BOMBSHELL: Phone Companies Dispute J6 FBI Testimony

Nearly four years after the infamous events of January 6, 2021, new revelations suggest a troubling inconsistency in the FBI’s handling of the investigation into the pipe bombs planted near the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters.

Despite having access to abundant resources and evidence, the bureau has yet to identify the suspect, raising questions about its credibility and the motivations behind its investigative approach.

The controversy centers around testimony from Steven D’Antuono, the former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, who claimed in 2023 that crucial phone data from the area was corrupted by a cell carrier. This data, according to D’Antuono, could have identified the individual responsible for planting the explosive devices. However, recent findings by the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), directly contradict these claims.

Loudermilk revealed that major cell carriers, in response to congressional inquiries, confirmed they did not provide corrupted data to the FBI and were never informed of any issues accessing it. “Every major cell carrier responded and confirmed that they did not provide the FBI corrupted data,” Loudermilk told Just the News. “This contradictory testimony raises serious questions about the status of the investigation into the pipe bomber and about why the case remains unsolved nearly four years later.”

The implications are significant. If the FBI did, in fact, receive intact data, as the carriers assert, why has the bureau failed to utilize it effectively? The lack of progress becomes even more questionable when considering the high-quality surveillance footage and photographic evidence of the suspect holding what appears to be a cell phone.

D’Antuono’s testimony isn’t the only aspect of the investigation under scrutiny. Loudermilk’s findings follow a series of missteps and inexplicable lapses. For instance, then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was brought within 10 yards of one of the live pipe bombs, an egregious security oversight that endangered her life and raised questions about the thoroughness of law enforcement’s planning and execution.

In addition, Loudermilk disclosed that the FBI has failed to provide substantive updates to Congress despite numerous requests. D’Antuono himself admitted to congressional investigators that he could not recall whether the bureau had even interviewed the individual who discovered the bombs. Furthermore, conflicting reports from the FBI and its Quantico laboratory on whether the bombs were operable add to the growing list of discrepancies.

The FBI’s apparent inability—or unwillingness—to bring the suspect to justice has left many conservatives questioning the bureau’s priorities. Some have speculated that the agency’s resources have been diverted to pursue political narratives rather than focusing on actual criminal threats. The fact that the suspect remains at large despite the availability of surveillance footage, photographic evidence, and allegedly intact cell data only bolsters these suspicions.

In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Loudermilk demanded clarity on the bureau’s handling of the phone data. “Did the FBI receive corrupted or otherwise unusable cellular data returns from one or more of the cell carriers in connection with the investigation into the individual who planted two explosive devices at the RNC and DNC on the evening of January 5, 2021? If so, which cell carrier(s) provided corrupted data to the FBI?” the congressman asked.

As of now, the FBI has not publicly responded to Loudermilk’s inquiries. The bureau’s silence only deepens the mystery surrounding its investigative practices and decision-making processes.

The unresolved pipe bomb investigation is emblematic of broader concerns about the FBI’s integrity. From allegations of political bias to the mishandling of high-profile cases, the bureau has increasingly found itself at the center of controversies that undermine public trust.

For many on the right, the handling of the January 6 pipe bomb case is yet another example of an institution more focused on optics and political calculations than on delivering justice. While the FBI claims it remains committed to solving the case, its track record on this investigation leaves much to be desired.

The question remains: Is the FBI’s failure to solve the pipe bomb case due to incompetence, or is it something more deliberate?