WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Victoria Churchill: FBI’s 5-Year Silence Create Pipe Bomb Crisis

Episode Date: December 9, 2025

Federal investigators finally have arrested Brian J. Cole Jr., identifying him as the January 6 attempted pipe bomber after five years of uncertainty, shifting evidence, and public speculation. Yet this “breakthrough” raises urgent questions: Why did federal agencies withhold key information for half a decade, and how did that secrecy fuel false accusations? Young Voices Spokesperson Victoria Churchill brings a nonpartisan lens to the systemic failures behind this case and offers critical insight into what true accountability looks like before this narrative hardens into political theater. She joins Sami Mandel on WRFH to discuss.

This is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Samantha Mandel. Today we're looking at the arrest tied to the January 6-era pipe bombs and the bigger question it raises. What happens to public trust when a high-profile investigation stays opaque for years? I am joined by Victoria Churchill, a young voices contributor whose works can be found in Daily Mail, the American Conservative and Real Clear Politics. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much for having me. Always great to be on with all of you great folks at Radio Free Hillsdale. For listeners just catching up, can you briefly explain the circumstances around the arrest and why it's a pretty big deal? Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, of course, the events of January 6th are something that has permeated through our national news and our politics.

for, you know, really almost the last five years. This has been something that a lot of people have been interested in kind of from all sides of the political aisle. There have been investigations in Congress. But now there was new information released just this month in December of 2025. You know, like I said, almost five years since the incident. There was new information released about an individual

who placed pike bombs on January 6th outside of the Republican National Committee as well as the Democrat National Committee. And what does this arrest to reveal about the strengths and weaknesses of major federal investigations, especially in high stakes political moments? I think it reveals a lot. I think it reveals that lack of information can often lead to people coming up with their own conclusions, which I think, you know, is something that we instinctively do, right? I think back from the days when we were all little kids, you know, playing with dolls or toys or, you know, G.I. Joe figures if you were a boy or Barbies, if you were a girl, you always try to invent scenarios around characters, right?

And so I think the American public has done that for, like I said, almost the last half decade, particularly with the January 6th incident. There was a lot that was seen that day, but there was also a lot that was not seen. there has been lots of information that has come out, like I said, for example, in congressional investigations, there has been other information that has permeated through documentaries. Just last month, right, the BBC, it was found out, had doctored some parts of Trump speech, for example, on that day, and that was kind of a big scandal. You know, obviously, I work for the Daily Mail. We have both the U.S. and a UK publication. So, you know, that story in particular was something that really, you know, sparks a lot of

of interest in our audience. And as well, I'm also a commentator frequently with GB News. I'm on their show about once a week. And so they are a more conservative or right-wing broadcaster coming out of Britain. So they were, you know, kind of the ones that capitalize on, I guess, that BBC faux pot, a couple of the hosts that I interact with on pretty much a weekly basis. They got to interview Trump at the White House. So, you know, like I said, this January 6th incident is something that has had repercussions on our politics and our media. even leading up to today. So anything new, any new information that comes out that comes out of federal investigations and is released to the greater public, it helps paint a clearer picture.

And so, you know, there's always a question of how much of federal investigation should be behind the scenes. How much should the media know and kind of by that? How much should the general public know? And I think that's a question that a lot of people are asking, you know, not only with this investigation, but of course, for example, the Jeffrey Epstein files, that's something that I talked about. I'm pretty sure last time I was on Radio Free Hillsdale, you know, there's new information being released constantly. People are definitely kind of using that to play political games. You know, Democrats, for example, just recently released additional Epstein files kind of without waiting for a release of information from the Department of Justice. So, you know, again, that's something

that is not only tied to January 6 but to other kind of key things that the U.S. public as well as I think really the global broad base of, I guess, news consumers and people that show an interest in American politics really care about. And so, you know, as the media, for example, right, like we're always going to push the envelope. We want to get whatever that latest tidbit is. But, you know, also elected officials, right, that are elected by the public at large. They may have their own reasoning for keeping things private or quiet. Overall, what is the most important lesson that this case offers and about how institutions handle politically sensitive investigations?

