“There’s quite a bit of video you haven’t seen,” Tucker Carlson told his audience last night to introduce exclusive publication of never-seen surveillance video. “And that video tells a very different story about what happened on January 6th.”

Just how different is the story? In one specific instance, it seems quite different — even if the new tapes add more nuance than contradiction overall. Remember Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”? Carlson argues that he was much more a tourist than terrorist, and that Capitol Police were his tour guides.

Watch the video for yourselves:

Whatever else can be said, police had numerous opportunities to detain Chansley and didn’t do so. Technically he had already violated the law with his entry into the Capitol, so police had plenty of probable cause to detain him, especially with the undeniable violence taking place outside. Instead, the police officers not only decline to detain Chansley, they follow him around and at least once try to open a door so that he can access other parts of the building.

The New York Post asked Capitol Police to explain why they didn’t act. Their answer is pretty weak, in light of the video:

For several minutes, the video shows, Robishaw and another officer follow Chansley as he tried to enter the Senate chamber. At one point, Robishaw tried a locked door with the Senate seal etched on its frosted glass.

At another point, Chansley and the officers pass a group of seven other cops, who seem to pay them no mind.

Chansley and the two officers eventually find an unlocked door and one of the policemen holds it open after Chansley lets himself onto the Senate floor. The DOJ timeline confirmed that Robishaw followed Chansley into the chamber as the “Shaman” took the seat on the dais recently occupied by then-Vice President Mike Pence. …

In a statement Monday, the Capitol Police pointed The Post to comments by Robishaw in the 2021 HBO documentary “Four Hours at the Capitol.”

“The sheer number of them compared to us, I knew ahead there was no way we could all get physical with them,” Robishaw said, “so I took it upon myself to try to talk to them.”

That would make sense when confronted by superior numbers, and no doubt that policy made sense in other areas of the Capitol. However, there are a number of points in this video where Chansley is outnumbered by officers, and indeed is completely separated from other rioters/trespassers/whatevers. Why did police continue to escort and/or guide Chansley through the Capitol at those points if he represented the kind of threat that gets a four-year sentence?

That’s not to argue that Chansley shouldn’t have been prosecuted. Chansley committed a criminal trespass, regardless of his police tour later. It does suggest, however, that he may have been overcharged, especially in light of how other rioters get charged, prosecuted, and sentence for violence and criminal trespass for political demonstrations.

This raises another point: did the government provide Chansley’s defense with this video? It’s not yet clear that they did; the January 6 committee wanted it kept under wraps, and succeeded at that until last night. If the Department of Justice withheld that video — which could have given jurors some reason to think that police didn’t consider Chansley an “insurrectionist” or a real threat — then the case has to be tossed on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. We should hear about that issue soon from Chansley’s attorneys, assuming he still has representation.

And this brings us to another big issue: the January 6 committee itself. Nancy Pelosi successfully blocked skeptical Republicans from serving on the committee, who might have highlighted these videos and their nuance early in the process. That could have allowed for a fuller, more accurate understanding of the riot, the Capitol Police response, and the actual threat level inside the Capitol that day. Clearly violence took place, because that’s also on video and in physical evidence in the form of police officers injured by attacks. But as is becoming clear, at least a good portion of the trespassing may have been just that — trespassing — and not an insurrection.

Instead, Pelosi cooked the committee and the committee cooked the narrative. And as one could easily predict, the national media swallowed it and acted as Pelosi’s amplifier rather than ask any serious questions about what really transpired on January 6. I’d call that another big issue, but by this time the media’s collusion with the Beltway establishment is so well known as to be understood.

My pal and colleague Julio Rosas, who reported from the scene on January 6, put it well in his reaction on Twitter:

J6 was the weirdest riot I ever covered for many reasons. It's good Tucker is showing more of what happened that day. It's once again exposing the MSM as the frauds they are because they only care about J6. They don't care about the BLM/Antifa riots they downplayed in real-time. pic.twitter.com/knGTAAKNCF

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) March 7, 2023

No because when I was inside the Rotunda, many people were just wandering around. As I documented there was violence, but that was one of the weird things about that day. I suspect bc many people didn't anticipate getting as far as they did.https://t.co/jeZZ7X4gAa

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) March 7, 2023

Comparisons regarding law-enforcement response are not easy to make. Most of the BLM/Antifa riot response in 2020 came from local and state police. The Capitol is not just federal jurisdiction but also a seat of constitutional authority, so considering a riot there differently makes sense. However, the differences between invading the US Capitol for a demonstration and state capitals for the same activities — with different purposes — are a lot narrower for people posturing as “defenders of democracy,” and there have been several examples of state-capital seizures by the Left over the last decade or so without any accusations of “insurrection.”

At any rate, the footage thus far at least paints what happened with more nuance than the J6 committee or the media has allowed in the two years since the riot. At the very least, it appears that they created a lynch-mob mentality that the DoJ used to overcharge in at least the Chansley case, and perhaps hid evidence that judges and juries could have used in making such determinations. Time for another committee — this one properly balanced?

Update: The Chief Twit is not amused:

Besides misleading the public, they withheld evidence for partisan political reasons that sent people to prison for far more serious crimes than they committed.

That is deeply wrong, legally and morally.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 7, 2023

If they withheld these videos from the defense teams, Musk is spot on. Again, we should get answers to that question quickly, as defense attorneys will line up to have cases overturned on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, if so.

Update: Our old friend and former colleague Shipwreckedcrew, who represents several J6 defendants, says that the DoJ has made quite a lot of video available to defendants. However, he’s not sure whether that’s a complete record in each and every case:

For example, my client David Mehaffie was indicted for his conduct from the period 2:30 to 3:30 in and around the Lower West Terrance tunnel. I was given access to video that showed his location and conduct during that entire period. I had multiple videos from multiple sources.

— Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) March 7, 2023

I had crowd shot videos. There was no real serious question on the issue of whether there was more than enough video evidence for me to assess the case against him and prepare a defense.
But every case is different in that regard.

— Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) March 7, 2023

In those cases the hunt is on for more videos that might show the same events from a different angle and further undermine the position adopted by the Government.
Colt McAbee's case is the most glaring example of this for me.

— Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) March 7, 2023

It’s something to watch, anyway. If Chansley’s attorneys claim the new videos were withheld, it will be news — and if they don’t, that should be news as well. And keep this in mind as well:

In March 2021, Jacob Chansley's attorney consented to the DOJs request for a protective order related to most evidentiary material in his case. This is the same protective order all Jan 6ers (with a few exceptions) are forced to sign before gaining access to discovery: pic.twitter.com/5Aky9WYm4V

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 7, 2023

This is for the "it's public!" crowd. The surveillance video was designated "highly sensitive" material in March 2021. Defendants must adhere to strict rules before viewing any security video and those are clips ONLY relevant to their case.

And they cannot be shared. pic.twitter.com/pKTv6Kf4hl

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 7, 2023

This cuts both ways. It’s entirely possible that Chansley’s attorneys viewed these videos and were able to use them in his defense, but couldn’t publicly release them under the terms of these arrangements.

Update: More from Crew:

The videos could only be released if they were used in court.
So who used them in court? The Govt when it asks for defendants to be detained without bond, or other various types of pretrial proceedings.

— Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) March 7, 2023

This is why what Carlson is doing is so important. For the first time the wider public is seeing that the events of Jan 6 were a lot more nuanced that has been suggested by the GOVT — including the Jan 6 Committee.

The GOVT has misled the public.

THAT should make you unhappy.

— Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) March 7, 2023