The breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, marked a chaotic and troubling day in modern American history. However, it was not the singular threat to democracy that the progressive media and Democrat leaders portrayed it to be. Rather than offer a fair accounting of what happened—and why—it became the launching pad for one of the most aggressive propaganda campaigns in American history. Within hours, talking points had solidified: this was a coup, an insurrection, and it was driven by white supremacy. Yet no evidence for this narrative ever held up under scrutiny.
Major media outlets including CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NPR repeated and amplified this script with little regard for nuance, context, or truth. What they ignored or buried was just as important: the widespread presence of peaceful citizens who had come to Washington to protest what they believed were unresolved irregularities in the 2020 election, the lack of preparedness by Capitol Police despite forewarnings, the presence of agent provocateurs, and the excessive force used in several instances against unarmed individuals—including veterans like Ashli Babbitt and Roseanne Boyland.
This blog post is an investigation into some crucial questions related to the January 6 Capitol riot. It includes eyewitness accounts, media analysis, law enforcement behavior, legal fallout, judicial bias, and the use of the event for long-term political weaponization against conservatives. It also presents secondhand testimonies from individuals who attended the Ellipse rally and walked to the Capitol, who bore witness to scenes that sharply contradict the popular narrative.
The Shooting of Ashli Babbitt – A Tragedy Without Justification
Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran and Trump supporter, was shot and killed by Capitol Police Officer Lt. Michael Byrd as she attempted to climb through a broken window in the Speaker’s Lobby near the House chamber. Her death became the most visibly shocking moment of the Capitol breach—but it also revealed glaring inconsistencies in use-of-force standards and in media coverage.
Lt. Michael Byrd’s Justification
Lt. Michael Byrd later claimed he discharged his firearm to protect Members of Congress and believed there was an imminent threat. But this claim appears questionable when contextual video evidence is reviewed. Behind Babbitt stood several armed officers, including officers from the Capitol Police and Metro Police Department, who were not acting in defense mode. None of them attempted to detain her. None displayed signs of panic. She was not brandishing a weapon, nor threatening anyone directly.
Video footage shows Byrd’s hand visibly shaking before he fired. Despite this, Michael Byrd later stated in interviews that he had shown “utmost courage.” His hubris is unbearable and obvious. He also admitted in the NBC interview that he did not know whether the person coming through the window was armed.
Lt. Byrd displayed carelessness with his pistol in the past. He was reprimanded for leaving it in a Capitol Building restroom previously.
Could She Have Been Arrested?
Absolutely. Armed officers were directly behind her. They could have detained her without lethal force. The breach of the window occurred in the presence of law enforcement—meaning non-lethal deterrents could have been deployed. Yet Michael Byrd’s decision to shoot her was unilateral and immediate. Critics of Byrd’s actions point out that officers on the ground often face threats from armed suspects and do not discharge their weapons unless there’s an active assault or a visible weapon.
John Sullivan’s Video Evidence
The entire shooting was filmed by John Sullivan, a black activist and founder of the left-wing group Insurgence USA. He was dressed like a Trump supporter, claiming to be documenting the riot. Sullivan’s video captured the moment Babbitt was shot, and his reaction was gleeful. He cheered the breach, encouraged others, and yet later told news outlets he was just observing. Many have accused Sullivan of being a provocateur. His own brother, a conservative activist, publicly disowned him and alleged that Sullivan held anti-white and anti-police views—despite being adopted by a white military family.
Was Babbitt’s Death Justified?
Babbitt’s killing was not only tragic—it was unnecessary. She was unarmed. She was surrounded by law enforcement who could have detained her. The officer who shot her faced no formal charges. Yet, in numerous similar instances involving officers shooting unarmed suspects, the public—and especially the media—demanded accountability and indictments. The contrast in media response to Babbitt’s death compared to cases like George Floyd or Breonna Taylor is undeniable.