Yeah, again, I think that's a really good question. I think that everybody really, I think, always has some kind of ulterior motive, to be frank, right? Like if you're, you know, for example, in that Epstein case that I just brought up, right? You know, Democrats want to make the president look bad. And the president and his political allies, you know, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee that's done a lot of this Epstein investigating, they called the Clintons, for example, to testify about Epstein because like Trump, the Clintons were also pictured at numerous events with him, you know, appeared at fundraisers, right?

even Hakeem Jeffreys, the current Democrat minority leader, he was out of fundraiser that was backed by Epstein. So, you know, people will try to kind of, I guess, slice and dice things to fit their own narrative. You know, our job as media, as journalists, I think, is to take all those tidbits, but also try to paint the most complete picture. And, you know, kind of on the other hand, you don't always have the most complete picture.

So, you know, when you're storytelling, at least the way that do it at the Daily Mail is we will reach out to both sides of the story for comment. If there is nothing that they can add additional to a current story that we're telling, we will then go ahead and see if there's anything that they have said about the topic recently. And if there's nothing like that, then, you know, the most that we can at times put in the story is that such and such individual or such and such office was reached out for comment and they didn't respond. And so, you know, for with us, as long as we have that right of reply that we provide to people, we can't always tell their side of the story no matter

how hard we try. And so I think that particularly with things that are politically sensitive, people will often conceal parts of the story regardless of how hard the public, the media, you know, even whistleblowers try to open up different elements of a case. This is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Samantha Mandel and I'm talking with Young Voices contributor Victoria Churchill about the recent arrest in connection with the January 6 attempted pipe bombing. What do you think the public deserved to note earlier without compromising the investigation? Again, you have just all the best questions. I really think that because this is something that was so, I guess, polarizing for the American public and something that, again, I think a lot of

people saw play out, or at least as they saw, you know, from broadcasts and from media and from clips of different incidents that happened on that day. I think just because of how how many witnesses there were, right, to everything that went on, I think the public did deserve to know more. Because again, I, you know, this has ended, you know, many people's political careers. If you ask Democrats, they would say, you know, this should have doubt, or at least the narrative that we knew should have taken down Donald Trump and even meant that he could have never run for re-election. So, you know, when things have such far-reaching national and even international implications, I think that the public deserves to know as much as possible.

And again, like I think as journalists, we try to educate the public or set a light on things that are meant to be out there, but regardless of how hard we try, that's not always possible. Absolutely. And how do you think the public should think about the tension between investigative secrecy and democratic transparency? So, for example, I think that, for example, you look at the cases related to the investigation that's been going on on Capitol Hill with the auto pen. There were testimonies that were drawn from individuals, a number of whom, for example, worked in the Biden administration. That was done by the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee. They called a bunch of individuals testify. Some did, some didn't.

Their transcripts, I think, for example, should have been released at the time that they were done versus all at the end when kind of the committee made their own conclusions about what was said. But, you know, for example, you also have to recognize that, you know, if people are coming in as they were in that case and testifying over a matter of weeks, if not months, right? You know, some of these testimonies were happening in the summer. Some of them were actually still going on during the government shutdown. So, you know, if you're looking at June and July for some of these testimonies, even going into September and most of October, for others, you know, maybe somebody else that was going to testify they might say or not say something. So, you know,

I can say one thing, but I think there's always kind of a good counter argument or counter reasoning as to why that can't be the case. So, you know, for example, as a journalist, I would have loved to broken down every single testimony individually on the day that it happened. You know, most of the time when these individuals went to testify, they didn't necessarily. talk to media on Capitol Hill that day, sometimes Chairman Comer, who was the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee, who was leading this investigation, you know, sometimes he would come out and say, you know, such and such person said this, or they let us know this. But again, you know, because of kind of political expediency, they are trying to only, you know, if somebody

sits for a five to eight hour testimony, they're not going to, you know, the Republicans that were leading this, they were not going to go ahead and give Comer the, you know, the entire rundown of what happened during that eight hours. Of course, they're going to cherry-pick highlights and, you know, particularly in media that's done all the time, right? Just covering congressional hearings that are public and out in the open and that are, you know, some of them do range three hours, some of them range six hours and even longer. There's no way to tell somebody the entirety of what went on if you don't run the whole transcript. So you always do have to cherry pick, and you always, you know, for example, as a journalist, right,

you pick out things that, you know, your audience is going to be interested in, but other outlets will pick out completely different things. So, you know, part of it, I think, is just like the reality of the medium or how information gets conveyed. But, you know, for example, testimonies versus these closed-door transcripts. for the hearings, you can go out, and if you wanted to, you can go out as a member of the general public and watch the entire thing versus these transcribed interviews with the Biden-not-open investigation. Those were not done in the public. And so, you know, Congress chooses what they're going to have done publicly versus what they're going to have done behind closed doors.

