Archive by Author

Senate Intel leaders say Gang of Eight briefing on classified documents 'left much to be desired'

The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday’s briefing on on the classified materials seized at President Biden’s home and office and former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate “left much to be desired.”

The Gang of Eight, the top four leaders in Congress and the chairmen and vice chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees, received the long-awaited briefing Tuesday afternoon.

“While today’s meeting helped shed some light on these issues, it left much to be desired and we will continue to press for full answers to our questions in accordance with our constitutional oversight obligations,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Vice Chairman Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a joint statement.

 Lawmakers were otherwise tight-lipped coming out of the sensitive compartmented information facility at the Capitol’s visitor center.  

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who attended the briefing, said before the session that “we want to make sure that intelligence stuff is protected as much as possible.” 

“That’s the key,” he said.  

The briefing comes after months of efforts by Warner and Rubio to learn more information about the documents seized.  

Administration officials have argued that divulging the nature of the sensitive information might compromise a Department of Justice investigation.  

Warner and Rubio sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines urging “immediate compliance” with their request to see the classified documents seized from Biden’s and Trump’s possession. 

The lawmakers argued that without access to the relevant documents they could not “effectively oversee the efforts of the Intelligence community to address risks to national security arising from the mishandling of classified information.”  

Warner and Rubio declined to answer reporters’ questions after emerging from the briefing with senior administration officials Tuesday.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Why a final answer on COVID-19's origins remains out of reach

The Department of Energy’s recent conclusion that COVID-19 likely originated from a Chinese research lab has reignited debate over whether the pandemic occurred naturally or was the result of a human error. 

Republican backers of the “lab leak” theory have claimed vindication, yet the intelligence and scientific communities remain torn over the question. 

The origins of previous viral outbreaks have been determined with a high level of certainty, but there’s no guarantee that will happen with COVID-19. 

Factors like time and a lack of data — largely due to China’s reluctance to cooperate in investigations — may mean we never reach a definite answer to where COVID-19 originated from.

Here is a breakdown of the current debate over COVID-19’s origins:

Lab-leak theory

This undated electron microscope image made available by the U.S. National Institutes of Health in February 2020 shows the Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. (NIAID-RML via AP)

The Energy Department is not the first federal agency to put its weight behind the lab-leak theory. The FBI said in 2021 it has “moderate” confidence that the pandemic originated from a lab-related incident.

A consensus among the federal government has not been reached, however, with four unnamed federal agencies concluding with low confidence that COVID-19 originated from natural exposure.

The argument that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a research lab hinges on the potential that gain-of-function research being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology resulted in an enhanced coronavirus that was released into the public due to an error or lapse in proper procedure.

Gain-of-function research involves enhancing a pathogen’s ability to cause infection in order to understand its potential to cause outbreaks. The U.S. previously had a moratorium of gain-of-function research until it was lifted in 2018.

Proponents of this theory argue that it cannot be a coincidence that the COVID-19 outbreak began so close to where the Wuhan institute is located. Comedian Jon Stewart made this case in a widely shared appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” 

The World Health Organization (WHO) noted in its report into the possible origins of COVID-19 that the Wuhan lab had moved to a new location around the time COVID-19 was first detected, introducing the possibility that disruptions and errors occurred during the process.

And there are precedents for viruses escaping from labs and causing outbreaks, albeit none on the scale that COVID-19 has reached.

In 1978, photographer Janet Parker was accidentally exposed to a strain of smallpox grown in a Birmingham, England, lab, becoming the last recorded person to die from the disease. 

Researchers have speculated the 1977 “Russian flu” pandemic was the result of a laboratory incident involving vaccine research.

The Energy Department has not disclosed what evidence was gathered that informed its conclusion.

“I would suspect the types of evidence you would be looking for would be what types of viral strains, what coronavirus strains were being worked on in the Wuhan Institute of virology and how close were they to SARS-CoV-2? Was there anything there that could be considered a precursor for SARS-CoV-2?” Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told The Hill.

Opponents of the lab-leak theory argue that no evidence has been uncovered so far that a virus or a combination of viruses with genomes similar to COVID-19 were being researched at any labs around the time the pandemic began. The WHO considers the lab-leak theory to be highly unlikely, but concedes further information is needed.

Natural origins theory

(Getty Images)

Supporters of the natural origin argument point out that major previous viral outbreaks have been linked to zoonotic transmission, in which viruses jump from animals to humans.

Researchers in China have traced back the SARS outbreak of 2003 to horseshoe bats living in a remote cave in the Yunnan province, identifying viral strains in the animals that contained the building blocks for the virus that caused the epidemic.

The MERS virus that was first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012 was found to have been transmitted to humans from infected camels.

Both of these viruses are in the coronavirus family like SARS-CoV-2.

William Schaffner, a professor in the division of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said the molecular biologists he has met with have generally leaned toward the natural origin theory.

