The 759 Digital Devices Tucker Carlson Didn’t Review

To sustain his false claims that the January 6 Committee released a biased selection of videos, Tucker Carlson has insinuated that only he and the J6C have had access to the video of the attack.

That’s, of course, false. The defense attorneys have had access to most of the same video to which Tucker has claimed exclusive access. In fact, his claims that Jacob Chansley was unfairly treated is an implicit attack on Albert Watkins, Chansley’s defense attorney during the period he pled guilty to facts Tucker ignored, such as that he ignored an officer’s direction to get out of Mike Pence’s seat or that he “considered it a win” that Members of Congress had to “hunker down, put on their gas masks and retreat into their underground bunker.” (Chansley has since retained William Shipley, an even more partisan attorney, one who has sown partisan bullshit about legal cases going at least as far back as the Mike Flynn case.)

Plus, defense attorneys have had access to far more: the other evidence collected as part of the investigation. In responses to two defendants —  Ryan Nichols and Shane Jenkins — attempting to delay their trials so they might review the files Tucker has boasted about accessing, DOJ has laid out the evidence available to defense attorneys (this is the version submitted in the Jenkins case).

The United States has provided voluminous global and case-specific discovery in this case. In addition to the case-specific discovery that has been provided to the defendant (which includes, inter alia, videos of the defendant breaking a window with a metal tomahawk and throwing various objects at officers in the Lower West Terrace tunnel), as of March 6, 2023, over 4.91 million files (7.36 terabytes of information) have been provided to the defense Relativity workspace. These files include (but are not limited to) the results of searches of 759 digital devices and 412 Stored Communications Act accounts; 5,254 FBI FD-302s and related attachments (FD-302s generally consist of memoranda of interviews and other investigative steps); 395 digital recordings of subject interviews; and 149,130 (redacted or anonymous) tips. Over 30,000 files that include body-worn and hand-held camera footage from five law enforcement agencies and surveillance-camera footage from three law enforcement agencies have been shared to the defense video repositories. For context, the files provided amount to over nine terabytes of information and would take at least 361 days to view continuously. All of this information is accessible to the defendant, as well as camera maps and additional tools that assist any defense counsel with conducting their own searches for information that they might believe is relevant. With respect to U.S. Capitol Police Closed Circuit Video (“CCV”), subject to some exclusions such as evacuation footage and cameras depicting sensitive areas (that would also not capture relevant moments related to the charges the defendant now faces), the defendant, like all January 6 defendants, has had access to nearly all exterior USCP camera footage as well as nearly all interior Capitol and Capitol Visitor Center footage recorded on January 6, 2021 from noon to 8 p.m.

Hundreds of defense attorneys — many of them more loyal adherents to Trumpism than Tucker (who apparently secretly hates Trump) — have seen most of the video he has seen as well as far more, including the video that other defendants and reporters have collected.

And thus far, those vigorous advocates for their clients — including Joseph McBride, who represents Nichols, and who famously admitted he “doesn’t give a shit about being wrong” when he spreads conspiracy theories — have been unsuccessful in making the kinds of arguments Tucker is making, though it is not for want of trying.

Hundreds of lawyers would love to have been able to tell a story about peaceful tourists. With few exceptions, those efforts have always failed in court.

42 replies
  1. person1597 says:

    Tucker must have missed the message from the sixties…maybe he needs his mouth washed out…
    “I can’t believe a word you say
    Lies, lies
    Are gonna make you sad someday
    Some day you’re gonna be lonely
    But you won’t find me around
    Lies, lies
    A-breakin’ my heart”

    • Richard Turnbull says:

      The Knickerbockers, I suppose that qualifies as a “one-hit wonder” hit, but people respond to the beat and the lyrics immediately.

      • Mutaman says:

        There is no evidence anyone “responded to the lyrics”. The kid on Bandstand explained that he gave the song a 90 because he liked the beat.

