Yesterday @SteveBakerUSA went on Secret America to discuss the “bombshell footage” that was dropped and the “congressional interest” in said footage. Only one claim actually matters to the case: is the man on the north side at 7:57–8:05 Brian Cole? If it is, then Cole isn’t the pipe bomber most likely (depends on timeline of crime), but if that’s not Cole on the video, then the analysis is over. And… everything that follows is irrelevant to the Cole case. The counter-surveillance officers, the Secret Service sandwich, "training devices," the mask colors, the interrogation details, Kerkhoff by implication: none of it applies to Cole’s guilt or innocence. It's filler random facts that turns one unproven identification into an hour of "evidence." And it’s a common disinformation technique. More below on that. At [03:02] in the podcast, Baker says Cole is innocent "if, in fact, he is the person that we have identified." By [62:56] it's "we know it's Brian Cole," and by [76:07] the host calls it "identification." The conditional kernel of truth gets the claim in the door. Then it's dropped once the audience has accepted it. Massie's letter uses the same move: "if the man depicted is in fact Brian Cole Jr." Disclaim, then assert anyway: At [08:23] he says "Although I don't know this…" and "I'm not gonna go to the conspiratorial explanation," then lays out the conspiratorial explanation anyway. At [21:27] he says "In my mind, this is what he's telling them," then voices a scripted "training exercise, finish your sandwich" conversation that he made up. A false choice: 
At [23:00] he says there are "only two possibilities": the officers were in on it, or they were told it was a drill. He leaves out the plainest option, that they hadn't spotted the device yet. The firehose: •He stacks dozens of small observations: shoes, a jacket tag, how he holds his phone, jaywalking, a "stutter step," head shape, mask color, arm swing, glasses, height. •None can be checked from blurry long-range footage, and most aren't distinctive. He says so himself at [33:xx]: "pile them all up together… the circumstantial evidence is just overwhelming." •Each one is a "kill shot," and by his own count there have been "four or five" this year. Every random fact fits the theory: •Jaywalking, stiff arms, holding the phone close and pausing mid-step are all read as "classic autism." •When any behavior counts as proof, nothing can count against it. It also leans on stereotypes about autistic people. Family members as the confirmation: •The father says "that's my son," the mother cries over the mask, and the grandmother recognizes the jacket. •They're the people with the most at stake. He also says he was calling them about shoes, jackets and traits "even before I started sending it over to them" [56:49], so he primed them before they ever saw the clip. Calling the suspect "she": •He refers to the hooded figure as "she" throughout. That builds the Kerkhoff theory in without naming her, even though the FBI and DOJ cleared her. •Meanwhile he publicly names two Capitol Police officers (omitted in this transcript), and at [33:xx] suggests one may have "returned the bomb to that spot." The cliffhanger: 
At [81:02] he promises "Tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, we're going to prove it to you that this is a law enforcement officer." There's always more "meat on the bone," which keeps the audience coming back and paying. Researchers call this the “firehose.” It’s high volume, fast and repetitive, and indifferent to consistency, mixed with "just asking questions" hedges. In the end, the only relevant question remains unanswered. Is that Cole in the footage? We don’t know. Neither does @SteveBakerUSA he told you so himself one min in.