The lawyer for Jacob Chansley, the so-called “Q-Anon Shaman” whose image is indelibly linked to the January 6th capitol riot, is accusing the Department of Justice of withholding the video of Chansley wandering the Capitol building escorted by Capitol Police officers who helpfully showed him various parts of the capitol.

The video, released by Tucker Carlson, stunned a lot of people because it shattered the narrative put forth by the federal government that Chansley was a leader of an insurrectionist mob, storming the capitol with violent intent. In the video, Chansley was seen wandering the capitol with no other protesters, escorted by Capitol Police officers.

And then praising them in a prayer on the floor of the House of Representatives, thanking them for letting them in.

You don’t have to be a fan of Tucker Carlson or approve of the January 6th riot to see that the government’s version of events is…not accurate? Perhaps less than truthful?

Perhaps a fabrication? It sure looks that way. You can decide, and I encourage you to read Ed’s piece on this affair he posted yesterday.

This is why, perhaps, they refused to share the video with Chansley’s lawyer, which among other things violates his constitutional rights, big time. They are supposed to disclose all such materials in discovery, and failing to is prosecutorial misconduct.

Ed noted before we knew this tidbit:

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 soonfrom Chansley’s attorneys, assuming he still has representation.

Well, Chansley’s lawyers have spoken, and the news is very bad for the DOJ:

An attorney for the so-called “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley asked federal prosecutors repeatedly for all videos showing his client inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, yet told The Daily Wire he never received the bombshell – and potentially exculpatory – footage aired Monday night by Tucker Carlson.

Albert Watkins, whose client Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to felony charges in connection with the Capitol riot and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, said Department of Justice prosecutors were legally bound to turn over the footage. Clips shown on Carlson’s Fox News Channel program show Chansley walking freely and peaceably through the building, often accompanied by multiple police officers.

“We did not receive that video footage,” Watkins said. “We asked for it, and not just once or twice. Whether we asked for it or not is irrelevant because the government had an absolute, non-compromisible duty to disclose that video and they did not do so.”

“And all the while, they were actively representing to the court and the American people that Jake was a leader, leading the charge into the Capitol,” he said. “They did not disclose that footage because it ran contrary to their rote narrative.”

Watkins, an attorney for nearly 40 years, told The Daily Wire he was stunned to see the footage, which he could have used to defend Chansley.

If true, and I believe that it is extremely likely that it is, then the DOJ lawyers involved should be in some serious legal jeopardy. At least if there is a semblance of legal integrity left in the federal government.

I am no lawyer, but what is at issue is something called Brady Disclosure, named after a case where the Supreme Court ruled that the government provide any exculpatory evidence to defendants in criminal cases. The ruling was necessary, obviously, because prosecutors can be very…enthusiastic…about winning their cases and didn’t always disclose facts that would undermine their cases, leading to people being convicted based upon flawed or incomplete evidence.

Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.

Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant’s sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution. In practice this doctrine has often proved difficult to enforce. Some states have established their own laws to try to strengthen enforcement against prosecutorial misconduct in this area.

That video of Chansley clearly provides exculpatory evidence. While it may prove he committed a trespass, it darn well shows he was not leading peasants with pitchforks with the intent to overturn the government. He was being escorted around by police, for God’s sake. Alone. Surrounded by police. Showing him the sights.

Kimberly Paschall, the assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who Watkins said lied, did not immediately return a request for comment, nor did Bill Miller, a spokesman for her boss, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves.

Federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the case, should sanction the federal prosecutors, Watkins said.

“This is as egregious a violation of the trust as I have seen, with the exception of hiding DNA evidence in a murder case,” he said. “If I’m a federal judge and find out that indeed I was played a fool, I was duped by an assistant U.S. attorney that lied to me repeatedly while Mr. Watkins was yelling that no one was more peaceful than Jacob, and I’m making rulings based on what the government is saying, I’d be one pissed off federal judge.”

Sanction? You bet. If all this is true they should be fired and disbarred, as if that would ever happen. The Justice Department isn’t exactly interested in justice right now.

Or so it seems.