our next guest was a member of the u.s. of representatives from 2019 to 21. he served as the former january six committee senior technical adviser, also has a book, the breach the untold story of the

investigate into january six. mr. riggleman for coming on the program, thanks having me. we've heard a lot of angles about. the january six investigation in your view, what's the untold story being told? stories, the data you when i wrote this, i know people might have been a little bit confused, the subtitle of the beginning, but i thought after read the book they wouldn't be. but really the untold story is how the data really formulated and buttressed the january six committee investigation. and it also, you know, the untold story that this is just the beginning. we have to look the future. it is really about information warfare looks like so that's how data is sort of the new jason bourne of of investigative techniques. you know, trying to stop sort of this digital metastasizing, you know, conspiracy theories and really like what data did the six committee rely on and what was your role in collecting data? i think it's only the thousands of interviews they did, but when i got there was allowed to build a couple of technical team with one of them being called intel

record teams or a telepathy team looking at individuals, phones. based on the subpoenas that we were to get that data from. and then also open source intelligence research, right? looking at the deep, dark and open and then combining that data, sort of a holistic picture of of the links between each individual or each that was involved in january six. so it was pretty exciting time to build almost the first prototype of a congressional center. you know, we didn't all the resources we could get no one needed more. but on the other hand, i think we sort of set really did something different and set an objective for, the future that we can even at the congressional, even in a slow moving government bureaucracy that, we can look at data in a way that really helps an investigation like this. one of the things that came out of the data that collected is something you call the monster we're showing people the graphic of what it looks like. it looks like a graphic, but explain this graphic is so what

it does it connects all the major all the major muscle movements. so if you look at rally planners, if you look at the trump insiders or trump team, you look at trump family, you look at right wing extremist groups, you look at state legislators or those are we all put an electric bucket, all those groups we can separate and, then we can link all of those groups know through telepathy. and when i say telepathy, talking about just not phone calls, but also voip or estimates or internet. so really text message lyrics, pictures or files that can be shared and we can identify what those are, you know, through phone records and match that to open source intelligence research and what they're doing on social media or what they're doing sort of on the internet or on a deep dive into the internet. it's really it's really wonderful, you know, that we have that access to that kind of data obviously congress just a little bit. we look at authorities, sources, law enforcement. so this is a public trust investigation. so couldn't get everything. but the fact is that we've got enough. and with the tens of millions of

lines of data we were able to collect and analyze, i think we just made an effective for the committee to look at in a different way and maybe sort of customize their questions to be asked a certain people on the interviews. one of the stories that came out of your book and i guess your interviews on this subject on the january six, on the day of a call from the white house, somebody at the january six, one of the organizers. can you explain that for our viewers. yeah you know interestingly you know anybody can call you know the white house switchboard number or a general number. what was interesting in that call are so many more calls. by the way, that we saw and and that's why these calls are so important. but we saw that the call actually originated from a white house desk to falcon to the white house switchboard number, and then connected to a rioter stone on january six, on the afternoon. and when you see this type of data difficult because we can't get all data that's needed if and where law enforcement, let's be honest, we can't get geolocation data or what we call

tower data, but we can't get too from data. and we now know that there are other white house calls that were going back and forth between, rally planners, some of those directly to your fingers and proud boys and also techs themselves that came from the oath keepers, two white house employees like andrew giuliani. so the son of rudy giuliani, obviously. so that called calls from the white house knowing what those extension numbers are and the doj and fbi can be work on. but knowing what those extension numbers are are very important. but for the american public, they need to that data and they need to know type of things were happening on january sixth who placed those calls the white house don't know. you know, my guess is the committee has been trying to find out what those phone numbers are. there is something called a call manager. each person is assigned a phone number to a specific desk, but also their cell phones. and i think that's what people need to realize is that when you look at the book and when you read the breach, the white house has a certain set phone numbers and call numbers and.

those root numbers are connected to the white house. so we can look at the root numbers from one side of the records. but we can't see what those white house numbers are. most of them are provided where less than eight and still exist in the system. so there are some technical challenges there when you're doing a law enforcement type of investigation. but again, my guess is that there's other people looking at this right now, denver riggleman guest until 10:00 if you want to ask them questions about his book and, what he found in it, you can do so on the lines. 02748 8001 for republicans. 202748 8004 democrats and 202748 8002 for independents. you want to text us questions or comments? you can do that at 202748 8003. mr. riggleman your book deals with mark meadows, and i want to read a portion for the audience, but you can fill in and elaborate on it. the portions they're saying we never received a cd-r for mark meadows, trump's chief of staff, but the telephone text he turned over to the became the rosetta stone for the january six investigation. they provide a staggering amount of information. there were 2319 of them incoming

and outgoing meadows. many aspects of the committee's subpoenas by claiming executive privilege. he failed to show up for the depositions and battled court to avoid to provide the seeds of the full contents of the phones of his phones. but he must have saved or uploaded his own data to the cloud or another storage device. and then he and his legal team willingly turned this extraordinary number of messages to committee. and in doing so, meadows gave us the keys to the kingdom. we called them the crown jewels in your explanation. if you could explain what kdr, but can you elaborate? so yeah, i tried to explain that earlier in the book. those they called detail records, those are actually of individuals telephone records and what they're true from looks like and what we could so we got those and we know that there were other messages we didn't receive the content because they were under executive privilege. but what i talk about in the book, without i couldn't tell if we actually received all the text messages. so that's part of it, right? but of what we received.

