The U.S. government’s commitment to obscuring the events of January 6, 2021, has reached new heights, as demonstrated by its recent court filing that opposes Ryan Zink’s motion to lift a protective order on discovery materials. On April 16, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the government submitted a 13-page brief arguing that disclosing these materials could jeopardize “witnesses and victims” and pose a threat to national security.
However, a deeper investigation unveils a disconcerting narrative: the alleged “victims” are predominantly the Metropolitan and Capitol Police officers who transformed what began as a peaceful protest into chaos, while the “witnesses” include obscure entities like the “Sedition Hunters,” whose sophisticated AI tools provoke more questions than they answer. Ryan Zink, a pardoned January 6 defendant now vying for a congressional seat, is resolute in his pursuit of the truth surrounding that fateful day and the subsequent legal onslaught, but the government is leaving no stone unturned to stifle his efforts.
Thank you @gatewaypundit I will never stop fighting for the American people not just J6 defendants!!
Alea iacta est.https://t.co/Wz05X1FUug
— Ryan Zink for Congress TX-19 (@RyanZ4Congress) April 10, 2025
The Government’s Claims About “Victims” and “Witnesses”
The government contends that the protective order Zink wishes to lift is essential to safeguard the privacy of “victims” and “witnesses,” as well as to protect national security. But who, exactly, are these victims? The most likely candidates are the Metropolitan and Capitol Police officers who, in many cases, escalated the violence on January 6 by deploying tear gas and rubber bullets against a peaceful assembly. Tragically, before any protester even entered the Capitol, lives were already lost: Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips perished, while Matthew Joshua Black suffered a rubber bullet wound to the face, and Derrick Vargo narrowly escaped death when a Capitol Police officer pushed him off a 30-foot ledge. These individuals are the true victims of January 6, yet the government’s narrative conveniently overlooks them to instead focus on protecting the officers who instigated the violence.
Moreover, the “witnesses” that the government seeks to shield include the enigmatic “Sedition Hunters,” a group that has utilized advanced artificial intelligence tools long before they became commercially available. These tools enabled them to identify January 6 defendants, such as Antoine Williams, based on minor details like a unique key fob. Little is known about the Sedition Hunters, their funding, or their ties to federal agencies, but their ability to employ cutting-edge AI raises significant questions regarding their role in the government’s January 6 investigations. Are these the “witnesses” the government is eager to protect? If so, the public deserves a transparent explanation.
Ryan Zink’s Ordeal and Quest for Truth
Ryan Zink’s experience epitomizes the injustice faced by many January 6 defendants. On September 13, 2023, a D.C. jury convicted Zink of the notoriously difficult 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) charge—obstruction of an official proceeding—alongside two misdemeanors. He received a sentence of three months in federal prison and an additional 12 months of stringent supervised release, during which his basic freedoms were severely curtailed. After serving his time, the Supreme Court remanded the 1512(c)(2) charge, leaving Zink with only misdemeanors—but the damage had already been inflicted. His life was uprooted, his reputation tarnished, and the relentless prosecution left marks that no pardon can erase.
Having been pardoned by President Trump, Zink is now running for Congress, pledging to uncover the truth about January 6 and the four years of governmental lawfare that ensued. His motion to lift the protective order is a crucial element of this mission, aiming to make public the extensive discovery materials that could illuminate the extent of governmental overreach, including the involvement of undercover agents known to have been present in the crowd that day. Yet, the government is fiercely opposing the release of these materials, claiming they contain sensitive information critical to national security—without offering any substantive specifics.
The Hypocrisy of “Protecting Personal Information”
The government’s concern for the personal information of “witnesses and victims” rings hollow when juxtaposed with its treatment of January 6 defendants. The Justice Department has issued press releases for every J6 case, even for elderly individuals charged with minor misdemeanors, publicly broadcasting their names and charges without regard for their presumption of innocence. Local media outlets have eagerly disseminated these stories, ruining lives, costing defendants their employment, and alienating them from their communities. Yet, the government now asserts that releasing discovery materials would violate the privacy of others. Where was this concern for privacy when J6 defendants were subjected to public shaming?
The “Agreement” to the Protective Order: A Forced Choice
The government’s filing claims that Zink “agreed” to the protective order, suggesting he consented to maintaining these materials’ secrecy. This assertion is a gross misrepresentation. In the U.S. justice system, such “agreements” are often coercive. Defendants like Zink are presented with a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum: accept the protective order or forfeit access to the government’s evidence against them. Had Zink refused, the court would have imposed the order anyway, leaving him unable to mount a defense. This is not genuine agreement; it’s coercion masquerading as consent, a common tactic in the government’s arsenal to control the narrative.
National Security or Cover-Up?
The government’s invocation of “national security” to justify the protective order is equally dubious. The filing vaguely alludes to the necessity of protecting Capitol surveillance footage and Secret Service protocols but fails to provide concrete examples of how releasing these materials would endanger the nation. Could this be an effort to obscure the presence of FBI agents among the January 6 crowd, a fact that has long been speculated upon but never thoroughly addressed? The government’s refusal to provide specifics only fuels speculation that “national security” serves as a pretext for concealing its own misdeeds.
A Curious Signature and a Glimmer of Hope?
The brief is signed by Jennifer Blackwell, a J6 prosecutor involved in nearly 40 January 6 cases. Notably, the name of Edward Robert Martin, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia appointed by President Trump, is conspicuously absent from the document. The filing concludes:
The events of January 6, and the ensuing investigations and prosecutions, are important to our history as a nation—events that must be considered through appropriate public access to government records and through public discourse. But criminal discovery is not the appropriate mechanism to vindicate that interest. Lifting the discovery protective order would result in significant harm to the security of our nation and to countless others.
The Road Ahead
Zink’s motion is currently before Judge James E. Boasberg, whose history suggests he will likely side with the government. However, Zink, along with J6 investigators from outlets like and his attorney Roger Roots, remains resolute. Their struggle is not solely for Zink but for the American public, which deserves to know the truth about January 6 and the years of lawfare that followed. Ryan Zink’s battle is far from concluded. As he campaigns for Congress and advocates for transparency, he embodies the fight for countless J6 defendants whose lives were upended by a politicized justice system.