Deaths, Suicides, and Media Misinformation
The media blamed Donald Trump and his supporters for several deaths that occurred on or shortly after January 6. But careful examination reveals that many of these narratives were misleading or outright false.
Officer Brian Sicknick
Initially, media claimed Officer Sicknick was killed after being struck with a fire extinguisher by rioters. This narrative was blasted across headlines by CNN, The New York Times, and others. But it was later debunked by the coroner’s office, which found Sicknick died of natural causes—specifically strokes—more than 24 hours after the riot. Though he engaged with protestors earlier, there was no confirmed trauma that caused his death.
Rosanne Boyland
Boyland, a Trump supporter from Georgia, died after being crushed in a hallway outside the Capitol. The official narrative claimed she died of a drug overdose. However, bodycam footage and eyewitness testimony suggest she was trampled and then struck repeatedly by DC Police officer Lila Morris with a baton—even after she was unconscious. The media refused to explore this footage, and no disciplinary action was taken against Morris. Instead, she was honored at the Super Bowl.
Benjamin Phillips and Kevin Greeson
Both men died of cardiovascular-related issues. They were Trump supporters who came to peacefully protest and collapsed outside the Capitol grounds. Neither was involved in violent activity.
Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey Smith (Suicides)
Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood and D.C. Metropolitan Officer Jeffrey Smith died by suicide days after the riot. Their deaths were later lumped into the narrative of “officers killed by Trump supporters,” despite the absence of direct links.
No suicide notes tied their mental state to the events of January 6, yet their widows were offered recognition and lucrative death benefits that incentivized affirming this narrative.
Capitol Police even received “emotional support animals” afterward—a decision some found strange for a force that is supposed to be elite, disciplined officers guarding Congress. One would not expect such mental fragility amongst police officers tasked with their substantial duties.
The Role of President Trump, the Ellipse Rally, and the March to the Capitol
One of the most controversial media claims surrounding January 6 was that President Trump “incited an insurrection.” This narrative was bolstered by selective clips and an unwillingness to examine the full content of his speech at the Ellipse.
What Trump Actually Said
During his speech, President Trump told the crowd:
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
This key line was omitted or buried in many progressive media broadcasts. Instead, emphasis was placed on phrases like “fight like hell,” which were abstract and figurative in context, but were interpreted as incitement when isolated. It’s worth noting that similar language (“fight,” “take to the streets,” “uprising”) has been used regularly by Democrat politicians and media figures without criticism.
The Media Edit Strategy
Legacy outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times omitted the “peacefully and patriotically” portion from most reporting or commentary. This selective editing allowed them to advance the insurrection narrative with minimal resistance. The impact was devastating: millions believed the false narrative that Trump called for violence, when in fact he called for peaceful protest.
The Crowd at the Ellipse
Eyewitnesses, including a trusted acquaintance of mine, testified to the civility of the crowd. Many were over age 45, of mixed races and backgrounds, and were described as orderly. They picked up trash, respected personal space, and came prepared for a day of peaceful protest. Videos confirm this general mood prior to any breach of the Capitol. The group moved from the Ellipse toward the Capitol by foot, passing near buildings such as the Department of Justice. One account described DOJ employees making obscene gestures and mocking the crowd from inside the windows. Did these DOJ employees know the chaos which awaited them at the Capitol building?
Port-a-Potties and Medical Assistance
Despite a crowd of over 100,000 expected attendees, adequate facilities and emergency stations were not set up at either the Ellipse or near the Capitol. This absence of basic infrastructure suggests negligence—or worse, intentional failure. If organizers knew the crowd was expected to gather at the Capitol post-speech, why weren’t medical tents, toilets, and water stations deployed in advance? This gap in planning left protestors—especially elderly participants—at risk.