it's just pretty amazing. i don't know. they didn't know what they were giving us or they had individuals were working on their legal team that didn't know what those phone numbers were connected to or they were connected to the mobile receivers action on evolution, not on the alternate electric theory. you know, that became such a big, you know, up until january, but also the conspiracy theories they talked about italian satellite. we saw bizarre links from sitting members about foreign interference or influence that that was absolutely untrue couldn't be true. right. just only by common sense, but by sort of fact based analysis. and we also saw a big legacy of executive and legal strategy happening in real time, all the way down to people on the ground that were texting mark meadows about their cyber investigator actions and people that were briefing. we sort of technical buffoonery all the way up to the presidential level. so when i talk about the rosetta stone or the crown jewels or you talk about a road map, it's just

interesting to see that that road map also included things like, you know, almost a of supernatural or there's some spiritual warfare type of component to some of the texts also. and i think that, again, seeing all that in one bundle really is is a shock, especially when you're a team is breaking out and identifying which phone numbers belong to. who do you think for all the that you and your team did in gathering information that those on the january six committee themselves used it in the best possible manner. oh they used it very effectively, especially at the beginning when you're talking the text messages and then it to the actual interviews or the depositions that we're doing and then taking that into the hearings. i think there's a lot more, though, when looking at 2391, we're looking at of people that were connected and then you're trying to look at call detail records or their social media or their history or what they're doing in. the open source intelligence, us, what they're going doing on

the deep, dark and open web. we're talking about a massive resource machine, a massive analytical and a massive technical need. so i still think there's a long way to go the committee can be completely effective and still us need to look at command and control worked on that day and other people that might have been linked and. you know you could get pretty wonky in this book this is not some chatty cathy, you know, people yelling at each other type of book. this is a book that's down line that tries to really make the process as is as gossip, right. or fantasy, you know, you got to make facts just as exciting as fantasy. so when you look at this, we have a long way to go. i think when we look at the number of links, we look at other entities like the council for national policy, which jenny thomas was linked to, that text messages in there that still need to be explored. you have to think that we just need a little bit more time and more resources. look at the entire ecosystem of that day and the entire

coordinated activity sort of patterns that we saw and that the committee pointed out. it's just i always that second, third and fourth level is just as important as at primary level. and that's what i was trying to do that by the military and the government for 20 years so i have i have a particular set of skills you but yet the release of this book garnered a response from the the committee and this was published in the washington post but it said a statement from the committee underscored riggleman has limiteknowledge of the through cold water on requirements suggestion that the committee was not pursuing evidence aggressively enough. quote, he departed from the staff in april prior to our hearings and much of our most important investigative work, wrote committee spokesman mulva. since his departure, he goes on to say, the committee has run down all the leads digested on, analyzed all the information that arose from his work. yeah, i think. i think there's a typo i think limited was supposed to be unlimited. i'm kidding. but i think also when you see something like that, you know, i was in politics, i and i don't think they had read the book

yet. and i think they a little bit worried and i had been doing this type of work well, january 6th, i've been doing this a lot longer than anybody on the committee and still going to do it afterwards because of people that are basically to continue this type of analytical work. my knowledge of this goes, well beyond what the committee even has. number one. number two, our technical teams are still supporting the teams that i built and also when you look at millions lines of data, that's not something that's possible by all the investigators. you have to have, again, a unique of skills or unique clues that we had that are experts in telepathy and experts and open source intelligence. so the thing is, is that obviously, you know, i thought the committee did a great job know the statement surprised me. it did little bit, but i really don't care about the political sort of backroom washington stuff that comes out. people seem to know that right. that i have a little problem sometimes with i don't want to say with authority, but i certainly have a problem with not being able to see the whole of the thing based on my

background, on my training. so that's all i was talking about is that we need to go further with the data and i think once the committee read the book, i think we've seen they've been much quieter. denver riggleman our guest, our first call for you is from vicky. she's in orlando, florida, republican line. you're on with our guest. go ahead. your question or comment, vicky? okay. i'd just like to say that i hope his book is better than the meetings because. we have been listening to this stuff. january, the sake six and we're personally of it but we won't write a book. oh, representative or whoever you are why don't you write a book on the 2020 war that was barred in our cities down where black lives were marching and hitting our police. mundane but one step at our courthouse is an hour by president was bonded him out of jail. well it's funny to we don't ever get that side of the story can you explain why to me.

well, i you know, when you ask questions like this, sometimes it comes out of sort of a tribal mindset where you're at one thing and not the other and we can look at reciprocal radicalization and we can look at political violence. we can look at things that have been destroyed or when you're talking about an attack on capitol on january six, you're about one of the most awful things happen in history. the issue that you have is that we had an attack actually our seat of power based on faulty conspiracy theories and things were fantastical. we can also prove that data. we can look at violence in 2020, we can look at riots. we can see that the issues that are there. but we have something that was explicitly political. when you talk about political violence or attack on the capitol or staff in the capitol you look at those type of things and you look at executive branch that was supporting at some point or actually pushing false narrative or radicalizing narrative to public. i'm going to be able to look at data need to be able to look at those linkages, make sure that

