Capitol Police says it reviewed just one Jan. 6 clip Tucker Carlson showed | The Hill
Category: News & Politics
Via: jbb • last year • 26 commentsBy: Emily Brooks, Dominick Mastrangelo, and Rebecca Beitsch (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Emily Brooks, Dominick Mastrangelo and Rebecca Beitsch - 03/07/23 1:24 PM ET
by Emily Brooks, Dominick Mastrangelo and Rebecca Beitsch - 03/07/23 1:24 PM ET
U.S. Capitol Police say they saw just one of the many clips from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol that Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired on Monday night, after he was granted access by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
"We repeatedly requested that any clips be shown to us first for a security review," Capitol Police told The Hill on Monday. "So far we have only been given the ability to preview a single clip out of the multiple clips that aired."
The limited consultation comes after McCarthy said Capitol Police would be consulted before the video aired to address security concerns.
"We work with the Capitol Police as well, so we'll make sure security is taken care of," McCarthy told reporters last week.
Carlson said on his show that his team checked with Capitol Police before airing the footage, and that their reservations were "minor" and "reasonable."
His show blurred the details of an interior door in the Capitol due to those concerns.
The same camera angle of the door was previously released during the impeachment trial of former President Trump in 2021, without any blurring of the door, picturing senators and staff evacuating.
The disagreement over whether Capitol Police were meaningfully consulted comes as Carlson says he will release more of the roughly 44,000 hours of unseen footage he now has access to.
A senior GOP aide with knowledge of the process of releasing the footage said that there was coordination with Capitol Police.
The Capitol Police gave a list of what would be considered security sensitive, the aide said.
When Carlson's team picked out the clips to air, only one of those - the clip with the door - was considered to be security sensitive based on that list, and then given to the Capitol Police to review.
The Capitol Police then cleared that clip, with the details of the door being blurred.
"We worked with the Capitol Police to identify any security-sensitive footage and made sure it wasn't released," McCarthy spokesman Mark Bednar said in a statement.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, also said last week that the footage given to Carlson to air would be cleared for security purposes.
"It's basically controlled access to be able to view tapes. Can't record, can't take anything with you. Then they will request any particular clips that — that they may need, and then we'll make sure that there's nothing sensitive, nothing classified — you know, escape routes," Loudermilk said.
A representative for Fox News did not immediately return a request for comment.
"This action clearly does not coincide with promises of safety and security and endangers everyone who visits and works in the Capitol complex," Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), top Democrat on the House Committee on Administration, which oversees Capitol Police, said in a statement to The Hill.
During his primetime show on Monday, Carlson aired the first portion of never-before-seen angles of footage from the attack by Trump supporters, downplaying the violence that broke out during the incident describing the scene at one point as "mostly peaceful chaos."
"'Deadly insurrection.' Everything about that phrase is a lie," Carlson said during his show Monday night. "Very little about Jan. 6 was organized or violent. Surveillance video from inside the Capitol shows mostly peaceful chaos."
The agreement to consult Capitol Police over the footage comes after Democrats and several who worked on the Jan. 6 panel raised the alarm over the security fallout that could result from sharing the footage.
"When the Select Committee obtained access to U.S. Capitol Police video footage, it was treated with great sensitivity given concerns about the security of lawmakers, staff, and the Capitol complex," Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who served as head of the Jan. 6 panel, said at the time.
"Access was limited to members and a small handful of investigators and senior staff, and the public use of any footage was coordinated in advance with Capitol Police. It's hard to overstate the potential security risks if this material were to be used irresponsibly."
Tags
Who is online
58 visitors
Tucker and Fox beg for the Alex Jones treatment!
Sueing them out of existence is our only recourse.
The Capitol police haven't seen these videos? Really brings to question the integrity and goal of the "investigation"
You think they hold group screenings every Friday night at the local precinct?
They should have viewed them as part of the investigation. But we all saw how that panned out.
Remind me again, how many hours of video clips were there? How many days does that work out to?
Exactly. Make me wonder how trials are occurring with out all the evidence being viewed.
Since you seem unable or unwilling to answer the question, I will for you.
Now do you understand how ridiculous your premise is of expecting them to have watched all the recordings by now?
