Massie’s letter follows troubling testimony from the DOJ’s Inspector General, suggesting that the FBI had confidential human sources (CHSs) present on the Capitol Grounds that day. It raises a critical question: is the DOJ intentionally slow-walking the release of this crucial report?

Joining Massie in this call for accountability are Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Reps. Ben Cline (R-VA), Chip Roy (R-TX), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Victoria Spartz (R-IN), Barry Moore (R-AL), Dan Bishop (R-NC), Harriet Hagman (R-WY), and Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

The presence of federal assets, particularly CHSs, on Capitol grounds during the events of January 6, 2021, is a game-changer. It starkly undermines the establishment media and federal government’s narrative surrounding that day. Meanwhile, just blocks away, Trump faces federal charges from special counsel Jack Smith, who alleges that he orchestrated the chaos at the Capitol.

Massie’s letter serves as a reminder to Garland of his own words during his June 4, 2024 testimony.

Garland “testified that Inspector General Horowitz is ‘independent’ and ‘the determination of the release of Inspector General reports is up to the Inspector General.’”

“We write to remind you of your commitment,” the letter states.

On September 25, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified before the House Weaponization Committee that the draft of the report is being held up by the DOJ.

This investigation had already seen delays during hearings held by Speaker Pelosi’s House Select Committee on January 6. Horowitz only resumed his investigation in 2023.

Now, the DOJ continues to drag its feet on prosecutions as the 2024 election looms, with several new cases emerging in recent months—over three and a half years after the events of January 6.

During the September 25 hearing, Horowitz confirmed that his draft report would indeed address the presence of CHSs. Massie pressed him for evidence regarding the number of CHSs operating on the Capitol grounds that day.

“Our report will include information in that regard,” Horowitz stated.

However, when pressed on the exact number, he replied, “I’m not in a position to say that, both because its in draft form, and we have not gone through the classification review, and so I need to be careful.”

Yesterday in @Weaponization, I questioned Inspector General Horowitz about the number of confidential human sources who entered the Capitol on 1/6.

Horowitz said the number won’t be known before the election. Biden-Harris doesn’t want the feds’ role on 1/6 known. Why? pic.twitter.com/9UJ4GXMdTX

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) September 26, 2024

Horowitz expressed a desire to issue his report soon but admitted that he does not expect it to be released before the election, indicating that the timing of the classification review is beyond his control.

Massie is not buying it and believes politics are afoot.

“Horowitz said the number won’t be known before the election. Biden-Harris doesn’t want the feds’ role on 1/6 known. Why?” Massie posted on X after the hearing.

Massie’s letter to Garland warns, “If you or any of your subordinates, associates, deputies, or agents within the Department act to delay or interfere with the release of this report, Congress will hold you accountable.”

If this report is ever released, it could drastically alter the prevailing narrative surrounding January 6. If Garland and the DOJ are found to have withheld this report until after the election, Congress may take decisive action.

Horowitz’s testimony strongly suggested that the report would contain explosive information.

Massie pressed Horowitz on how many confidential human sources entered the Capitol on January 6.

FBI protocols prohibit CHSs from breaking the law—entering the Capitol would certainly qualify, as made clear by numerous DOJ prosecutions—without express written consent.

“I’ll have that information in the report,” Horowitz replied.

Interestingly, when Massie inquired about how many CHSs were reimbursed for travel related to January 6, Horowitz responded, “as I sit here, I don’t recall the number,” before abruptly shifting gears and insisting, “and, if I did know it, I wouldn’t be in a position to tell you.”

The FBI operates under the DOJ, which ultimately determines what information is classified.

As the pressure mounts on Garland and the DOJ, one has to wonder: will the truth about January 6 ever see the light of day?

Article generated from corporate media reports.

Second, party and candidate platforms are usually debated in more detail than during a presidential debate. They’re supposed to be more substantive with fewer fireworks and more specifics. This allows the VP candidates to attempt to serve their third purpose which is to attack the opponents’ presidential candidate while propping up their own presidential candidate.

Last night’s CBS News debate exemplified all three purposes. The lone deviation was the moderators who once again inserted themselves into the debate by carrying water for Democrat Tim Walz while trying to discredit Republican J.D. Vance. At times, moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan were insufferable.

