There are entirely factual ways to describe January 6th, 2021. There is wall-to-wall video documentation. Facts themselves are not partisan. What someone makes of them may be. Hiding them when they don't suit your partisan narrative definitely is.
But I will say that it makes sense to avoid commenting on anything that could be interpreted as politically divisive (which Shays and 9/11 are not, really) regardless of factuality. It certainly doesn't seem to serve the intended purpose, since it's suggesting I ask it how to do things and not to ask it about history.
It did refuse to comment on whether or not the Vietnam war was viewed favorably by the public though. So I don't think it's the case that there is some specific exception coded in for Jan 6th.
A: I only answer questions about U.S. government services and official information.
I cannot describe or catalog the contents of a private person’s laptop, and I do not provide political commentary.
If you have a question about a federal program, benefit, form, or agency process, ask that and I can point you to official sources.
I guess it could have been worse. It would be interesting to set up a scraper to find out what it allows itself to answer, or doesn't, and weigh the results against another LLM.
America.gov's chatbot provided the following, showing it does delve into politics. I guess when it wants to...
-----
I’ll look up official records of Attorney General Bondi’s testimony so I can report what was actually said, not rumor.
I cannot verify that Attorney General Pam Bondi screamed under oath, “The Dow, The Dow,” as the answer to House questions about Epstein co-conspirator indictments or file redactions. No official hearing transcript in the sources I checked quotes that line. What official House materials do show
On February 11, 2026, she testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Coverage and committee materials describe a combative hearing on Epstein files, redactions, and related issues. House Judiciary Democrats: questions she did not answer. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin later wrote that she refused to say how many of Epstein’s co-conspirators DOJ had indicted, and Democrats stated the number was zero.
Same release · Nadler exchange summary
After she was fired on April 2, 2026, Raskin’s statement included: “For the record, the DOW was under 50,000.” That is a member’s remark after the fact, not a certified quote of her shouting those words.
Raskin statement
I do not explain private motives. For the official record, use the committee video/transcript when the committee posts it, not secondhand wording.
------
Here is the committee hearing where she deflects, over/over praises the president and loudly says the dow, the dow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2132OUc5s , yet never answers the question. Less then 60 days later she was no longer the attorney general.
That's the thing. People can't even agree on facts, even if they're obvious to an outside observer.
The Republicans understand the facts of Jan 6. It’s just not in their interest to be truthful about those facts. Which is another problem entirely.
That statement itself is partisan. So is the meta-statement about who agrees with that first statement.
Really, any messy argument is about the claim who made which claims.
Party A makes statement A,
Party B makes statement B,
Statements A and B are in contradition,
Party A claims that both parties agree that statement A is true,
Party B claims that both parties agree that statement B is true.
If you seek truth about reality, you better take humans out of the loop...