RedState published a report on January 6, 2017, about the release by an overseer of some prosecutions, of the Jan 6th surveillance footage. Federal government opposed this release and claimed it was an issue of national security.
Once the video was released, it was clear why prosecutors didn’t want it getting out publicly. There was no violent invasion of Capitol. Instead, we witnessed masked men unobtrusively opening doors and windows as people casually walked in.
(Conrelated Tucker Carlson Goes to There Released January 6th Surveillance Film)
Now, more videos have been released, and these dig the hole deeper for those who have so steadfastly assured us that January 6th was an “insurrection.”
Two cameras, 40 minutes.
New Capitol surveillance footage shows a breach by Jan. 6 rioters from start to finish:https://t.co/i9AzE502yX pic.twitter.com/t9TKdIhCl0
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) October 18, 2021
Despite the above Buzzfeed reporter’s editorializing, nothing in those videos supports the violent breach narrative. We don’t know who opened the door, just like in the previous video. The FBI can track down and name names when it comes to drinking a beer from Nancy Pelosi’s fridge. Yet, they once again can’t tell us who actually allowed the crowd into the building? That just doesn’t pass muster at this point given the resources expended and the ferocity with which the federal government has tracked down anyone who stepped foot in the Capitol Building that day.
Also, when the doors are opened and people begin to enter, it seems that the police step aside unassisted. I’m not suggesting they didn’t give orders that were disobeyed, but again, that does not fit the violent breach by force narrative. Maybe the USCP officers thought it safer to let people in, then regroup. Perhaps they were dealing with something much more urgent. But their logic isn’t the main point. The point is that a bunch of people entered the Capitol Building that day seemingly under the impression they weren’t forcing their way in.
Julie Kelly is a pioneer in pushing back against the January 6th narrative. In her article, she provides an eloquent description of what the video displays.
The video begins with an officer holding open the inside door leading to Capitol Rotunda. It is a space located between the Senate and House wings. Unidentified five to six men walked through the door, speaking with the officer. The men held the doors open, allowing protesters to file into the building. Nordean’s lawyer said his client is recorded entering the building, with the consent of police, between 2:37 p.m. and 2:38 p.m..
Capitol Police officers stood for several minutes in the narrow hallway connecting the exterior and inner doors. Dozens of people entered, but police didn’t attempt to stop them. A few officers were seen talking to a group of protesters trying to get inside. One officer then pulled aside another officer speaking with the protesters—this appeared to be shortly after Ashli Babbitt was shot by Officer Michael Byrd outside the Speaker’s lobby—and the officers retreated. The protesters then followed the officers into the building.
The saga is complex from many angles, each being more crucial than the others. People can get bogged down in arguing the precise level of outrage that should be expressed regarding January 6th, but that’s just a political argument and ignores the biggest issues at play. It is more pressing to note that actual people are currently in pre-trial confinement and face legal danger. Given that, the question everyone should be asking is whether these videos support the government’s narrative regarding their prosecutions and charging decisions.
Ethan Nordean was accused of crimes involving forced entry into a building. This case led to this footage being released. Yet, the video doesn’t show a forced entry. The video shows that police allowed people in, regardless of the reason.
There were indeed people that reacted violently to the Capitol Building incident and got into a fight with police. Yet, all the video we’ve seen so far supports the idea that nearly everyone else seemed to just think they were part of a protest. And as the FBI has already admitted, no evidence has emerged of an actual “insurrection” plot.
What does this leave us with? I believe it means that the federal government is way too involved in many cases being prosecuted since January 6. Some of the involved judges appear complicit in trying make example of those whose worst crime was trespassing. Many have lost their lives as a result of the ongoing fight. There was no reason for the government not to go further.
About Post Author