never happens again. so when you have law enforcement, federal authorities, state or local authorities at rioting in the streets of other cities, i think there's a bit of a market difference between that and actually attacking the capitol of the united states of america and having a president that pushed the radicalize saying stop the steal theories into the population and those individuals thought they were actually it on behalf of the president. i think in looking that data and linkages of that is mutually exclusive from looking at what happened in 2020 in the riots there. and i. this is eileen in columbus, ohio. democrats line high. hi there. time caller. thank you for the c-span. i'm kind of nervous, so thank you to your guest and all the work you did on the january six mission. my thought is i hear a lot of people saying that they're just asking questions, but don't really see them very interested in the answers and you talk about the data and you talk about all of the call logs were

found and everything that's come out through the commission and yet we still callers every morning on washington just completely the answers that have found. and how we come together to have a more common narrative of reality. this country. yeah. i mean you said individuals that you know sadly whether they think it's something any good against evil some kind of a apocalyptic problem that they have to solve. you know, where it becomes almost against people religious types, they sort of get stuck in this, i guess, spanish community. and the issue is, is how we do this through empathy. do we do it through anger? do we do it through sort of argumentative stance and data? and i've been fighting with this myself, and i think only way that we can win is to fight in. i don't know if the committee

can convince more. 3 to 5% of people say that's independent from center right that the election was stolen or that, you know, the actions of the president and those underneath of them, you know, a second or third level or right wing extremist leadership not convinced, right. that you know, of of. sure. the culpability of these individuals and the fact that we had such a dereliction duty not only at the presidential level, but really all, i would say all levels beneath. they wanted to push this, whether it was for power or for money, for risk, or they were true believers. so i think we have to it's almost to house digital fighting, right? it's you have to engage with people one on one and be brave about it. you know, i'm out. i own a company. you know, i was a maintainer. the air force. i worked blue collar. i worked white collar. i've done all of that. and what i've seen is that when you can really talk to somebody one on one, maybe to them.

but the thing is, you have to have the facts, the data on your side, sort of guess you can come from a tribal sort of state of being whether republican or democrat but after come as a person who cares about individual and i found myself getting angry. but data and facts are so important. and how do we stay in a fact space reality. we have to fight for it. that people do have to vote. and most people do have to get engaged. it means you have to fight back against bombings. it means even if you get sued right by individuals, don't have to push back. we see that happening across this whole spectrum of far right individuals suing, all kinds of individuals to try to keep them quiet. all of this is something that you have to do and you have to buttress. but the big of social media, i don't know how to get everybody out of their self-selected chambers. i don't know how to pull them out of there, but always the best disinfectant is sunlight. and that sunlight today is sort of information. war is data. that sunlight is space to analysis that that is proving to people back into a reality based

community out of their facts, their fantasy base community, and saying, listen, you know, you've been people are taking your money. they're lying to you. there is no way that there's a cabal of democrats that are harvesting children. a draining probe. that's not a thing. the election wasn't stolen. there's not broken algorithms. we don't have italian satellites changing votes. we have venezuela, no technology. we don't have china changing votes. we don't have votes being rerouted through servers. i didn't push back on buying votes. right. we don't have weird dumps. we don't have ballots that are being burned. all of this is fantasy. and then you use the data to back it up. so i know this is a longer answer, i think, than it was trolls used to. but the fact is this there is no answer right now. but you have to have individuals that are brave enough to talk about data and facts regardless of the abuse that they get or the attacks that they get from the tribes or far right rags and women. you know, in the future with the far left or pacifica radicalization, it happens.

and they get angry and they start doing things a political way, like saw, you know, on january six. and obviously had far less violence. but the problem that have right now is that the far right is in a hold my beer moment. and we have to address that right now. that's why i wrote the book because. the first caller, you know, people might say, my goodness, know, she was just talking about the riots in 2020. the she's probably not going to read the committee report. she's probably not going to watch the hearings. but maybe somebody will read a 280 page book that tries to break it down in a simplistic way and just uses the data and facts without getting hyperbolic. and i hope that that's what i did. the book is called the breach untold story of the investigation in the january six. why did you leave the committee's? oh, goodness. you know, i had a real decision to make. you know, the ukraine alliance, you know, reached out to me and, you know, i actually only wanted to take a leave of absence, but, you know being being party to ethics in congress is very important and ethically, it was hard. i couldn't i actually possibly couldn't do both things unless.

i became, you know, some kind of lobbyist, something i didn't want to do that. so so, you know, so that's that's what happened. and plus, the technical teams were already there. i knew the data that was coming in there and i knew that the teams that i had built were still there. and they're so talented. and i had worked with them so much my prior lives that i trusted them implicitly and explicitly. so when you train correctly and you leave the right operational teams, you're pretty that you can go help other entities through other important things, you know, globally. and that's what i want to do. this. ted washington, new jersey republican line i yes. thank you very much i appreciate you doing the in writing the book but a couple things have turned me and turned me off the whole investigation. first of all, me personally, i see it as a biased committee. i mean, there's not diversity on there. and it seems like the things about trump know that's free speech. you say he stirred all this and these right wing groups how are you going to monitor all that the are thing that disturbs me is you know there's not a court

case but also there was a woman veteran was shot and killed in the midst of this nothing's brought about that but the question i have for you, how come the committee doesn't question pelosi, the speaker of the house, and i've been told by people that work in washington that she absolutely did not call the national guard in a timely they knew this was happening. can you please tell me why that she did not how come she's not called? that has to be that has to be part of investigation. that national guard was not called in in the beginning. so so, you know, when you're looking at i think you're talking about the investigation on security that day, which is really the intelligence communications and operations issues that they had. we did have security breakdowns around the capitol on january 6th. we're talking about the national i know a little bit about this. there's a lot of issues that come with chain of command, how you execute the guard and also the role of just nancy pelosi or mitch mcconnell.

