Politics

1025 readers

1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 2 years ago

101

Speaker Mike Johnson says he's blurring Jan. 6 footage so rioters don't get charged (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"We don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” the House speaker said. His office later noted that DOJ already has the raw footage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What outcome? The article notes that the DOJ already has the footage unblurred. So Johnson is just doing performative wankery here.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That was my initial thought, but then I read the article.

DOJ does have that footage. But online sleuths have proven to be an extremely valuable resource in identifying Jan. 6 participants, using the CCTV footage to determine which rioters entered the building and then building a database with the clearest photos of those suspects. They have often used facial recognition for leads and have aided in hundreds of cases against Jan. 6 defendants.

Blurring the footage isn’t the empty gesture I thought it was. All he’s doing is exposing the layout of the building while protecting insurrectionists. Bear in mind that the building was deliberately designed in a confusing way for security purposes.

Fuck this guy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

This should be illegal, if it's not already. Like aiding and albeiting criminals.

May have a word spelled wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The main objective of releasing unblurred images publicly would be to assist with identification and investigation, right? To recruit the larger American audience to help the cops identify people.

Progressives are suddenly VERY enthusiastic to be deputized as cops when it comes to Jan 6.