Ray Epps, John Sullivan, and Questions of Provocation
Ray Epps
One of the most debated figures in the January 6 event is Ray Epps, a middle-aged man filmed on January 5 and 6 urging people to “go into the Capitol.” In one clip, he shouts this goal only to be met with chants of “Fed! Fed! Fed!” from the Trump-supporting crowd. Epps is also seen giving orders to young men dressed as MAGA supporters, whom many believe to be operatives. While hundreds were arrested and imprisoned, Epps was not charged initially. When charges did come after strong public suspicion about his role, they were minor, and he received probation.
FBI Director Christopher Wray and other FBI officials refused to answer questions about Ray Epps and other possible federal operatives before congressional hearings. This lack of transparency should raise suspicions from the normal American citizen.
Media and DOJ Protection
The media dismissed suspicions of Epps as “conspiracy theory,” and 60 Minutes aired a sympathetic segment portraying him as a victim. Yet, questions remain: Why was he treated differently? Why was he seen in the middle of key moments but later edited out of coverage? Why did he seem to be coordinating with individuals who dismantled barricades moments before the breach?
John Sullivan
John Sullivan, founder of the radical leftist group Insurgence USA, filmed the moment Ashli Babbitt was shot. Dressed in MAGA gear, he encouraged others to push forward. Sullivan has a complicated background: he is the black adopted son of a white military couple, and has publicly criticized them for being white and patriotic. His brother, James, also a black adopted son, is a conservative activist, He has distanced himself from John, accusing him of holding anti-American views.
Sullivan sold his video to several media outlets, allegedly earning over $70,000. He was later arrested but claimed he was “just documenting.” His social media posts before and after the riot show celebratory and radical language—including threats toward Trump.
National Guard, Pelosi’s Role, and Speculation of a Setup
Trump’s Offer of National Guard Assistance
In the days leading up to January 6, 2021, President Trump and his administration reportedly offered to provide up to 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the Capitol and surrounding areas. This offer was made known to the Department of Defense and to congressional leaders, including then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. However, the offer was declined or left unacted upon.
Why Was the Offer Declined?
This decision has led to serious speculation. Why would Capitol leadership reject security assistance, knowing a massive rally was planned and tensions were high? Some suspect that Pelosi and other congressional leaders either underestimated the threat or—more cynically—wanted to allow a spectacle to occur, which could later be used to delegitimize Trump and his supporters. In either case, the result was an undermanned, underprepared Capitol Police force placed in an unwinnable situation.
Capitol Police Officers Felt Betrayed
Internal communications and testimony from Capitol officers suggest many felt betrayed by their leadership. Some said they were intentionally “set up to fail.” Officers were left without riot gear. Barricades were few and easily breached. Officers described confusion, poor command structure, and an inability to communicate across channels.
These failures were not purely logistical—they appeared political. Officers on the ground may have believed they were protecting the Capitol with full support, but they were not informed of available reinforcements or higher-level decisions.
Aftermath: National Guard Sleeping in Parking Garages
Following the riot, National Guard troops were deployed to the Capitol. But instead of being housed in proper facilities, many were forced to sleep in parking garages, on cold concrete, often near vehicle exhaust. Some slept in dogpiles in hallways. Photos of these conditions shocked the public and drew bipartisan outrage. Though the troops had defended the Capitol, they were treated with disregard.
Reports also surfaced of moldy fruit, food with metal shavings and poorly cooked food—such as raw chicken—being served to troops by minority-owned vendors selected by Democrat officials. Some soldiers became sick.
Some states stepped in and provided better food for their soldiers, or called them back to their home state in disgut for their disrespectful treatment. Democrat legislators expressed derision towards their presence. The perception was one of disdain for the very forces Democrats had earlier claimed were essential to preserving “democracy.”
Distrust of Trump’s Influence over Military
There was also deep paranoia among Democrats that Trump might somehow use the military to contest or reverse the election results. Reports claimed that even religious tattoos—such as those worn by Fox News contributor Pete Hegseth—were considered reasons to keep some soldiers from serving near the Capitol, under fear they might be loyal to Trump.
