Quote of the Day
Video footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol shows a man who now works as an adviser at the Justice Department shouting at rioters to “kill” law enforcement officers responding to the attack and calling them “the Gestapo.”
The footage, from a body camera worn by a Metropolitan Police Department officer, was first published Thursday by NPR. The network joined CBS News and other news organizations in suing to obtain thousands of hours of surveillance footage and court exhibits from the more than 1,000 criminal cases brought by the Justice Department against people who allegedly participated in the Capitol attack.
Among those defendants was Jared Wise, who eventually faced six charges as a result of his alleged actions on Jan. 6. He pleaded not guilty. Wise’s hiring by the Justice Department was reported last month. A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement that Wise “is a valued member of The Department of Justice and we appreciate his contributions to our team.”
Melissa Quinn, Jacob Rosen
August 7, 2025
Video from Jan. 6 attack shows Justice Department adviser telling rioters attacking police to “kill ’em” – CBS News
Assuming this is a truthful representation of the facts, then one has to wonder how well the current administration is vetting new employees. With friends like these you can make a lot of enemies and lose a lot of friends.
But the truthfulness needs some checking. As pointed out by Grok, selective editing of the facts may have created a biased result:
The CBS News story is likely truthful in reporting that body camera footage shows Jared Wise making inflammatory statements during the January 6 Capitol attack, as supported by court records, the FBI affidavit, and corroborating reports from NPR and other sources. His employment at the Justice Department and receipt of a presidential pardon are also substantiated. However, the story’s presentation may carry a narrative bias by emphasizing his actions without fully exploring context, intent, or the broader implications of his pardon and hiring. Without access to the unedited footage, some uncertainty remains about the exact nature of Wise’s statements.
For a definitive assessment, I recommend reviewing the primary body camera footage, if available, or seeking additional court documents related to Wise’s case. If you’d like, I can search for more recent developments or specific footage related to this story.
The evidence is there- the election was stolen in 2020. That does, in fact, make the police officers who are supporting this fraudulent election complicit in the travesty that was the election. The fact that the officers opened the doors and invited people in before attacking them, and even killing one of them, is a great example of how wrong things can go.
The voters of this nation obviously agree, because they voted to put Trump back in the White House in 2024, even after seeing what happened. If Trump wants to then put one of the citizens accused of fighting with the cops into a position at DOJ, that is his prerogative as the winner of the election. As President Obama once famously said: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
Excuse me if I just don’t care. Playing “fair” while “compromising” and trying to get along has been the tactic used by the Cucked Republican party for decades, and they use our own principles to attack us.
Reasonable compromise lost us many gun rights, and the left quotes the Bible and the Constitution when it suits them, they ignore it when it doesn’t. Then they play on the concept of “fairness” while not really caring about rules or fairness, only winning.
It’s time that we play by the same rules, or else we are just playing Monopoly against the person who is cheating.
That sort of cautionary note about context and omitted details can be applied to virtually all mainstream news stories for the last century, who are infamous for omitting necessary details and context to push their point.
As Mark Twain is alleged to have written, “If you don’t read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you read the newspapers you are misinformed.” So, what has changed in 150 years?
I asked Grok if there was any context that would justify his advocacy of killing police, and it said:
“In summary, these contexts—primarily from Wise’s testimony and court filings—could transform the interpretation from active advocacy for lethal violence to an ill-advised, non-literal expression of rage amid perceived injustice. However, this depends on accepting Wise’s self-account as credible, which prosecutors disputed as inconsistent with his background in law enforcement. Full, unedited footage and complete trial records would be essential for a definitive reassessment.”
He clearly said it, so the only thing that would change here is whether we think “he didn’t mean it” and whether that changes our treatment of him as a result. Which put another way would be him basically saying “I was really mad and said some bad stuff but you should forget about it because it was just me being emotional and not being able to control myself in a tense situation.”
