence and at least one killing on their behalf are being ignored. But video evidence shows that many of them could stand trial for crimes on use of force and murder. All of these issues beg the question of why. January 6 is now being used politically and as a justification to create new laws on domestic terrorism. But if the foundation is false, then how can these stand? Crimes were committed on January 6 but a two-tiered justice system is not justice, and a political investigation from an aggrieved party is not a real investigation. Potential crimes on all sides need to be treated with equal weight. American needs answers on why the main instigators are not charged. Who made the calls on security that day, and why? Only through a clear and true presentation of the day's incidents can the nation be assured that justice is being served. And only through this light of true justice can America begin to heal."
Response
For a film that describes itself as "reveal[ing] the truth that has been hidden from the American people,” this "documentary" contains very little proof and lots of speculation and innuendo. The style seems meant to come across as a serious journalistic enterprise by featuring many interviews in which videos are described with minimal editorializing and a handful of concessions to facts such as the violence of some protestors and good behavior by some police. However, it's clear by the end that this is mostly a ruse to lend credence to the wild accusations that first come in a wave when Julie Kelly first speaks, and then creep into the narration itself. By the end, we get a summary of January 6 based only on the hand-picked scenes that the documentary focuses on (as if this is the whole story) and claims and representations that are easily rebutted. In lieu of proof, the film leaves the viewer with "questions" which suggest a nefarious conspiracy based on a highly speculative interpretation of videos and events and no actual evidence.
When making a claim as serious as something like January 6 being an “inside job” instigated by the authorities in order to hurt Trump and his supporters, the burden of proof is on you. A supposed lack of conclusive evidence disproving your claims, which are based on dubious interpretations and speculation, does not constitute proof of your claim. It’s illustrative that the film fills so much space with critiques of police riot control tactics which do nothing to further the far more salacious accusations that come later - there just isn’t enough content to make a film about those accusations because they’re based on the thinnest of evidence and innuendo. But this is how propaganda works - you don’t need to prove anything, just provide enough suggestion to sow enough doubt to make your audience question everything. The Epoch Times doesn’t need to convince its conservative readers to be absolutely certain that January 6 was an inside job, just to make them find it plausible enough to dismiss the day as not worth holding against Donald Trump.
Don’t be fooled. The real truth of January 6 is described with ample citations on Wikipedia, in helpful timeline videos like this, in uncut videos like those referenced above, and in the work of the January 6 committee, much of whose evidence came from people within the Trump administration.
The mob on January 6 was overwhelmingly Trump supporters who were led to believe, explicitly by Trump and many around him, and implicitly by the silence of many Republican leaders who knew better, that the 2020 election was stolen. It’s no wonder that they, believing the presidency was about to be held by the loser of an American election, were easy to rile up into storming the Capitol. While the rioters who committed violence, vandalism and who entered restricted Capitol grounds in order to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power are responsible for their actions, the real blame should be on those whose lies led them there.
To understand what led to January 6, what happened that day, and its aftermath, I cannot recommend Liz Cheney’s Oath and Honor highly enough. Liz is an American hero who, despite her support for Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020, recognized that protecting our democracy is more important than partisan politics or personal political success. Her book is long, but I’m not sure there’s a more important read in 2024 given how this election is shaping up.