This hysteria led to an unprecedented militarization of Washington, D.C., for weeks following the riot, complete with fencing, razor wire, and thousands of troops—all while the media and political class continued pushing the narrative of an “ongoing threat.”
Two Entrances, Two Stories – The Uneven Narrative
The Peaceful Side of the Capitol
While one side of the Capitol experienced chaos, tear gas, and window smashing, the opposite side was reportedly calm and almost celebratory. Video footage and testimonies show protestors entering peacefully, even being waved in by Capitol Police. There were no barricades, no violence—just chanting, praying, and singing.
The vast majority of those walking from the Ellipse rally arrived on this peaceful side. Many never knew a riot was underway. They posed for pictures and left peacefully. But their presence was later lumped into the insurrection narrative.
Was the Violence Synchronized?
Some suspect a setup: that violent actors were coordinated to breach one side of the Capitol while other protestors were funneled toward peaceful entrances, creating the impression that all were part of the same illegal event. This theory gains credibility when one observes that few media outlets ever acknowledged the peaceful side’s existence.
The Injustice of Prosecution, Pelosi’s Committee, and the “Insurrection” Narrative
Harsh Sentences for Nonviolent Protesters
Following the events of January 6, hundreds of Americans were arrested and prosecuted. While some were charged with violent offenses or property destruction, a significant number of defendants were nonviolent, elderly, or guilty only of trespassing. Yet they received harsh sentences.
Examples include:
- Lonnie Coffman, a 71-year-old man and Vietnam veteran, sentenced to nearly four years in prison after being caught with firearms in his truck—despite there being no evidence he entered the Capitol.
- Guy Reffitt, a Texan who did not enter the Capitol but encouraged others to protest, was sentenced to over 7 years.
- Jessica Watkins, a transgender Oath Keeper and military veteran, received 8.5 years despite no proof of physical violence.
- Richard Barnett, the man photographed sitting at Nancy Pelosi’s desk, was sentenced to 4.5 years, largely due to the optics of the photo—not any act of violence.
Many of these sentences were issued by Democrat-appointed judges, including judges with past associations to left-leaning political causes or administrations. Some were Republican-appointed judges who were nominated with political pressure from the Democrats. The language used during sentencing frequently referenced the supposed threat to “our democracy,” echoing Democrat talking points rather than objective legal standards.
It should be noted that some individuals, like Ronald McAbee, a former sheriff’s deputy, were trying to help others escape death. He intervened to pull people out of the crushing crowd. Others pushed back at officers they belieed were beating unarmed citizens.
In McAbee’s case, he wore a Sheriff’s badge and gear, and video appears to show him helping an unconscious man. Yet he was arrested, labeled an insurrectionist, and held for nearly two years before partial release.
Differential Treatment vs. BLM Rioters
Contrast this with the thousands of BLM rioters who were never charged—or had charges dropped. Cities like Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Washington D.C. saw far more property damage, arson, and assaults on police officers during 2020. Yet those acts were either ignored or excused as righteous anger. January 6 defendants, by contrast, were branded as domestic terrorists.
Pelosi’s Partisan Committee
Nancy Pelosi’s Select Committee on January 6 was formed in a highly unusual and politicized way. Normally, both parties appoint their own representatives to a select committee. But Pelosi rejected the GOP’s proposed members—Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks—and instead appointed two Republicans who were openly hostile to Trump: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
The result was a “bipartisan” committee in name only. It functioned more like a prosecutorial panel, with no cross-examination, no defense witnesses, and carefully choreographed primetime hearings. Their purpose was to reinforce the narrative that Trump incited a coup. Many, including myself, would sarcastically refer to it as Pelosi’s Kangaroo Court.
Public Reaction and Polling
While initial coverage seemed to sway some public opinion, longer-term polling showed waning interest and skepticism. Even polls conducted by ABC/Washington Post (both progressive-leaning outlets) showed that many Americans believed the Committee was biased and that the media coverage of January 6 was overblown.