  2. c-i-v-i-l says:

    Both Watkins and Shipley have stated that they didn’t have access to the video of Chansley that Carlson broadcast. Agreed that “The defense attorneys have had access to most of the same video to which Tucker has claimed exclusive access,” but it’s still a problem that they didn’t have access to all of the video relevant to their clients. An unnamed J6 defendant lawyer retweeted by Kyle Cheney said:
    “Yes, DOJ made a database of videos available to defense attorneys in filed cases. BUT …
    “DOJ could only put into the database what Congress gave DOJ.
    “If Congress/Pelosi held back video then DOJ would not have it to put in the database.
    “All videos from body worn cameras of USCP and CCTV are the property of Congress, not DOJ.
    “That is a separation of powers issue.
    “Whether DOJ was obligated by Brady to get videos from Congress was litigated, and Judges held that DOJ didn’t have any way to force Congress to produce videos it didn’t want to produce, even if they were Brady material.
    “Regardless of what media members say, it is not possible to say definitively right now that defense attorneys did — in fact — have all the videos that Tucker/Fox is showing. McCarthy says he gave Fox everything. That might include videos not given to DOJ by Pelosi/Cong. Dems.”

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      Very interesting. Thanks. Makes me think of bmaz rants that the J6C was hurting the investigation.

      Still, I find it hard to take seriously. Isn’t this akin to “You showed us footage of our client robbing the bank, but you failed to show the footage of what he had for breakfast.”

      • bmaz says:

        It was not a “rant”, it was the truth. The idiotic self serving J6 Committee set the DOJ effort back substantially, and in numerous ways, over a year and a half, some of which are still manifesting themselves to this day and will continue to going forward.

        That said, DOJ can only produce what they have and is relevant and material. I have seen nothing in the edited “Tucker clips” that would rise to Brady level, Pattis and the other PB defendants are just whining for the media. A record for possible appeal could have been made in 15-20 minutes, but here they are grandstanding.

        “…you failed to show the footage of what he had for breakfast.” is a ridiculous attempt at an analogy. The J6 Committee conduct was, and remains, detestable and effectively obstructionistic.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          Isn’t defining ‘relevant and material’ evidence the purpose of pretrial hearings which were already held under adversarial conditions including defense attorney challenges?

          If so, it’s no wonder the courts aren’t buying the idea. All Carlson, et al, are trying to do is cause chaos to escape accountability. As it was, even Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) called the presentation bullshit, and he’s no tree-hugger. While Carlson teased more drops for last night on Monday, none came out Tuesday. Is there a ‘long planned vacation’ in Tucker’s future?

            • Doctor My Eyes says:

              Rants can be righteous, surely, but I withdraw the word on the grounds that rants are long and you are succinct to a fault.

              I offered what you call a poor analogy not to undermine the claim that the J6C has hurt the investigation but in hopes of getting reaction from lawyers. I think I get the notion that it is unfair for the prosecution to withhold exculpatory evidence that it has in its possession. Still, after one has shown definitive evidence of wrong-doing, how can the defense claim that there is other evidence not shown that somehow magically undoes the evidence already shown? Isn’t it already incumbent on the jury to explore possible alternative explanations, to imagine things not shown? Isn’t it up to the defense to present alternative explanations? Is the defense here claiming that the Carlson footage somehow reveals an innocent explanation that they have not yet thought to mention in court? These defendants are not being accused of being responsible for everything that happened in the Capitol on J6, so how is every minute of footage from the day relevant? Surely it is not up to the prosecution to define every single aspect of every circumstance of a crime. Back to the bank robbery analogy, if video shows a perpetrator taking cash and running, how can the hours of bank cc footage showing the bank not being robbed be relevant in any possible way? I mean really, “Here you can see the defendant waiting patiently in line for his turn with the bank teller.” Well, that was when he wasn’t robbing the bank.

              Please don’t just go off on me. These are honest questions from a non-lawyer who can’t see all this kerfuffle as anything but irrelevant bs.

              • bmaz says:

                It is indeed mostly irrelevant BS. If there had been anything potentially exculpatory, it would be easy to look at it differently. I’ve not seen that yet.

                “Back to the bank robbery analogy, if video shows a perpetrator taking cash and running, how can the hours of bank cc footage showing the bank not being robbed be relevant in any possible way?”

                It is not really, but it would have been nice if DOJ had had all the footage from the start.

              • Shadowalker says:

                I suppose they could have used a grand jury subpoena, but I think it might have been too broad and they most likely would have needed the judge to sign off.

                Another thing that bugs me is both the Capitol and the grounds were restricted areas that day, and those “sightseers” were at the least trespassers.

    • emptywheel says:

      Do me a favor? Don’t spout bullshit here. Pelosi was not the one deciding what video got turned over.

      If I want to read Shipwreck, I’ll read court filings he submits, in which he is bound by actual ethics.

