Join the Fight… Support Revolver News’ Investigative Work… Pound for Pound the Most Impactful Journalism in the Country…

We’re approaching the four-year anniversary of the infamous January 6 pipe bomb case, and still the FBI pretends to be clueless as to the identity of the suspect. In this same span of time, Revolver News is proud to have broken countless stories regarding the pipe bomb case that overwhelmingly point toward a government cover-up involving the FBI, ATF, the Secret Service, Capitol Police, and even Kamala Harris herself. The evidence is so damning that we have long referred to the January 6 pipe bombs as one of the two smoking guns of the Fedsurrection (the other smoking gun being Ray Epps). Our reporting has completely reshaped the national conversation not only about the pipe bomb but January 6 generally, and the reverberations continue to make their way to the top. Just recently, no less than Elon Musk (a confirmed reader of Revolver) expressed his view that the pipe bomb story is a hoax and that the identity of the bomber could very well be a secret government employee.

In a recent interview, Dan Bongino (who has been great on this issue) raised the question of the pipe bomb to Trump himself, who maintained that if elected he would help get to the bottom of it.

One way to find out the pipe bomber’s identity is through the use of so-called geo-fencing technology. In a nutshell, law enforcement can identify suspects based on various types of location signals given off by their phones (for instance, where and when a particular mobile device pings a cell tower). Law enforcement has successfully used this geo-fencing approach to identify, arrest, and charge a number of January 6 participants already.

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):

According to journalist Marcy Wheeler, the FBI relied heavily on controversial geofence warrants as part of its investigations into January 6 suspects, identifying over 5,000 unique devices based on Google Location History. Geofence search warrants are meant to locate devices within a given area based on digital services like GPS, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi signals. According to a follow-up report by Wired, the filings suggest that these geofence warrants also captured phones that were in airplane mode or otherwise out of cell service. Further, it appears that individuals who attempted to delete their location data in the days after January 6 were of particular interest to the FBI.

In fact, the pipe bomb suspect would be a particularly easy geo-fencing target because the suspect was alone in a specific, known area at a specific, known time. See, for instance, the surveillance footage released by the FBI:

So why didn’t the FBI, in its investigation of the pipe bomber, do a geo-fencing search? As it so happens, the former head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office who led the pipe bomb investigation testified to the House Judiciary Committee that indeed they did perform a geo-fencing inquiry. The following from a Jim Jordan report released a little over a year ago is worth revisiting in full (emphasis ours):

So the – there’s a lot of phone data that came in. Yes, I’ve seen the same video. I’ve watched the same video. We put out the same video. It looks like a phone. Was it a real phone, a not a real phone, was it a ruse? Was it a – you know, I picked up my phone several times at meetings going, oh, yeah, I got to take this call, and walk out, right. The phone’s not on, right. So was the person just sitting there trying to pretend like they’re on a bench taking a phone call? We don’t know until we find the person, right, and ask them those questions.

We did a complete geofence. We have complete data. Not complete, because there’s some data that was corrupted by one of the providers, not purposely by them, right. It just – unusual circumstance that we have corrupt data from one of the providers. I’m not sure – I can’t remember right now which one. But for that day, which is awful because we don’t have that information to search. So could it have been that provider? Yeah, with our luck, you know, with this investigation it probably was, right. So maybe if we did have that – that data wasn’t corrupted – and it wasn’t purposely corrupted. I don’t want any conspiracy theories, right. To my knowledge, it wasn’t corrupted, you know, but that could have been good information that we don’t have, right. So that is painful for us not to have that. So we looked at everything.

In other words, the former head of the pipe bomb investigation for the FBI is claiming in effect that the dog ate the telecom data that could have identified the pipe bomber (perhaps the same dogs who inexplicably missed the pipe bomb during the canine search of the DNC building prior to Kamala’s arrival). Let us stretch the boundaries of credulity and assume, just as a thought exercise, that D’Antuono is telling the truth here and that the telecom data required to do the geo-fencing identification actually was corrupted (and not deliberately corrupted as part of the documented ongoing cover-up of the pipe bomb hoax). Even if this is the case, however, that is still not a satisfactory explanation for why the FBI has not been able to identify the pipe bomber using geo-fencing data.