but the individuals they appoint to be in those sort, those leadership positions on the united church capitol police board. so i won't this to the viewers, probably a lot of insiders know this, but mitch mcconnell he appoints the senate sergeant at arms. nancy pelosi points to house sergeant at arms yorkshire to the capitol, who's also in the united capitol police board. they are actually they are confirmed by the senate. and then you have the united states capitol police chief who not have a vote on the capitol police board. so you have a lot of bureaucratic that you have to go through. i've also had individuals like mayor muriel bowser, who was worried about the national guard and, individuals in the d.o.d., who are also about the optics of the national guard. she had a of people worried about what that would look like if you had a militarized presence before january six rally. now, on the other, when you have intelligence breakdowns where you don't have individuals who know what that intelligence looks like, i think that was a huge and i think there would have been a different posture if you didn't have some of the intel intelligence or

communications challenges that you had on that day. furthermore, when you look at nancy pelosi, even if you think, well, we should have done little bit better on the intelligence front and communications on that day. russel or former general honoré, she appointed to do a report on what happened that day. and it was a disarray. so i think people need to read that report. so the thing that i really try to stress to individuals, when you look at factual data, it's not automatically conspiracy it's not automatically right that pelosi didn't do something with the national guard. and by the way, if you the last hearing and i want to end with this, it seemed like nancy pelosi was trying very hard to get the proper forces in place based on her calls to president pence and other individuals. i mean, that that is video evidence. so at this point, we now have evidence on video that nancy was pushing very hard for a response to what happened. so we can talk about the failures beforehand and why those failures happened. but i think it would be to say nancy pelosi wasn't trying to do everything she could to secure

the capitol once the threat was known. mr.. riggleman for the data that you collected, is there any that definitively ties the white house to the coordination or execution of the events of january six? there's certainly data that should that should concern people and something that needs to be looked into. i mean, if you talk about, you know, you have an oath keeper, right? you have an earth keeper texting with a white house aide who just happens to be the son of the person leading the legal strategy to overturn the election. that's a concern. if you had this type of text, people say, well, you know, they said, well, we don't really remember. well, you know, it's really difficult when you have something happening in november or december 2020. that's i think there's an on an oath keeper texting back and forth with andrew giuliani. you know if you shake that data trail, you see that you also have rallies that were directly linked to the oath keepers and proud boys in phone calls, back and forth to the white house multiple times. and then you have the white

house a house desk number trying to connect to a rider's phone on january six. and how many more hundreds of calls did you have to the white house that are in those call data records? we know there's a lot more. i know there's a lot more. so what you want to do is you want find out all those white house extensions, phone numbers. and that's difficult for people hear because it might be very difficult technically to do that. and as that, i'm sure the committee has tried follow up on. but again, people need to understand there are different authorities between congress, the doj and the fbi to look at the legal process. so doj and fbi is doing know that they have. mark meadows asked, but the committee couldn't get them. so there are different things that can be done based on the data you can get. and our status also obviously. president trump in his tweets that day, his lack of action, the way that he pushed radicalized retweets on twitter and on a base, you know, type of craziness, the fact that even

now you see him retreat, saying things with to on his lapel, the fact that you have in a building underneath of him or work for him or supporting still spouting ridiculousness on stop still the fact is even if it's not criminal, it's still unethical. so intellectually dishonest. and so based on making money that that alone those facts alone and i point that out in the breach those facts alone are disqualifying and if you want a servant has somebody who serves people and not themselves somebody who believes that facts and truth or what's most important. so we can say, where are those direct links? and then he sort of self-identified on his tweets about vice president pence and everything else that he's done. when you look at even the legal the legal interviews that you saw and that were pointed out in the hearings. but we need to know at some point who are the white house on his desk or their cell phones. we're connected to people that were playing a rally, connected to people were right wing extremists have actually enacted

or were part of the violence or those a whole planet. i think i think that's one area that i wish i had some more time here is peggy and washington state line. hi. hi. good morning, mr. riggleman. morning. my biggest problem with the january six i mean the one that really struck fear my heart was when pence's chief of staff marc short told pence's lead service, secret service agent tim gable, that trump was going to turn on pence and that pence was in danger. and tony or nadeau, who's the head of the secret service, they were trying get pence away from the capitol so he couldn't count the electoral that just struck serious fear in. my heart, like secret service, they're supposed be apolitical and they the top echelons of our democracy. the president and the vice

president just i'd like to hear your comments on that. thank you. well, yeah thank you very much. and, you know, that is something i think that sometimes forgot when we talk about this problem and that's simply this is at the president was under threat not only just with having mike but there also again you're tweeting when the president is tweeting, you know, in the 1400 hour, you know, about vice pence and doing the right thing. that, again, should concern people, you know, if you had a president that was not only that irrational, but that about it as vice president say it when. you talk about the secret service, you talk about vice president pence. he was there. people might be uncomfortable, you know, whether you're democrat or republican or you want to give credit to. but on that day, there's a heroic actions of vice president pence. and the fact is he did stand up for the constitution that day. you know people can scratch their head about any type of, you know, support or any type of friendship or olive branch that