      • c-i-v-i-l says:

        I don’t knowingly repeat bullshit *anywhere* (unless I’m explicitly critiquing it) and apologize for doing so here. I was not familiar with “Shipwreck” (though did look up enough prior to posting to learn that he was a lawyer for J6 defendants) and trusted Kyle Cheney’s judgment in quoting him. It didn’t occur to me that the quote was wrong about who made the decisions about what video got shared with DOJ. I’ve now tried to look that up, but so far, my search has been unsuccessful.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Here’s a hint. Congress is composed of two houses, the lower is the House of Representatives, the upper is the Senate. The videos were/are jointly owned. I suppose Senate democrats could release the material to other real news outlets.

          • c-i-v-i-l says:

            You’re so-called “hint” doesn’t tell me anything that I don’t already know and also doesn’t address the issue I was writing about: who made the decision about what video to give to the DOJ in 2021, both to inform their charging decisions and also for them to make available to defendants as Brady material. This is not a question about who can give video to news outlets in 2023. The video was originally in the possession of the USCP, not members of Congress. Was the decision about what to provide the DOJ made by the USCP leadership alone? by the USCP + the Gang of Eight? some other grouping? That’s what I tried to look up, unsuccessfully. If you actually know the answer, why not say? Either way, don’t talk down to me by telling me obvious info that doesn’t answer the question and pretend that it’s a helpful hint. A supposition isn’t knowledge. I was trying to look up a factual answer, not guess.

            • Shadowalker says:

              Jan6 committee. It was given the authority by the full House when it was formed. And if it was outside of that authority, a House vote could be used later.

              • c-i-v-i-l says:

                You might be correct, but the DOJ started indicting people in January of 2021, and the resolution creating the Committee wasn’t passed until the end of June and didn’t address giving video to the DOJ, so that would surprise me (not that I can’t be surprised by things).

                • Shadowalker says:

                  DOJ had plenty of other evidence not related to anything Congress had, including social media that the accused live streamed while it was happening.

  3. Doctor My Eyes says:

    I think about available energy and triage: we humans have a lot of serious problems to try to solve and we only have so much material and human capital to apply to solving these problems. In that context, seeing MW having to spend her time pointing out the kinds of things we see here frustrates me no end. It may be necessary, but it is surely a waste of time. This selective use of tapes for propaganda purposes should be obviously irrelevant. If someone found a video of Jeffrey Dahmer helping a little old lady across the street somewhere, should that be presented at his trial as proof that he was no serial killer? Is it not obvious that showing one thing happening at one time and place has no bearing on proving that something else did not happen at another time and place? And that’s ignoring the proven fact that Carlson is a lying propagandist. Nor the obvious internal inconsistencies, such as actual deaths and injuries. WE ALL SAW IT ON TV WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING! Aaaargh!

    • Rayne says:


      That, right there — we are being gaslighted, told we didn’t see what we saw, instructed to accept a wholly different (un)reality.

      As if we’d forget images like this one:
      January 6 insurrectionist Jacob Chansley in the U.S. Senate chamber, in Senate president's seat from which he refused an order to leave.
      (This image appears on the bottom of page 5 of the DOJ’s 14-JAN-2021 detention memo, the last page of which reads, “ATTACHMENT B All supporting materials referenced in this memorandum are included on a disc submitted to the Court.”)

      • Matt___B says:

        This is more like further gaslighting the already-gaslit. Everybody else is not fooled but it does fuel impotent outrage. Until Fox stops allowing blatant propaganda to be communicated on a nightly basis, what’s new is old.

        Begging the question: what does it take for the already-indoctrinated to stop believing in propaganda? When their bubble-reality meets real-reality and falls apart. When will that happen? Who knows? We’ll see where the Dominion lawsuit winds up with regard to Fox’s overall operations. As of today, despite the lawsuit, Murdoch seems just fine with continuing on in the same vein…

    • Epicurus says:

      History repeats itself. Carlson is portraying January 6 as a party rally and in his film editing is recreating a petite version of Riefenstahl’s Triumph Des Willens. That film is considered a great piece of propaganda filmmaking. Such things are deadly business of course, for individuals and society, but as Robert Frost might say “When was that a bar to any watch Carlson – or Fox – keeps”, especially when there is money to be had.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        Yes, it’s propaganda plainly, as well as provably false. The worst thing about propaganda is that it works. I take issue with the common attitude of blaming people for falling for propaganda. Propaganda is designed so that people will fall for it–it is not a moral failing to succumb to skilled application of psychological manipulation. If it didn’t work, then it would be changed and done in a way that did work.