To understand why this is the case, it is important to know that law enforcement typically has multiple avenues to identify a suspect using something like a geo-fencing approach. One of the methods is that law enforcement could get a warrant from a judge to get geo-fencing data from a suspect’s telecom provider. For instance, law enforcement could get a warrant from AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile to reveal which phones were pinging which towers in a manner consistent with the suspect’s known location at a specific time. This approach—that of requesting information from the relevant telecom company—is the approach that D’Antuono claims the FBI undertook, only to learn that the data was “corrupted.”

But there are other avenues available to law enforcement for similarly identifying data. For instance, there is Google’s infamous “Sensorvault,” a massive database where Google has stored geo-location data for users gathered through WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, cell towers, and Google’s “Timeline” feature. Google’s Sensorvault often contains even more precise data than Telecom companies themselves, and for almost a decade law enforcement has obtained warrants for Google’s sensor vault data in order to identify suspects in potential crimes. In fact, the documented instances of geo-fencing used to identify January 6 suspects have involved Google rather than telecom companies themselves.

It is unclear then why the FBI would have gone solely to a telecom company and not to Google first. Even more strangely, assuming the FBI went to the telecom company and found the data they wanted was corrupted, why then wouldn’t they have followed up and gone to Google for the same information (especially when the DOJ was going to Google for other J6 cases and the Google data is often better anyway)? Are we supposed to believe that somehow Google’s data was corrupted? Not even Steven D’Antuono had the gall to say such a thing. But the notion that the FBI wouldn’t bother to ask Google is equally, if not more damning than Google’s data being corrupted. What possible explanation could the FBI have for not approaching Google?

Conveniently, it appears that Google is no longer complying with Sensorvault warrants, and as of this month, it has announced that it is changing the way it stores data to make it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain data in the first place. Given the alleged priority of the January 6 pipe bomb case, there is still a good chance Google would have information relevant to the identification of the suspect. If the FBI cared about identifying the suspect, which they clearly aren’t, this would be something they’d revisit tomorrow. At the very least, Congress should ask Google if it has such information now, and Congress should ask the FBI and Google whether the FBI ever bothered at any point to get the data from Google (keep in mind the investigation began in early 2021, which was during a timeframe in which Sensorvault warrants were very viable).

Finally, there is a third way to obtain geo-fencing data, and that is through third-party data collection firms that essentially collect geo-location data from apps used on an individual’s cell phone. This data is in principle available to any private citizen with the resources to purchase it (it’s expensive). This is how the researchers for the famous 2000 Mules movie obtained data suggestive of ballot harvesting. We have learned through extensive research and multiple inquiries that these private firms have been very tight-lipped when it comes to sharing data pertaining to January 6th (curious, is it not?). But even if this approach is difficult for private citizens, there should be no issue with law enforcement getting this data.

So we see that even if D’Antuono was telling the truth about one source of geo-fencing data being corrupted, there were multiple avenues available to identify the pipe bomber. It is nearly inconceivable that the FBI wouldn’t have pursued these avenues—but then again, overwhelming evidence already suggests quite clearly that the pipe bomb case is a hoax and that it is being covered up.

The FBI’s investigation was never serious. In fact, we learned just last month that as of mid-2022, the FBI didn’t even bother to retain any January 6 surveillance footage of the DNC building where the pipe bombs were planted. It was never a serious investigation; it was always a serious crime against the American people and a serious cover-up.

So where does that leave us?

For one, here is yet another major piece of evidence that the FBI has zero interest in uncovering the identity of the pipe bomber or pursuing a genuine investigation (as though we needed more). If Congress has the opportunity, it should learn whether the FBI even bothered to get geofencing data from Google, assuming the data from the telecom request was corrupted. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, what this means is that this data exists and can still likely be retrieved from Google or one of the several third-party vendors that sells such data; furthermore, there should be urgent inquiries to find out which telecom company had the data and to confirm if indeed that data actually was corrupted and, if so, whether the nature of the corruption is such that it could be somehow recovered.

In short, it is very likely that Google, a telecom company, and several third-party data vendors could all identify the January 6 pipe bomber if they had sufficient motivation. They should be pressed to do so. And the FBI should receive maximum accountability for its flagrant role in this cover-up, which, when fully exposed, will prove to be one of the biggest scandals in recent American history.

JOIN THE FIGHT — DITCH THE ADS — READ THE NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL