Blog

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The disappearance of videotapes of witness interviews conducted by the Democratic-led House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack has alarmed the chairman of the House panel that replaced it.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee that is currently investigating security lapses connected to the Capitol riot and potential ramifications for upcoming criminal trials, is questioning the disappearance of the video evidence.

“All of the videotapes of all depositions are gone,” Mr. Loudermilk told the "Just the News, No Noise" television show Thursday night.

According to Mr. Loudermilk, the videotapes met the requirements for congressional evidence under House rules because some of the segments were shown at hearings, and the now-defunct J6 committee, led by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss), ought to have kept all of the recordings.

The lawmaker explained why he believes this is an important piece of evidence to maintain, citing that some witnesses, such as former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, have changed their testimony over time, and even transcripts might not be sufficient to obtain a full understanding of the testimony.

Mr. Thompson's office did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times' request for comment.

The disclosure may also affect the criminal proceedings that are taking place in federal court in Washington, and state court in Georgia, where former President Donald Trump and his associates are accused of crimes connected to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

A court recently denied President Trump's legal team's request for specific material from the Jan. 6 committee. District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan turned down the former president, saying his requests were essentially a fishing expedition.

In her seven-page ruling, she reprimanded President Trump for his demands, claiming that they were too broad and too unclear. It further claimed that he was abusing his authority by trying to get information that was available through other channels in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.

The judge went on to quote United States v. Cuthbertson, adding that the "broad scope of the records that defendant seeks, and his vague description of their potential relevance, resemble less 'a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence' than they do 'a general fishing expedition that attempts to use the [Rule 17(c) subpoena] as a discovery device.'"