Other polls revealed that most Republicans and a substantial number of independents did not see the event as an “insurrection,” but rather as a protest that turned chaotic due to poor planning, agent provocateurs, and heated rhetoric.
January 6 Media Narrative Comparison
| Controversial Aspect | Progressive Media Narrative | Conservative Media Narrative |
|---|---|---|
| Description of the Event | An attempted coup driven by white supremacy and right-wing extremism | A protest that turned into a riot, not an organized coup |
| Ashli Babbitt’s Death | Babbitt was a threat; shooting justified to protect lawmakers | Unjustified shooting of an unarmed veteran; excessive force |
| Use of the Term ‘Insurrection’ | ‘Insurrection’ used repeatedly to describe all protesters | Term misused for political purposes; not a true insurrection |
| Capitol Police Preparedness | Unforeseen, overwhelmed police; blamed Trump for the chaos | Security failed despite offers from Trump; Pelosi declined help |
| Media Coverage of BLM vs. J6 | BLM protests were mostly peaceful; J6 was an unprecedented threat | BLM caused more destruction, but received media excuses |
| Involvement of Ray Epps | Minimized or ignored his incitement; portrayed as inconsequential | Suspicious behavior; believed to be a federal provocateur |
| John Sullivan’s Role | Downplayed or ignored; not highlighted in coverage | Left-wing agitator disguised as Trump supporter; filmed inside |
| National Guard Deployment | Trump delayed response; military unprepared due to his inaction | Trump pre-authorized troops; ignored by local leaders for optics |
| Trump’s Ellipse Speech | Incitement to violence by Trump; omitted ‘peacefully’ portion | Trump urged peaceful protest; media manipulated the quote |
| Deaths Linked to the Event | Blamed Trump for all deaths including natural causes and suicides | Many deaths from natural causes or police actions; blamed unfairly |
| Pelosi’s Jan 6 Committee | Impartial and necessary for accountability | Biased panel; Republicans excluded; Cheney/Kinzinger were anti-Trump |
| Treatment of Protesters | Justified arrests and harsh sentencing; framed as domestic terrorism | Political prisoners; sentences far exceed crimes committed |
| Narrative Rehearsal Allegations | Denied or ignored possibility of pre-planned narrative shaping | Media and political coordination evident in fast ‘insurrection’ labeling |
Additional Angles and Recommendations for Exploration
To understand January 6 fully, the following aspects merit additional investigation:
- Undercover Federal Operatives: Who exactly were the young, clean-cut men in Trump gear taking orders from Ray Epps and dismantling barricades in synchronization?
- John Sullivan’s Full Video: The full audio and video—since removed from YouTube—contains valuable information about what really happened and how provocateurs influenced the crowd. He incriminated himself in the video. At one point, he engaged in a conversation wih a Capitol officer that implied he might get hurt if he didn’t let the crowd proceed towards the House Chamber to confront the legislators.
- Media Pre-Coordination: Was the “insurrection” narrative rehearsed? The speed and uniformity of synchronized media coverage and language suggest pre-existing messaging plans.
- Law Enforcement Failure: Were lower-level Capitol officers intentionally kept in the dark by superiors? Why were so few resources allocated for protection?
- Steven Sund, Chief of Capitol Police: Chief Sund testified that he requested National Guard troops repetitively prior to January 6 and his requests were denied by those who reported directly to Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. His resignation was demanded within hours after the January 6 riot, indicating that he was pre-selected as a scapegoat. He has stated publicly that his men were set up.
- Medical Facilities: Why weren’t port-a-potties, water stations, or EMT tents provided—especially knowing the crowd was older and traveling?
- Treatment of National Guard: The decision to house soldiers in parking garages and feed them undercooked meat, moldy fruit and food with metal shavings raises serious questions about priorities. Did the Democrats select some of their donors to provide food for the soldiers? Were these vendors vetted as being able to handle the volume in a professional, sanitary manner? I suspect the Democrats contracted for meals with a minority-owned business that wasn’t equipped to handle the volume.