vice pence would put out afterwards. you can't take what happened that day. also, vice president pence, with his own secret service contingent, did stay in the area. and i think you can't paint whole secret service with a brush with a few people that seem to be on the side of things that really don't make much sense, know that they had criminal intent or was or whatever. but it's very difficult. you don't i think the whole secret service with that brush, especially, you see the vice president was there. he was able to manage that day in a way that i think speaks to, you know, courage so i again, it's difficult. you know, people scream and yell, but you just try to look at the facts, the trends of that day. what happens before that day or after that day is? meaningful. you're talking about just that time, i think i think we owe gratitude to vice pence because god forbid would have happened. if you listen to those hundred and 39 house members that voted to object to the electors or somehow gave in to that pressure. it's a it's an interesting i

think there's still a lot more to about the united states. you can service text messages and the data that they had that day and. again, i think you're going to see see more about that internally from the committee side, that may become law, washington. let's hear from donna north, carolina, republican line for our guests. denver riggleman. hi. yeah, thanks for taking my. so, first of all, going back to that lady that called in about why don't you write about the, you know, the riots that took place in 2020. and then you said, well, this is a political attack on the capitol. so, okay, why don't you write a book about the fake dossier where our own president was attacked by, lies from fbi agents. that's a political attack. your your program doesn't show. and you guys show only what? who's against trump? but you never bring any conservative on live television show that i see in seconds. we just had a member of president trump's former reagan administration yesterday on this program talking about joe biden

and the economic situation. so caller but continue on please. talking the people who bypassed that. so was at january six. okay. and in the morning there was nothing loving peaceful people all over the country from all over. and trump he's not he didn't brainwash us to be there. this has been something that's been building up over the years with that there is corrupt washington the swamp. we want them the heck out of there. and he's the one that's exposed that. and this is why you have a lot of your politicians that are turning republican and liz cheney, especially, that are turning against because he's exposing them for their crudeness. and we, the american people are sick it. and he finally we got someone there and we could care less how politically correct he is he got things done and you guys don't like him because going to expose a lot of you -- both republicans and democrats what you guys have

done wrong. and that's why everybody is turning on him, including pence. so you get someone in there, it's got a pretty. i guarantee you they got some demons on their side. and that's donna, north carolina republican line. mr.. yeah. so first of all, by 1:10 p.m., there wasn't a whole lot of loving left hitting the capitol. that's the first thing the second thing is maybe one of the most corrupt administrations ever seen. just based on data and facts of the trump administration. so maybe he learned his lesson. maybe he thought that maybe he should play the game in order to do what he needed to do and then take it to another level by pushing a bizarre, fantastical conspiracy theories, almost apocalyptic conspiracy theories into the digital space where could shut them down and then act on them. and they were radicalized by. so to say that i'm sitting here sitting here because i don't like or sometimes somehow i hate president trump, we just have to look at the data just have to look at the people that were around him, convicted felons. you know, sometimes.

you live with dogs, you get flus. so the people that you have in your inner orbit or mike flynn or sidney powell or patrick wood or patrick byrne or lin wood, any of these individuals, rudy giuliani, all people. right. all these individuals, many of them are under investigation, have been convicted in the past. bernie kerik, sometimes for the people around you were like that. maybe that reflects the type of individual you are and what you're going to do as far as administration, your ethics and your integrity. and then when you look at these individuals, i was there on some of their interviews with the committee and the fact that many of them took the fifth rank, there seems to be a lack of any type of moral basis or intellectual basis to defend their position when they're called to the carpet in a legal way or in a public trust investigation of united states congress. so my fear and i'm not angry about it, but my fear is when just listening to an echo chamber, you know, a one line pipe that goes directly into your frontal lobe becomes very difficult to see. the other faction and data that

are around you. and why you have to hit the machines. and that's why if i were to talk to you in person, i can just simply show you the data and the to let you know what's happening. and i don't have to be fantastical about it. it's not a belief system. it's just what's in front of. and that's what i hope people can see and that's what i hope the book brings to the table. from your book, you talk a little about how you coordinated these teams. i'll read you a little bit and then you can fill in the blanks if would. this is from the bridge. the last team blue had it especially challenge. they were focused on the apparent failure to adequately protect the capital. they were in part investigating house, which really meant pelosi and two of the committee's own members. jamie raskin. zoe lofgren. blue team was a talented group, but the sensitivity of their investigation and the multiple moving parts house leadership, the national guard, d.c. and capitol police and pentagon created a politically fingerpointing extravaganza. the end result is that the blue team became bit of a bit of a backwater. several witnesses said they tried to interview. they tried interview remain

elusive. and the committee gave blue no means to compel testimony. later on, i would find myself smack in the middle of this. can you elaborate on that? sure. i mean, when we met, investigation was happening at that time and we were trying to track people down to get them to come talk. and it was very difficult. and i think a lot of it had to do with investigation that were going on in other areas and what i was trying to talk about, it just makes it very to actually pursue that line of inquiry. when you have other law enforcement investigating law enforcement and you're trying to look at the multiple breakdowns in communications and intelligence with multiple organizations, that was like difficult. everything from the d.o.d. to the i.c.e. to us congress, which capitol police to the fbi, other law enforcement agencies to political appointees to congressional members to appropriate actions. it is a mess in. that mess is not something to do. a conspiracy to do with how government works and how it is. and it just made it very difficult. and then we had republicans who