And I think sometimes you don't necessarily know why that decision is being made. You just have to live with that decision and make the best of it that you can either as a member of the public or as a member of the public or as a member of the media. Makes perfect sense. And the blaze recently retracted a report they made accusing the wrong person of the pipe bombing. In cases like these, what would true accountability from journalists and news sources look like? I mean, I think retractions are definitely a good way to kind of help maintain journalistic integrity. I think particularly in the Trump era with some of the comments that have come out of the White House. It is kind of a greater light that is being shed on statements that are made in the media

and statements that are made incorrectly. And so, you know, I think in this case, it was good of the ways to retract what they came out with. Also, because sometimes kind of more niche publications, particularly right-of-center ones, they don't necessarily always actually have their work picked up in major, publications. And so I think with that, it is also harder for conservative publications to get their work out there if the work of one conservative outlet was kind of disregarded or, you know, echoed and amplified by a number of different outlets. And then it turned out that it was retracted. And so, you know, I think in today's media ecosystem, of course you have to be careful

with what you print. Of course, you have to do what I was talking about before, where you go out and give every single person a chance to, you know, weigh in and to comment. But if they don't, you know, like said, sometimes you do have to run with the story as is. And if it comes out, for example, after publication that, you know, people want to respond to you after you publish. And, you know, I've had that, you know, just even in the last few months or weeks, you know, not super related to what happens on Capitol Hill, but we had a story that I was doing about former New York City mayor Bill de Blasio's, new love interest and girlfriend and kind of her whole situation. And so we reached out to her for comment numerous times. And we also reached out to people around her. And actually the person

that she was, I guess, most recently known to have been in a relationship with didn't respond to multiple requests for comment via email, via phone calls, text messages. Like, we tried to get a hold of this guy in quite a few different ways. And he only reached out to us after publication to kind of clarify the state of his relationship with the woman. And so, you know, in that, like, we went in and we made those edits. But, you know, again, regardless sometimes of how hard you makes that effort, you don't get the whole story even before publication. And, you know, again, you can make corrections. You can make retractions. So, you know, that was just kind of an incident that I thought of off the top of my head where, you know, I've had to do that in my own work.

And, you know, that's something we're happy to do. And those are tweaks that we're happy to make. But You know, in that story in particular, you know, we had the overall story correct. It was just kind of some minor details that we were missing. And then, of course, we made those tweaks when that information was given to us. Right. And then for something more grand scale, when misinformation or misidentification does spread, where should the accountability fall? Would it be the media agencies or the public discourse itself? I think it's both. I mean, definitely in the U.S., we have, you know, definitely greater freedom of speech than we enjoy, I guess, than journalists enjoy in other places of the world. You know, we have much higher standards for libel and even for like what people can, you know, demand as privacy, for example. So, you know, for example, I know that my colleagues in the UK, they kind of have a lot more stringent laws that they have to follow.

And I think that's all definitely things that have to be considered in today's media environment. And then, of course, outside of traditional news outlets, then you also have independent media. And, you know, I think for a lot of these individuals, they, you know, particularly people that, like, build their own brands, have podcasts and things like that, they actually have to be very careful. And I think at times, at times more careful with, you know, potentially being sued and having false claims. that they echo and amplify. But, you know, for example, along those lines, another thing that I've been following quite closely is the Candice Owens saga after the Charlie Kirk assassination,

which, of course, happened in September. And, you know, it really took several months, you know, almost three months, right? September, October, December, just last week, turning point came out and said basically everything that Candace Owens has insinuated about, Charlie and his relationships and us and our operations and like I said, literally everything that, you know, I've written about for months has, they basically decried it as false.