        That pet peeve aside, unless I’m misinterpreting research, it has been shown that engaging with propaganda in order to refute it not only is not effective at dissuading believers; further discussion can drive the propaganda deeper into the psyche of its victims. Imho, labeling propaganda as such and then moving on to what is real and what is known is more effective than point by point refutations. Carlson’s antics should be treated as absurd and irrelevant. That being said, the fact is that propaganda works no matter how we respond.

        My main regret over this is that spending energy to refute propaganda created without integrity is a waste of precious human resources and a net gain for nihilists and such. Someone of MW’s talents having to spend time on this is a loss to society. I’m not criticizing anyone–we’re all doing what we can–merely expressing regrets about the damage psychopaths inflict.

        Sorry for taking up so much space on this thread. This topic gets me riled.

      • fubar jack says:

        I don’t fully believe that it is just about money. Poindexter Goebbels and his boss Murdoch are arsonists first and foremost.

        • Epicurus says:

          Agree. I believe control leads to power and power leads to money. Propaganda is for control. Although, I did find an old routine where one could imagine the principals as Carlson and Murdoch doing a riff on money and its meaning to Fox. You will have to decide who is in drag.

  4. bawiggans says:

    Will this be the grift too far? Do so many people really conduct their own lives blythly committing the logical fallacy required to buy this package of nonsense? We have enough trouble distinguishing association from causality without a mass audience being groomed to internalize this far more basic degradation of critical judgement. I fear these soundings of fear, resentment and rage have not yet detected the bottom, but hope springs.

    • LeeNLP941 says:

      The idea of “false memory” came into currency in experimental psychology back in the 70s. One example was a year after the 1992 passenger jet crash in Amsterdam, when a survey by researchers showed that 55% of the Dutch population had a clear “memory” of having seen TV footage showing the plane hitting the apartment building, including the angle and direction of approach.

      The punchline, of course, is that there was no such footage. People expected to have seen footage, therefore remembered doing so. Long story short. I have very little faith in people’s ability to accurately remember what they saw on January 6th 2021, especially if their main source of news is a propaganda outlet like Fox.

      • Matt___B says:

        There was also the “Satanic Panic” in the mid-late ’80s that became popular after the McMartin case. Created about a decade’s worth of questionable psychologists mining their patients for repressed false memories (most of which didn’t exist in the first place)

  5. tomstickler says:

    Somewhere on the web is a file of geocoded videos uploaded to Parler. I recall watching a number of videos uploaded by J6 “tourists”.

  6. Doctor My Eyes says:

    Honestly, I was hoping for a more explicitly damning one from Tucker Carlson. Fox News hosts texts during the “mostly peaceful” January 6 assault on the Capitol:

    Laura Ingraham: “Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home…this is hurting all of us…he is destroying his legacy.”

    Brian Kilmeade: “Please get him on tv. Destroying everything you have accomplished.”

    Sean Hannity: “Can he make a statement?…Ask people to leave the Capitol.”

  7. wasD4v1d says:

    It is my suspicion that McCarthy is fishing for evidence that AntiFa was present – one of the intended recipients of the stand back and stand by invitatory. Absent AntiFa to wage war against, they could only be said to attacking …the government, which is the only thing recorded on film. The combatants they expected to tangle with did not appear.
    Imagine if the Capitol became Portland, or the east coast proof-of-concept, Charlottesville. Then the National Guard would have arrived in timely fashion, sent by the other Gen. Flynn, to impose martial… sorry, restore order. (This narrative framing is pure supposition on my part, but evidence of the presence of, and provocation by, AntiFa is what Carlson is going to be trying to conjure up from the vacuum.)

    • FLwolverine says:

      Now I get it! And in that photo above, Chansley is just being appropriately triumphant after routing the big bad AntiFas from chamber.

      I think that twisted backflip just damaged my brain.

  8. Klaatu Something says:

    The Tucker revelations in the Dominion case have been, well, revelatory. Can someone tell me why the information in that case is dripping into the public pool the way it is? If the judge is controlling it, why like this?

    comment #983964

  9. Savage Librarian says:

    Flunk the Fox and CPAC junk,
    Hurl a hunk veiled in gunk,
    Ditch a chunk in a trunk,
    Toss the bunk for a slam-dunk,
    Hear the clunk when it’s sunk.

Comments are closed.