they weren't being answered. so i got into that. right. is how do you actually get to the truth of the facts and try to look at both sides of it and try to all that out. now, when it came down that there were just a lot of communiques and some logistics failures when it came to passing information. and there were people who weren't properly trained, which the gao had identified as far back as 2017, 2018 about training and resourcing. so it was just things that sort of fell between the cracks. and i think that's what it made so difficult for. ballou was i didn't have sort of a directive. there was no directed effort to make sure the united states capitol police did have proper protection, intelligence or operational support. it came down to there were so many moving parts. and just this inability to believe it could actually happen to the capitol, which is what i explained later on after that specific portion of the book fill up from ocala, florida, independent line high. good morning. you know, if if if the most

advanced aircraft carrier sunk because the sailors didn't know what to do, i would guess that the captain the ship would probably get interviewed. however, you and everyone else in the media have failed to mention the fact that uganda pittman was the head, the chief of capitol police, and she failed. she failed to equip her people to resist an invasion of the u.s. capitol. you know, as bad as as bad as mussolini and hitler were, none of them landed troops to invade the u.s. capitol. only trump. how did you give uganda? uganda? i don't know why oge and the a pittman. how did she get a pass? i'll tell you why. i think the fact that she's black. no one wants to criticize her.

i think we need to go to the next caller. i think number one, i think we need to look at actually look at who was actually the chief that day, wasn't she? pittman and you actually need to look at the chain of command and the united states capitol police. but, you know, there's nothing to do about race in this in any way. and really that's just sort of i'll from fayetteville north carolina for this is from joe joe. so i pushed wrong button. fayetteville, north carolina this is joe joe. good morning ahead. good. in my estimation is two things going on here. it's probably revealed in your book you've got organizations that won't work together. it's like 52 different police organizations in washington, d.c. and obviously they didn't share information and they didn't help each other. and this is going on in a lot of different scandals that's gone on in the united states from 9/11 all the way back to

kennedy, assassination, people don't organizations don't work. and then you've got the wolf. i don't care. how many people voted for donald trump, but he's essentially lone wolf just like lee harvey oswald was. he looks out for himself. what do you think about what i'm saying. no, i mean, when you look and you know, i was a veteran 911. i got to read the commission report. i deployed after ten days, you know, and you look at intelligence or you look at communication failures, you look at information sharing and data sharing, which is something that i was thrilling to me as an intelligence officer directly after 911. like you wouldn't believe. joint operations doing those type of things. so that's why i again, i felt compelled to write this book about any failures. it's about how communications information, how those breakdowns really affect us. the united states government data really is the new. but when you talk about donald

trump, right, i don't think you know, i don't. and i appreciate what you're but i don't think the definition of a lone wolf fits. i think it's a dumb definition of a charismatic leader, somebody who really to sort of bullying tactics and techniques or loyalty. right. to attract certain types of people. him he knows how to matrix an organization pretty well. and if anybody calls it stupid i just think that's really short sighted i think what you see is somebody i there could be a huge difference between stupid and immoral and that is really the issue that you have when you talk about people like this is that if you care more about you or your conduct or how you can enrich yourself or the people around you than the country, you automatically default to the mechanisms and the person that you were before. recent past performance is usually indicative of future performance. and when you look at, you know, donald trump and his past, you look at how he conducted himself

as president should not have been a surprise and, you know, and even to me, you know, you think somebody is going to change, you make those mistakes. so you take on the mantle of that office as president. he did not. and i think that surprised some people. they noticed they had to go along because the base was so activated and they still are were six successive start read information war is the new forever war and i hope that people you know that individuals like that and that social media space for that internet space they can move a lot faster the government. so we do need private individuals and private organizations look at social media names and radicalization because if you have a president like trump, if we go back to the tweets that, you know, retweets bizarre or conspiracy theories, joe biden, obamacare, seal team six that is somebody we want in the presidency. and that's just one example. mr. riggleman, you appeared on 60 minutes talking about your book, talked about that tie from the white house, that january

six participant that garnered a response. representative jamie raskin on the shows. i want to play a little bit of what he had to say in response to that. well, that's one of thousands of details that. obviously, the committee is aware of and our job is to put everything a comprehensive portrait and narrative timeline of what took place and so, you know to me, it's interesting, much less than the fact that donald trump told the crowd in public, you've got to fight like hell. and if you don't you're not going to have a country anymore. so look what we're interested in telling the big story which is this was an organized, deliberate hit against the vice president, the congress to overthrow the 2020 presidential election. and i think the public, the basic elements of the story, what we're going to do on wednesday is fill in those details that have come to the of the committee over the last five or six weeks.

