House subcommittee that oversees the U.S. Capitol Police I have a few questions It was addressed to USCP Director J. Thomas Munger regarding the disciplinary records of two police officers who likely committed perjury in the 2022 Oath Keeper trial. This record was kept by the Oath Keepers’ lawyers and may have been relevant to their defense.
Here’s what happened and how we got here.
“I am particularly concerned about the USCP Office of Professional Responsibility and the perceived undue political influence on this process,” Loudermilk wrote.
On October 4, 2023, Blaze Media reported that the October 31, 2022 O.S. announced the results of nearly a year’s worth of research into Keeper’s trial testimony. On the eve of publication, Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was ousted as Speaker of the House.
In the absence of the Speaker, the final decision on the public release of closed-circuit television video footage of the Capitol that recorded the events of January 6, 2021 rests with the Speaker’s office, so the testimony of where Lazarus was and where he was. This meant losing permission to use the supporting video. What he claimed to have witnessed that afternoon could not have happened.
New House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) finally gave Blaze Media permission in January to release surveillance video showing Special Agent Lazarus’ possible perjury in that trial.
Proof of perjury | The truth of January 6thwww.youtube.com
But long before that article was first published, a former Capitol Police official who requested anonymity for fear of retribution came forward with Blaze about past disciplinary actions that called into question Lazarus’ trial testimony and its credibility in general. -Told the media.
In 2016, Lazaro was assigned to the Dignitary Protection Division and was involved in covering up an incident in which he was found to have been drinking on duty. Lying during an internal affairs investigation is a crime punishable by the death penalty. At the very least, this incident should have been made known to the Oath Keepers’ defense team, who could have used that knowledge to impeach Lazarus’ testimony during cross-examination.
But Lazarus was not fired. And the Oath Keepers’ lawyers were left in the dark.
Blaze Media has spent months obtaining the 2016 USCP Office of Professional Responsibility disciplinary report, but our efforts have been met with fierce opposition from USCP leadership and its general counsel.
Thomas “Tad” DiBiase. Capitol Police officials have also resisted submitting their OPR reports to the Congressional committee tasked with overseeing the USCP. A senior aide to the House Administration Committee Oversight Subcommittee who has seen the report told Blaze Media that its contents are “nuclear.”
in the letter Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) wrote to the Chief Administrator on March 1 for more complete information on the 2016 disciplinary report, as well as direct information from Blaze Media. It also requested details about a separate internal investigation into Lazarus, which was launched in November 2023 as a result of. report.
Loudermilk’s letter details how his committee found the findings and conclusions of the new disciplinary investigation to be “flawed.”
“I am particularly concerned about the USCP Office of Professional Responsibility and the perceived undue political influence on this process,” Loudermilk wrote.
Loudermilk also cited the Oath Keepers’ court records to show that Lazarus’ testimony presented in the Blaze Media report is inconsistent with Capitol Hill CCTV evidence, which contradicts Lazarus’ testimony. accused Capitol Police investigators of not using those CCTV videos.
Loudermilk’s letter also contains additional details that, if true, would raise further questions about the conduct of federal prosecutors in the Oath Keepers trial. According to Loudermilk, OPR investigators “relied on statements made by federal prosecutors in the case in which Special Agent Lazarus was called as a witness.”
Blaze Media also learned from a congressional source that federal prosecutors were “certainly consulted and interviewed” by Capitol Police investigators during the November investigation.
As for the 2016 Internal Affairs investigation, a letter from Loudermilk to Munger revealed that Lazarus had been reported to OPR for violating “Communist Party of the United States policy regarding consumption of alcohol while on duty.” The alleged violations occurred “at a National Republican Campaign Committee event in Florida.” Two Senior Protection Officers witnessed Lazarus “drinking what appeared to be an alcoholic beverage with a member of Congress” across the bar. Additionally, investigators “observed that Special Agent Lazarus was unsteady on his feet and slurred speech.”
Lazarus was immediately sent back to Washington, DC. When questioned, he denied drinking on his job, claiming he had “two or three drinks.”
Non-alcoholic Mixed drinks will be available on the day. ”
“Agent Lazarus may have intentionally made false or misleading statements,” OPR’s investigation concluded.
Multiple USCP officials told Blaze Media that lying to agency investigators is “terminable” conduct. A law enforcement officer who makes a false statement to an investigator must disclose that fact to the public defender under the following provisions:
“Brady and Giglio” precedent.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice:
In preparing for trial, it is the duty of federal prosecutors to seek all exculpatory and impeachment information from all members of the prosecution team. Members of the prosecution team include federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and other government officials who participate in the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases against defendants.
Further afield:
The prosecutor may not provide any information inconsistent with any element of the crime charged against the defendant, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information makes the difference between the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the crime charged. , or disclose information that establishes a qualified affirmative defense.
All crimes that occurred on Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021 were under the investigative jurisdiction of the Capitol Police. The department was responsible for referring each investigation to the Justice Department and FBI. Blaze Media has learned from Oath Keepers’ attorneys that both the U.S. Communist Party and federal prosecutors disclosed Mr. Lazarus’ 2016 Office of Professional Responsibility investigation to them prior to his October 31, 2022 testimony. I heard that they hadn’t.
Neither the Capitol Police nor the Justice Department made available to the Oath Keepers’ lawyers the Capitol CCTV video that recorded Lazarus’ movements inside the Capitol on January 6th.
Video discovered by Blaze Media investigative reporters conclusively shows that Lazarus did not witness the controversial encounter between four Oath Keepers and former United States Communist Party official Harry Dunn. Ta. In it, Lazarus provided key testimony or four in which Lazarus claimed to have witnessed “hostile” encounters between Dan and “three Oath Keepers.” ” However, surveillance camera footage proves that Lazarus was in another Senate building when the encounter began and did not arrive until minutes after the Oath Keepers had departed.
The Capitol Police have a lot of explaining to do. This story is developing.