Attaboy!!!!! you can do math. One hell of an accomplilshment.
And yet there are still trials happening.
This, exactly.
If you try real hard, maybe one day you also will be able to do math.
Correct, which is why the recording should not have been released.
Also, I would assume that you would understand that you can convict someone with 1 recording that shows them clearly committing a crime. You do not have to provide every second of every recording to convict.
You do understand that.....right?
If they weren't released, it would have never come about that the rights violations facing trial and those already convicted. But I get it, it's all about the narrative
If the evidence is relevant to the guilt, innocence or punishment of the defendant, then the prosecution is required by law to turn it over to the defense during the discovery process. This didn't happen. Now there are a number of convictions that could overturned and civil suits coming all because the Democrats wanted to put forth a narrative of false information.
You do understand that.....right?
Does it hurt to spin that hard and at that much of an angle?
Has there been any recording showing them not being guilty of breaking the law? Not trespassing? Not assaulting the cops? Or anything related to the charged crimes?
Prosecutors HAVE shown videos of them committing the crimes they were charged with. What video would show the previous recording as fake?
So you DON'T understand that.
I understand very few right wingers.
Why someone would grovel and squirm just to be a corrupt politician's apologist is beyond me.
Why someone would forego all common sense and morality to make excuses for people that would not give a shit about you, is impossible to comprehend.
Right wing / left wing is irrelevant in this. You just don't even have a basic understanding of the law and how it applies. So because your lack of knowledge / understanding you lash out at me.
It's the constant defense of the indefensible which is indefensible to me.
Maybe the police wanted more editorial control over things like video of them opening doors for protestors and escorting them through the halls of the Capitol building.
Where did that happen?
If so, I'm sure it was those who were inside regarding the planning of 1/6.
Here (from NPR):
Capitol Police Suspends 6 Officers, Investigates Dozens More After Capitol Riots
So, like I said they were 'inside' and involved with the planning 1/6.
Thanks for confirming.
I see two main possibilities.
First, this is potentially exculpatory evidence withheld from defense counsel. That’s a Brady violation and could lead to overturning the convictions of many people. If prosecutors decide to reexamine the cases, many charges could be reduced or dropped. At trial, defendants might be acquitted of charges like trespass if cops were letting them in the building.
Second, the convictions stand, but cops should perhaps be prosecuted for aiding and abetting criminal behavior.
I agree with your second possibility wholeheartedly and completely dismiss the first. Nothing was withheld from the defense counsel.
I don’t think there’s any way you can possibly know that. It’s going to take time to find out.
1) Is it the security threat they are worried about, or the embarrassment associated with giving a guided tour to a person claimed to be a violent insurrectionist?
2) You telling me the capital police did not go through the video, prior to the release to Carlson? "Sorry lads, we have to turn over everything, Carlson made a FOIA request. No redacting..." Come on. They go through everything. And they did here, and identified security sensitive material. The door, rubbed out in Carlson's release, was apparently shown in a clip during Trump's impeachment. Who showed that clip? Why didn't the capital police, and everyone else bitching now, bitch then? If they did, they didn't bitch loudly enough, because I don't recall anyone bitching at that time.
3) Don't tell me the capital police did not have time to review the footage. They had two years to go through it and flag or scrub security sensitive information. But there is 44000 hours of footage you say? Well, put some man power on it. 20 people could have watched 3 hours a day and gotten through it with time for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and regular smoke breaks.
What's the beef again? Capital police are claiming only one clip has been submitted. Reference is made to a door that is blurred out by Carlson, but apparently not blurred out in a release during the Trump impeachment. But, we are supposed to be angry, upset, concerned that Carlson might release sensitive information, because Carlson has only submitted one clip, for review, that contained or potentially contained sensitive material, as identified by a list provided by capital police? Have the other clips aired, and not submitted, contained security sensitive information?
I'm not trying to belittle the security issue. But, I am having a hard time getting on board with the capital police beef, when the one example of security sensitive material used was scrubbed by Carlson, but previously aired, with apparently little to no pause or concern for security. The thing I gather from this story is that the footage, according to the article, has already been used irresponsibly.
Defending the indefensible.
The only thing I would want Mr. Tucker to do is ask any congress person or senator he has on his show is "Why were you running to a secure location?"