- Capitol Officer Harry Dunn was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by Joe Biden. The media portrayed him as a brave, black officer battling white supremacists in hand-to-hand combat. He claims he defended lawmakers from rioters in locations of intense conflict. However, video footage from the Capitol surveillance and bodycams refutes his testimony in this regard. He also claims that protesters were uttering racial slurs like the n-word towards him, but there is no evidence of this in the mountans of surveillance footage and video that has been reviewed by independent reporters. My impression is that Harry Dunn is not a truthful person and exaggerated his heroism.
- Convicted protesters were held in the DC jail in deplorable conditions. Guards were apparently instructed to treat the Capitol riot offenders in a worse manner than other prisoners. Some reported insect infestation and leaking plumbing, as well as unbearable solitary confinement.
Conclusion and Reflection
The events of January 6, 2021, were chaotic, confused, and tragic—but they were not an insurrection in the sense the media declared. The actual facts, when reviewed objectively, reveal a vastly more complex picture: a crowd of Americans, many of them older and peaceful, gathered in Washington to express their deep concerns about election integrity. Most obeyed the law. Some trespassed. A smaller number engaged in violence. A few may have been provoked by infiltrators. And tragically, two women—Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland—died in circumstances that raise serious ethical and legal questions.
What followed was not an honest reckoning, but a narrative weapon. Progressive media outlets colluded—wittingly or unwittingly—with political actors to frame January 6 as a coup attempt driven by white nationalism and directed by President Trump. This was not supported by evidence. No racial motive was ever proven. No weapons were found on most protestors. The violence, though real and regrettable, was far less severe than that seen in many BLM or Antifa riots throughout 2020.
Hundreds were arrested and prosecuted, sometimes with exaggerated charges and harsh sentences. Elderly, disabled, and nonviolent individuals were treated as political threats while Antifa rioters walked free. Capitol Police officers were abandoned by leadership before the riot and lavished with symbolic support afterward—“emotional support animals,” parades, and praise—yet no investigation was allowed into how their command structure failed so dramatically.
Meanwhile, questions about provocateurs—Ray Epps, John Sullivan, and others—remain unanswered. Why were some agitators protected by the press? Why did Nancy Pelosi refuse National Guard support? Why were peaceful protestors at the Capitol not distinguished from rioters?
The answer is simple: January 6 served a political purpose. It allowed Democrats to frame all dissent as dangerous extremism. It fueled a media frenzy that drowned out questions about the 2020 election. It justified surveillance of ordinary citizens. It divided the country further. And it attempted to stigmatize millions of patriotic Americans as traitors.
But truth is resilient. Over time, the narrative is cracking. More footage is emerging. Eyewitnesses are speaking up. Injustices are being exposed. And as we review January 6 with clear eyes and steady hearts, we find not an insurrection—but an opportunity to ask hard questions about power, propaganda, and what it means to be a free republic.
Personally, I have zero respect for the Democrat Party and hope that they are never able to gain control of our nation again due to the events of the last four years. I hope they are a permanent minority party.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
Some sources of information may reflect a libertarian and/or atheistic perspective. I may not agree with all of their opinions, but they offer some worthwhile comments on the topic under discussion.
Additionally, language used in the videos may be coarse. Coarse language does not reflect my personal standards.
Also, I do not acknowledge that anyone transitions from male to female, and vice versa. While I might use the language of the left for purposes of communication, like the words transgender or cisgender, I do not believe their concepts. Trans men are women deluded into thinking they are men, and trans women are men deluded into thinking they are women. Trans men are not men, and trans women are not women.
Finally, those on the left often criticize my sources of information, which are primarily conservative and/or Christian. Truth is truth, regardless of how we feel about it. Leftists are largely led by their emotion rather than facts. It is no small wonder that they would criticize the sources that I provide. And, ultimately, my wordview is governed by Scripture. Many of my critics are not biblical Christians.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something, though.
I will continue to add items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.