this this apparently says a call from inside the white house. i mean, how hard have you guys tried to track down who that person was? you have an idea of who it was. you know, i can't. anything specific about that particular call, but we are aware of it and we're aware of lots of between people in the white house and different people that were involved, obviously, in the the coup attempt and the insurrection. and that's really what all of our hearings have been about. so, mr. riggleman, you heard the representative say they're aware of this kind of information, but do you really get a sense that they're really trying to do something with it so far as pursuing it? yeah, the thing it first of all, you know, jamie knows how feel about respect. right. and really jamie but the issue is is that you know that day was for president trump. what he was saying to the crowd is incredibly important. but what's more important me is why we're out there. what's more important to me as a counterterrorism analyst and somebody who did it for 20 years is how to reach radicalization

and agents work. so there's just a difference of looking at the importance of that which both are important. two things can be correct at the same. also, when you look at thousands of cases, you know, or thousands of raids there's millions of lines of data. that's a resource issue, a technical issue, an analytic issue. and as we go forward, we still need to look at all of that. so, again, it's not that some of these wrong or right, there are different ways trying to look at this problem. and for me, i think we need to go further on what this white communications look like, because just as simple about it, we don't even need to be intelligence analysts. if i can find out who that call, we can look at that individual and who they were connected to. if i couldn't find out who was talking rally planners that are completely and just legitimately connected to rhodes and tarrio those keepers of boys. who else did they call those people? the white house. and if we look at american paper texting your giuliani, was he connected to other members, the

proud boys or other rally planners that had direct connections? simple questions. that's it. and that's how i look. the problem set is how do you link them all? and then how do you leverage that to find out what they were saying with those communications look like or whether other means of communication? so you can do a fantastic job. you can do a great job at identifying that you had an administration that was unethical that pushed ridiculously. that of trying to obstruct that day. you can make that case. but my there were a lot of things that were learned. the individuals that conducted january 6th that they could take into the future. i wanted a book that was predictive, and i think that's where people misjudge this. this book is about how do we look into a future. this is bigger than trump. this is not folklore. this is mean. this is ideology. this is something that's believed. and that belief. and so there's a battle against good, against evil. and at a global level, taken over, the election was stolen. there were broken and people still believe it.

so that's where i want to go. so i hear something like that. i want to hug them. now, the other hand, i want to say, listen, there's other things we can say. there's other things we can look at. and i think we still need to pursue. is that going to be possible? i congressional level that when the gop takes over now, but i think it still is possible. doj and fbi site and private organization to look at open source intelligence that can this because a lot of them are very valuable. so that's it that was that's the point i was trying to make here it. excuse me here's chuck in alabama republican line good morning question. you know i agree that, you know, some of the things that happened at the capitol should never have happened. but tell me, how many weapons were confiscated and i've got a follow up question. sure. there were a lot of weapons confiscated. i think if you follow reporting from scott brown on cbs, follow reporting from these individuals and you talk about the quick reaction forces that were in place and the fact that there were weapons that were used,

there were weapons that were in reserve, i think that's something that that you might want to look into, because i know we're running short on time, but you might want to look into that and then, you know, and hopefully day we could talk about that a little bit more. but there's obviously weapons that were there and obviously a quick reaction force ready and when people with. versus from can tampa florida independent line. yes good morning pedro and mr. prettyman. the bottom line when it comes to all everything is it's orientated around race. for example, i hope in your book that you show the example a lot of difference between when black lives matter was in washington, d.c. and they, the national guard, both formation wrapped around the capitol. but yes, with no intention going to the capitol. but when these mega people live in washington d.c., they didn't even have the police around to protect.

so when all these call in and talk about, oh, lives matter with burning down the town and this and that, it was in the capitol. thank you. thanks for that. and here's where i want to give a really kudos to my coauthor. one hunter walker, who was there in both instances when we wrote this. we did. we did want to stick to data and facts. but i get too hyperbolic or outrageous. we also knew, you know, there was a police presence around the capitol. so insufficient communications, intelligence made it insufficient. you do see that there seemed to be a different reaction to those types of crowds. and here's what i want to. just tell people, you know, as we go forward is that we try stick with the facts and data. what happens specifically on january 6th? but i would love to have been a part of an investigation on, you know, on the communications and information that happened those days because, you know, maybe i could write a book about that, you know, i had the people that called in and i just want to let those individuals know. i didn't write a book about the

riots of 2020 or about the steele dossier. i wasn't part of those investigations. i was part of this one. and i was also part of massive counterterrorism operations over 20 years, working three letter agencies and doing that kind of combat work or operations support work that i did in 911, an operation allied force in 99. so, you know i just used my specific background and the experts that i could gather around me to build these teams because we have to give them credit. and the fact is is that many people from the time i was running the counter ied cells and 2627 back to know doing special projects, air force types of activities, i was just able to use that all the way up to the time i was in the pentagon. i don't think people realized wasn't in politics when i was elected in 2018 i was actually a consultant. the electronic warfare countermeasures office at the pentagon. so i don't have you know, i

don't have a political background but what i do have is of data and intelligence background is to bring what happened on january to light and how we can look into the future, which is what really in the was about is how do we stop this in the future. i am interested in president trump and what did but as a counterterrorism, i'm more interested in the levels of coordination and command and control that happen up until january 6th and what's happening based on lessons learned from people who tried to overthrow the government. so that's really where i'm at. i try and again, my being in both places, being in riots was, very sensitive to that and. also, we treated that very delicately. we didn't want to go that line when we were trying to stick just what happened on january six. so that's really where the book that's really the book went. but again, you know, my coauthor probably, i have to give him credit for the message that he helped me with in this book.

