Speaker Johnson will be releasing the bulk of the J6 video
Some video is already available to the public as of Friday, with the bulk of it to be released gradually over time, Johnson said.
“When I ran for Speaker, I promised to make accessible to the American people the 44,000 hours of video from Capitol Hill security taken on January 6, 2021. Truth and transparency are critical,” Johnson said in a statement.
“Today, we will begin immediately posting video on a public website and move as quickly as possible to add to the website nearly all of the footage, more than 40,000 hours. In the meantime, a public viewing room will ensure that every citizen can view every minute of the videos uncensored.”
He continued, “This decision will provide millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations, and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day, rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials.”
Most members of “the American public” will probably find things in the video that confirms the beliefs they already have; I’m not at all sure it will change minds. But I think there will be plenty on there which, if viewed objectively, would challenge the left’s interpretation and the official government message. But perhaps the most important part is that criminal defendents whose lawyers have been blocked from seeing possible exculpatory evidence on the videos will get a chance to look and see for themselves if it’s there.
Good for Johnson. Here’s a link. Some highlights here.
ADDENDUM: See also this (hat tip: commenter “miguel cervantes.”)
But perhaps the most important part is that criminal defendents whose lawyers have been blocked from seeing possible exculpatory evidence on the videos will get a chance to look and see for themselves if it’s there.
–neo
If there is exculpatory evidence, can the J6ers use the evidence on their behalf? Retrial?
Whole lotta crowdsourcin’ goin’ on!
huxley:
I’m not 100% sure of the answer, but I believe it would be used in the trials of those who haven’t yet been tried, and the appeals of those who have.
I think it would be more difficult for it to be used by those who have already pleaded guilty, however.
At the very least, if people actually look, it should dispel the “armed insurrection against the United States” myth.
I’m surprised they finally got released
I guess that reflects my level of cynicism towards congress.
The Speaker carefully framed the release to defuse the attacks that will come from the Democrats and their news media
“Johnson continued. “I commend Chairman Loudermilk and his team for their diligent work to ensure the thousands of hours of videos are promptly processed to be uploaded to the committee’s public website. Processing will involve blurring the faces of private citizens on the yet unreleased tapes to avoid any persons from being targeted for retaliation of any kind and segregating an estimated 5% of the videos that may involve sensitive security information related to the building architecture.”
By any chance does this trove of video include bodycam videos from Capitol Police from that day?
“Whole lotta crowdsourcin’ goin’ on!”
Exactly!
Maybe not for all of them, but I can pretty much guarantee the the prosecutors shorted at least some of the Brady evidence that tey were obligated to disclose. For one thing there is context – I think it ikely tat te demonstration will turn out to have been much less iolent than the Dems have been portraying it as. And very possibly that the Capital police went violent first. We shall see. Of course, the prosecutors will probably say that they only had as much footage as Pelosi gave them. And that may be enough to save their law licenses. If that is the case, then the House should, at least, publicly censor Pelosi and her confederates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure
We need to see outside video, Rosanne Boyland murder, Fedsurrectionists,
Those commanding the crowd actions. The peaceful parade inside the Capital is good but that just is showing how bizarre these charges of disruption of Congress was, more is needed.
So why could not the former Speaker, McCarthy release any of these videos??
And 6 dumbpublicans voted with all the demokrats to squash the impeachment of Mayorkas. One of these republicans claimed the constitution does not allow impeachment for merely doing a lousy job.
Earth to this dumbpublican; the Mayorkas policy is not mal-administration; it is an intentional and purposeful policy to have open borders; to allow those into the USA who do not want to bother with entering the USA according to EXISTING LAWS.
The Mayorkas policy is a violation of existing US immigration laws.
But hey, one cannot expect the dumbpublicans to not bend over for the demokrats.
Huxley:
Those already convicted will need to file postconviction motions (a habeas derivative) raising newly discovered evidence. The new videos will not likely impact pending appeals; the appellate court can’t retry the case based on new evidence not seen by the jury.
I’m not sure what impact the new videos will have. If a given defendant was convicted of a violent or destructive act based on valid evidence, how will other videos counter that? If, as I think has happened, a defendant was convicted of mere trespass (milling about), including outside, how will more videos of people milling about help? I guess if we see officers waving people in and the given defendant can relate that to his/her trespass conviction.
based on valid evidence, how will other videos counter that?
==
The key term in your remark is ‘valid evidence’.
If he can do it that would be great.
Does Schumer have control over any of the video?
There is also talk today about mysterious White “ghost buses” unloading agitators in DC. Reports about this have been sketchy. Outlets that discuss the story dismiss it as a GOP congressman’s unhinged “rant”.
Art Deco: I see your point, but in any event it will be the same trial court (and appellate court) evaluating any postconviction motion. The standard for evaluating newly discovered evidence will be whether it will likely result in an acquittal upon retrial. So, the existing evidence and the new evidence would go into the mix when the postconviction court evaluates the motion — on paper (the parties’ arguments), not before a jury. Again, existing evidence of violent or destructive behavior + new videos = ?? Or, existing evidence of milling about (somehow deemed criminal in DC) + new videos of milling about = ??
If the postconviction judge grants the postconviction motion, the best result is a remand for a new trial. If the judge denies the motion, the defendant can appeal, and the appellate court could remand for a new trial. All this takes months or years.
Then the government would evaluate the above equations (so to speak) and proceed: retrial, offer a plea deal, or cave and dismiss.
(I am speaking in terms of my state, but I think the general principles are the same, or very similar, nationwide.)
Good job by Mike Johnson!
Now let’s hope he doesn’t use this as an excuse to do something more dumpublican like, as so often.
Shows the McCarthy being dumped was the right move.