© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Congress asks Capitol Police chief questions arising from Blaze Media report
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Congress asks Capitol Police chief questions arising from Blaze Media report

Our investigation showed how Special Agent David Lazarus could not have been telling the truth at the Oath Keepers’ trial in 2022. New information raises additional questions about USCP misconduct.

The House subcommittee that oversees the U.S. Capitol Police Department has some questions for USCP Chief J. Thomas Manger about discipline records of two officers who likely perjured themselves during the 2022 Oath Keeper trial — records that were kept from the Oath Keepers’ attorneys and could have been relevant to their defense.

Here’s what happened and how we got here.

“I am particularly concerned about the USCP Office of Professional Responsibility and the perception of undue political influence of this process,” Loudermilk wrote.

On October 4, 2023, Blaze Media published the findings of a nearly year-long investigation into the troubling and conflicting October 31, 2022, Oath Keeper trial testimonies of U.S. Capitol Police Officers Harry Dunn and Special Agent David Lazarus. On the eve of publication, Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was unseated as speaker of the House.

Because the speaker’s office has the last word on the public release of Capitol closed-circuit TV video footage from the events of January 6, 2021, the lack of a speaker meant we lost permission to use corroborating video showing that Lazarus’ testimony about where he claimed to be and what he claimed to witness that afternoon could not have happened.

New Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) in January finally granted Blaze Media permission to publish CCTV videos showing Special Agent Lazarus’ likely perjury in that trial.

Proof of Perjury | The Truth About January 6www.youtube.com

But long before the initial publication of that story, a former high-ranking Capitol Police officer who asked for anonymity out of fear of retaliation told Blaze Media about a past disciplinary event that cast doubt on Lazarus’ trial testimony and his credibility in general.

In 2016, Lazarus, who was assigned to the Dignitary Protection Division, was involved in the cover-up of an incident in which he was discovered to be drinking on duty. Lying in an internal affairs investigation is a “terminable” offense. At the very least, the incident should have been made known to the Oath Keepers’ defense team, which might have used the knowledge to impeach Lazarus’ testimony during cross-examination.

But Lazarus wasn’t fired. And the Oath Keepers’ lawyers were left in the dark.

Blaze Media has spent many months trying to acquire that 2016 USCP Office of Professional Responsibility disciplinary report, but our efforts have been met with fierce opposition from USCP leadership and their general counsel, Thomas “Tad” DiBiase. Capitol Police officials have also resisted giving that OPR report to the congressional committee assigned to oversee the USCP. A senior aide with the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight who has seen the report told Blaze Media that its contents are “nuclear.”

In a letter to Chief Manger dated March 1, Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) demanded not only more complete information about that 2016 disciplinary report but also details about another internal affairs investigation of Lazarus opened in November 2023 as a direct result of Blaze Media’s reporting.

Loudermilk’s letter details how his committee has found the results of that new disciplinary investigation to be “deficient” in findings and conclusion.

“I am particularly concerned about the USCP Office of Professional Responsibility and the perception of undue political influence of this process,” Loudermilk wrote.

Loudermilk also referred to Oath Keepers trial transcripts to show Lazarus’ testimony conflicted with Capitol CCTV evidence — presented by Blaze Media’s reports — and chastised Capitol Police investigators not using those CCTV videos to show the conflict with Lazarus’ testimony.

Loudermilk’s letter also provides an additional detail that, if true, would raise additional questions about federal prosecutors’ conduct of the Oath Keepers’ trial. According to Loudermilk, OPR investigators “relied on the statements of a federal prosecutor in the case in which Special Agent Lazarus was called as a witness.”

Blaze Media also learned from a congressional source that federal prosecutors “were definitely consulted/interviewed” by Capitol Police investigators during their inquiry in November.

As to the 2016 internal affairs investigation, Loudermilk’s letter to Manger reveals that Lazarus was reported to the OPR for violating “USCP policy related to alcohol consumption while on duty.” The alleged violation took place “at a National Republican Campaign Committee event in Florida.” Two Dignitary Protection Division agents observed Lazarus across a bar “drinking what appeared to be an alcoholic beverage with a Member of Congress.” Furthermore, the agents “observed that Special Agent Lazarus was unsteady on his feet and his speech was slurred.”

Lazarus was immediately sent back to Washington, D.C. When questioned, he denied drinking on the job, claiming he “consumed 2-3 non-alcoholic mixed drinks on the day in question.”

“It appears that Agent Lazarus may have intentionally given false or misleading statements,” the OPR investigation concluded.

Multiple USCP sources have told Blaze Media that lying to departmental investigators is a “terminable” action. Any law enforcement officer who has made false statements to departmental investigators must have those events revealed to trial defense lawyers under “Brady and Giglio” precedents.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice:

It is the obligation of federal prosecutors, in preparing for trial, to seek all exculpatory and impeachment information from all the members of the prosecution team. Members of the prosecution team include federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and other government officials participating in the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against the defendant.


A prosecutor must disclose information that is inconsistent with any element of any crime charged against the defendant or that establishes a recognized affirmative defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the defendant for a charged crime.

All crimes on Capitol property on January 6, 2021, were under the investigative jurisdiction of the Capitol Police. The department was responsible for referring each investigation to the Justice Department and FBI. Blaze Media has learned from Oath Keeper defense attorneys that neither the USCP nor federal prosecutors disclosed Lazarus’ 2016 Office of Professional Responsibility investigation to them before his October 31, 2022, testimony.

Neither the Capitol Police nor the Justice Department made the Capitol CCTV videos of Lazarus’ movements in the Capitol on January 6 available to the Oath Keepers' defense teams.

Videos discovered by Blaze Media investigative reporters showed conclusively that Lazarus could not have seen the disputed encounter between four Oath Keepers and former USCP Officer Harry Dunn — essential testimony in which Lazarus claimed he witnessed an “antagonistic” encounter between Dunn and those Oath Keepers “three or four times.” CCTV video proves, however, that Lazarus was in another Senate office building when that encounter began and did not arrive until several minutes after the Oath Keepers had departed.

The Capitol Police have plenty of explaining to do. This story is developing.

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?