How far does that defense get you? If I get really mad and punch you, I still have to take ownership of that action. If I get really mad and shoot you, I still have to own that. If I get really mad and join a mob and beat you and try to take over the capitol…it really doesn’t matter that I was mad and out of control, it’s on me.
I see no context here that changes anything. He advocated for killing police in the middle of a riot. If he were Antifa, he’d be in jail. Because he wears a MAGA hat he’s in the administration. Just more of the same right-wing hypocrisy that says “We are right and everybody else is wrong, so anything we do is acceptable.”
I haven’t heard nor read of any Antifa demonstrators actually going to jail and then to trial. If there are, it has been very few. That this Wise guy wore a MAGA hat while he called for the immediate death of the police who were there. That MAGA hat shouldn’t get him a pass either. As you say, he said it, and there is no way to look into his mind for his true motivation and intentions.
I asked Grok if there was any context that would justify his advocacy of killing police
I have a thought on this. I have NO idea if it’s true or not, but take it as a hypothetical, with as much salt as you feel is appropriate.
Suppose for a second that Wise was not a normal J6 protester, but instead a DOJ/FBI plant. An agent provocateur, yelling to kill the police to try and incite the crowd to violence which would both justify a crackdown to “quell a riot” and provide media fodder to demonize conservatives for the next three decades.
For other context, I’m thinking about the “right-wing extremist” plot to kidnap MN Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and how out of the 15-ish people supposedly arrested, 12 were FBI plants. You will not convince me that out of that crowd of thousands, there were zero “confidential informants” or undercover FBI agents.
So what if Wise was one of them, and now his hiring by the DOJ was a quid pro quo agreement to keep him pacified and controlled? Realistically, as much as President Trump likes to control his executive agencies, it’s highly unlikely he’s personally approving every single hiring decision, so asking him about Wise’s onboarding probably won’t get very far.
Anyway, just a thought, though if true it would explain quite a bit.
Read the entire article, “Wise was employed as a special agent and supervisory special agent with the FBI from 2004 through 2017, according to the Justice Department.”
You REALLY have to wonder…
My comment was my initial thought BEFORE reading the article.
I’m glad to see my instincts are on-point. 😀
We know there were at least scores, likely hundreds, of FBI and other government agents in the J6 crowd (and likely every other large public political demonstration). As far as I am concerned, It’s clear that at least some were just to observe and gather intel, but also many were deliberate agent provocateurs. The exact number and specific individual actions are not known because of government stonewalling on all manner of information requests.
So yes, the actions and motivations of anyone in the crowd needs to be understood in that context.
It used to be said in the 1960’s when various groups would demonstrate and there were riots, that in your group, whoever was advocating and arguing for violence was an FBI informant. It’s somewhat reassuring that nothing has changed .
True in the 80s too for environmentalists and militia.
Some of the information security and “hacking” conferences around the country have a “Spot the Fed” contest at their events.
You KNOW there’s always at least one, whether they’re (as you said) simply gathering intel or trying to encourage criminal behavior to entrap people.
It’s fun to try and spot them at gun shows, as well. Any gun show in which the local citizen-militia has a booth (which is pretty much all of them) WILL have undercover feds in attendance, and sometimes they actively try to encourage illegal sales to entrap vendors, too.
Hi John!
Don’t overlook the terabytes of youtube and tiktok videos in which individuals (and occasionally elected representatives) call for the death of Trump. They have not been held accountable for their recorded admonitions for violence against POTUS. It seems then a bit hypocritical for us to call for this fellow’s procecution for a similar statement made against LEOs. (I believe advocating for POTUS death is a more serious crime than advocation for the death of non-specific generic law enforcement entities.)
Both of course, are in extremely bad form, but selectively choosing to prosecute just one over-emotional embittered ranter over all the others seems like a miss.
As anyone who has had children knows, “But so and so did it and did not get punished” is not a legitimate defense.
And yes, when that “defense” only works in one direction, that is equally wrong.