But, you know, I was wondering if there was, and I don't know this, this is just purely speculative on my end, but I was wondering if there was kind of some prior legal things that were not known in the media about directly the relationship between Owens and Turning Point. because, of course, she had been a turning point employee. And she was, and I believe still is listed as a turning point board member on their website because she co-founded Blegsit, which is their African-American outreach arm. And so, you know, some of Charlie's allies in the media space started coming out and saying, you know, this statement is false, but it took a very long time for Turning Point themselves to come out

and really say that everything that she was shared. was, you know, complete nonsense. And, you know, I think that's just one example, right, of, like, she is going out making these claims. She's got a very large following. She's got a following that's increased since she's been making these claims. And then outside of just the medium of the show that she did it on, you know, I constantly saw those clips circulated on Twitter, on Instagram. Other creators were reposting them. Some supportively. Some were, you know, calling her out, saying it was complete nonsense that she was saying. And so, you know, again, I don't see this happening too much with traditional media outlets,

but particularly with new media creators like Candace. You know, I think she's somebody that's definitely one to watch particularly in what you've been saying, right, is the claims that she's made, how damaging they've been to individuals, organizations. Of course, you know, talking of individuals, she's made numerous claims about the French First Lady, and she's currently involved in lots of legal matters with the French court. but yeah I think in that case

the blame is probably kind of shared among a lot of people both the originator and those

that amplified and you know when you have somebody that is such a really a global presence you know

I think whether you like it or not she has audiences all around the world that listen to her and that you know take what she says as kind of

their gospel truly that those that amplify the burden is also on their shoulders you know, regardless of whether that can be proven in something like a lawsuit, I think kind of in terms of like societal consciousness, they do still kind of bear part of that burden. Absolutely. This is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM.

I'm Samantha Mandel, and I'm talking with Young Voices contributor, Victoria Churchill, about the recent arrest in connection with the January 6 attempted pipe bombing and the issues surrounding it. In the future, how can citizens? differentiate true news coverage with warranted skepticism and narrative-driven suspicion. I mean, again, I think pretty much what I was just talking about with Candace, I think, is a perfect example of this, right? You know, she's somebody that I think some people would consider a journalist. You know, some people consider her a podcaster, a creator, and, you know, particularly in this entire case, there was a lot of skepticism. And so that's kind of the question.

right of like what what makes somebody a journalist is it you know her her excuse that she said for for weeks and months on end was I'm just asking questions right and so you know what at what point is asking questions journalism at what point is asking questions just nefarious and you know I've always viewed parts of being a good journalist one of the key parts of is asking questions I I did a speech earlier this summer where I talked about the nature of asking questions as being very key to the profession. But I think if you have lots of speculation, if you don't have evidence, if you don't have eyewitnesses, sources that are willing to go, you know, ideally on the record, but that's not always possible, particularly as we've been discussing with matters of national security and things like that. I think a lot of the times you just have to go off the facts that are available and then, you know, if you can add maybe 10% to a story, maybe sometimes that's good enough. Maybe you don't need to, you know, create a completely false narrative as I think some people have done in various different cases.

For sure. And finally, what reforms or changes could reduce the odds of another five-year vacuum that invites misinformation. Again, you just have the best questions today. I think to conclude just the fact that maybe you limit some certain investigations within the time span of a certain Congress, for example, like in the legal field, and of course I'm not a lawyer, I'm a journalist, but obviously statutes of limitations exist. So maybe if there is something that could be done in that regard,

that may be something that Congress can look at. I mean, again, like in the case of Epstein, some of this evidence that they're looking at is 25, 30 years old. So, you know, maybe sometimes it does need to be looked at. And so maybe there is, again, you know, maybe if you talk to people that aren't me, that they will give you very good reasoning for why that shouldn't exist. But, you know, maybe that's something that could potentially be looked at because there is a reason that it exists in the legal field. So, you know, maybe congressional investigators could look at doing something like that in the future. Perfect. Our guest has been Victoria Churchill, a young voices contributor whose works can be found in Daily Mail, the American Conservative, and real clear politics. And I'm Samantha Mandel on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Thank you.

Thank you.