Here are six key takeaways for those who didn’t watch as well as for those who did watch and might have missed a few details.

Vance’s Debate Skills in 43-Seconds

The “Whac-a-Mole” moment during the debate checked all the boxed. In 43-seconds, Vance attacked his opponent, attacked Kamala Harris, promoted Donald Trump, and added a personal anecdote on top.

This is the best 43-second answer in a debate that I have listened to in my lifetime.
J.D. Vance was a brilliant choice.#VPDebate2024 pic.twitter.com/6dHEkEjNjZ

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) October 2, 2024

This will be a moment that future debaters analyze while preparing their own candidates.

Vance Dominated the Optics Battle

To fulfill the first goal of the debate, Vance presented himself to the American people as intelligent, confident, and well prepared. He handled the “gotcha” attacks from both Walz and the moderators with the precision of a highly skilled debater with only a few missteps on messaging.

In contrast, Walz came across as a buffoon. His first answer started off very rocky as he was conspicuously nervous, tripping over words and bouncing around different talking points. At one point he even noted that he can be a “knucklehead” sometimes.

Words aside, Vance looked great and Walz did not. As Jack Posobiec noted on X:

The entire debate summed up: pic.twitter.com/IZR9UCy4mg

— Jack Poso (@JackPosobiec) October 2, 2024

Scarlett Johnson reiterated the point:

My daughters think Vance is “hot.”

My husband says he's never heard conservatism explained in such a relatable and common-sense way.

I think Vance SLAYED. pic.twitter.com/dpSTNkjPQE

— Scarlett Johnson (@scarlett4kids) October 2, 2024

Throughout the debate, Vance presented himself as presidential and a man Americans could follow while Walz came across as the bumbling uncle families don’t look forward to hearing from on Thanksgiving.

Walz Bombed the One Tough Question He Was Asked

The only thing the debate moderators did fairly the entire night was to ask Walz about his bald-faced lie on being there during the Tiananmen Square massacre. It didn’t go well.

Tim Walz just admitted he is a LIAR on national TV

It is the single most awkward moment in American debate history

Just watch… pic.twitter.com/HWTBhBv8Rq

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 2, 2024

As bad as Walz’ response was, it’s hard to imagine any way this guy could have answered the question without looking awful. He took a bad circumstance and sprinkled moronic all over it.

Trust the Experts?

There was a moment in the debate that may not get as much attention from pundits as other exchanges but the viewers noticed. Many were likely nodding their heads unconsciously as Vance gave a brief history lesson about “the experts.”

WATCH: J.D. Vance decimates Tim Walz with a series of brutal fact checks.

“Governor, you say trust the experts, but those same experts for 40 years said that if we shipped our manufacturing base off to China, we'd get cheaper goods. They lied about that.”

“They said if we… pic.twitter.com/cZ810urWYD

— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) October 2, 2024

Of all the moments in the debate, this is the one that will stick in the back of people’s minds long after the election.

Tim Said What?

It was brief, but voters who noticed what Walz said about school shooters may have questions.

Yes, Walz said he had become friends with school shooters. He likely meant he had become friends with school shooting victims and their families, but unfortunately for him anyone who heard his actual words won’t forget them.

Even CNN Thinks Walz Stunk It Up

Unprepared? Overprepared? Outmatched? Whatever narrative corporate media tries to spin for Walz, the fact that they aren’t out there praising Walz the way they fawned over Kamala Harris after her debate is telling.

BREAKING: CNN admits Tim Walz lost the debate pic.twitter.com/VrHrNzrNKT

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 2, 2024

They might as well have just said he was a buffoon and moved on. They’re not going to dwell on this debate very long. They’ll move on as quickly as possible, sweeping it under the rug while drastically reducing coverage of Walz going forward.

The Verdict Is Obvious

This may have been the most lopsided VP debate in modern history. And to be clear, Walz did far better than many expected. But Vance was dominant even though he missed a handful of opportunities.

It’s conspicuous that he didn’t bring up the lawfare against his running mate, even when Walz gave him the perfect opening by highlighting how Trump talks about locking up both Hillary Clinton and Harris.

It was a no-good, awful night for Walz and very few expected otherwise.