our guest served two years in congress in house of representatives representing the fifth district of virginia. as a republican at the time, are you would you consider yourself a republican still today? no. you know, i'm unaffiliated. there's you know, if i'm going to just if i'm going to do things like this, where i'm going look at data and facts that uncomfortable with politics to begin with or, people in congress will tell you, i was and they will tell you you i'm going to say i was an accidental congressman. i was -- close to it, you know, and you know, i think that's really what it came down to as somebody who had been, you know, sort of supporting country behind that door for all those years in operations that, you know, i had my own company as a ceo and then starting other companies like distilleries know you know it did come from not that important myself up and it never really didn't even need to be out in the public eye at all. i was pretty comfortable with what i was and what i've done for this country. i just don't think that i could back to calling myself any type republican or democrat or anything like that i. i don't even like the word

independent. i'm almost a i like the first distiller. i think it was george washington who might have been the one who said unaffiliated. so, you know, i want to continue the tradition of people who serve this country in the military and maybe get a little intel on intelligence, maybe a little west on. i really like george washington. so i think, i think the distiller part of it's what i like. well, let me ask you this, because there's a recent out of yours out in support of virginia democrat abigail spanberger. you're featured in let me i'll show the folks at home the ad and then talk about it. sure. this is a typical political ad. i'm a republican congressman. nice things about a democrat in congress, the party stood apart and don't work together except. abigail spanberger, she's trying to change congress and make it work and she's the most bipartisan member of congress from, virginia and fifth in the country in cia. abigail worked counterterrorism. she puts country first. that's why i support abigail. i'm abigail spanberger and i approve this message mr.

riggleman how did you end up doing that? it's knowing abigail for couple of years now. our shared intelligence. but there's only really one, you know, one thing i like to use on my list litmus test, especially when you have an individual like that. you saw the bipartisan working across well. but my real litmus test is this. if you're facts based and you're not, facts challenge, it's that simple. i don't care if you're an r d, i lg, a republican democrat in a libertarian brain. i just don't care. but you better be fact based, of course, could disagree with policies. i could disagree with that. but the most important thing to vote on is protecting our democratic institution. that's it. and, you know, and if you have somebody like abby who try to do what's best for all of her constituencies, constituents, regardless of letter behind their name or what they self-identify as, those are the kind of people i. so that's just how i'm wired

and, i think i think being in congress taught me the lesson that i am not cut for tribal politics. it's just not in my blood. i just can't do it's none of my dna. somebody asked me about running, and i said i'd rather set myself fire. i really like looking at data, facts and trying to do the best i can. and that's it. and and, you know, people this stuff they said, oh, the second man, we read this book and this is about you running for office at all actually probably made everybody mad. i said, well, you know, they'll get over, you know, so that's that's what we have now. i'm sure i'm 50 to serve this country. i wrote book i hope other people who would never read committee report or would never watch a hearing would actually pick it up. and then when they read it, they're going to be surprised that it's not some hyper hyperbolic brat or, a chatty cat, or some self angry advertising, mythologizing book. it's just not that's not what it is. and again, i have to say, you know, again, coauthor my editors and things like that, they did a great job in trying to make sure we just stayed to facts and the

technology. and i think i think we were able to simplify it in a narrative form that makes to just about everybody. if we can squeeze in one more call, if that's okay with you. sure. this is from eric. eric's in minnesota. democrats line. hello. thanks for taking my call. did they ever investigate the republican who gave a guided tour, the senate office building? including nancy pelosi's office in the hours before january sixth. and then i'd like your comment on the implications of how the information got out that would that group in which was a maga group. please comment. well you know i was in congress and committee did a fantastic job of trying run down you know all of the voters you know and can put that in air quotes i think and what they found they didn't find a whole lot that, you know, there were sort of i would say, gosh, i want to say this, but any prepper outreach to workers, right. to see where people would go or

what they would do coming from members. and i know some of those members. i don't think they would do that. and again, i know that makes people angry or happy, but the committee did a pretty good job of identifying that. and then if they could only so far again, i mean, it's just part of we actually have sitting congressmen and congresswomen you're talking to about this and you can really only go so far, which is that's a whole nother our conversation or my thoughts about that. but i think right now, when you're do tours as a congressional, a lot of it goes to your staff. and and also i don't think people realize this as a congressman, sort of over the congressional building, library of congress. he can do pretty much you want because you are a congressman. and that is you're a building to work in. so are there things that could seem a little odd there? absolutely. do i think there were some widespread or strategizing tours that was being ran by members? i don't really think that's been proven. i think there's things that should make people scratch their heads. but again, i think the committee did a good job of identifying

that and then going as far as i could. and as you noticed you know, there hasn't been as much about that lately. and i think the committee was wise in putting what they put out. but i think that's what we're at right now is, you know, there are things that were head scratchers, but probably not probably nothing was too damaging at that point. when you when the committee releases its final report, what's your role in compiling that or your role done? or do you still have a role in the final product? my role is done on my technical teams aren't i'm very proud of them. they're still there. they're still doing great work as far as i know. and i'm very happy that they're going to be part that final report. and my guess is the final report is going to be outstanding. their work has been outstanding. corral. i mean, there's nobody who can really say if they're watching this with a just a very practical or facts based either the committee hasn't done great job. so i, i think report's going to be great. i just, you know, i just i wish i could have access to that data for another year so i could do something on the command and control side. i did the best i could what i

had. and and i hope people read it i hope they appreciate it. denver riggleman in congress for two years, he is the of the breach the untold story of, the investigation and the january six. talking about his role as a former january six committee senior technical adviser. mr. bergman, thanks for your time