“I haven’t done a survey, obviously, but listening to my colleagues discuss this and listening to various presentations at local and national meetings, I think the general inclination of the academic community is to think that this is natural. This was a natural phenomenon, but they have an open mind about laboratory accidents,” Schaffner said.

Schaffner further noted that the Energy Department’s conclusion was reportedly made with a “low” degree of confidence.

“I interpret that as a close call. We really don’t know if it’s 51 on one side, 49 on the other. And so it’s not a ringing affirmation. It’s not a solid conclusion,” he said.

The WHO’s origin report found that viruses with a “high genetic similarity” to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in samples taken from bats in China, Japan, Thailand and Cambodia. Researchers have also proposed potential zoonotic transmission from pangolins or minks.

Critics of the natural origins view have pointed out, however, that regular human contact between animals like bats and pangolins is relatively rare, and the WHO noted that detailed analyses have indicated decades of evolutionary space between COVID-19 and the genetically similar viruses detected among bats.

Why the answer is still far away

Dr. Anthony Fauci on November 22, 2022. (Greg Nash)

A consensus on the origins of COVID-19 is unlikely to be made any time soon as most stakeholders agree that additional data is still needed to solidify a conclusion — and that would require the cooperation of the Chinese government. 

Beijing has routinely been criticized throughout the pandemic for failing to provide access and data to investigators. The WHO recently halted its probe into COVID-19’s origins, citing challenges with conducting studies in China. 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence previously said in a report, “China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information, and blame other countries, including the United States.”

Former chief White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci concurred with this assessment in an interview with The Boston Globe, telling the outlet that “cooperation and collaboration” from Chinese authorities would go a long way towards determining COVID-19’s origins.

He added of COVID-19’s true origin: “We may not ever know.” 

Shortly after the Energy Department’s conclusion was reported, Chinese officials pushed back against renewed criticisms, with Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning saying her government has been “open and transparent” on the issue.

Experts, however, are less than convinced about the potential for collaboration.

“I think people are right to be pessimistic about actually getting to the bottom of this because it’s going to require cooperation and transparency from a government that flourishes in opaqueness and not being transparent,” Adalja said.

Along with a need for more information, the more time that passes, the less likely it is that a source can be pinpointed. Evidence becomes harder to find, recollections become hazier and stakeholders are less likely to engage.

If one theory does prevail, the consequences could be significant. 

Adalja said the implications of a lab-leak origin would cause geopolitical waves, but would not be as significant from a biological standpoint.

“If it comes from a lab, we have to understand how there were biosafety breaches and how to do that kind of research more safely,” said Adalja. “If it has an animal origin, we have to understand what animal that was and how do we modify our behavior in order to make that animal less likely to transmit infections to us.”

“From a biological or pandemic preparedness perspective, either arm of that has implications.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Top takeaways from student loan forgiveness arguments at the Supreme Court

The debate over President Biden’s student loan relief for millions of Americans came to a head on Tuesday as Supreme Court justices grilled the administration and its challengers during oral arguments. 

As thousands outside the court were advocating for Biden’s plan for up to $20,000 in forgiveness, the conservative-leaning court spent more than three hours listening to two different challenges to the program. 

The main focus in both cases was the standing of the challengers, meaning the legal right to sue, and the scope of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act. 

The questioning from the justices highlighted the split between the liberal and conservative sides of the court, casting doubt the plan, major campaign promise for Biden, will be able to succeed. 

Here are the top takeaways from Tuesday’s arguments: 

Barrett joins liberals in questioning states’ legal standing

One of the more surprising moments from the arguments came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by former President Trump, questioning, alongside the liberal justices, the legal standing of the six Republican-led states challenging the relief. 

A good portion of the first case, Biden v. Nebraska, focused on if states have the right to sue over the potential financial harm the program could cause to the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA), a loan servicer. 

Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell argued Missouri’s revenues would be negatively impacted due to the financial harm caused to MOHELA from the program, but the question arose if the state was incorporated enough with MOHELA that it could sue on the company’s behalf. 

The three liberal justices on the court, along with Barrett, grilled Campbell on the fact that Missouri law makes it so MOHELA’s financial debts are not entangled with the state, and the extent to which MOHELA is a separate corporation. 

“If MOHELA is an arm of the state, why didn’t you just strong-arm MOHELA and say you’ve got to pursue this suit?” Barrett asked. 

Justices invoke major questions doctrine

The conservative justices focused much of their attention on the major questions doctrine, which says an agency can only decide on matters of vast economic and political significance when Congress gives them clear authority to do so. 

“If you’re talking about this in the abstract, I think most casual observers would say, if you’re going to give up that much amount of money, if you’re going to affect the obligations of that many Americans on a subject that’s of great controversy, they would think that’s something for Congress to act on,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the administration, told the court the government is “not disputing that this is a politically significant action,” but that the language of the HEROES Act is clear enough to give the Education secretary the power to forgive student loans. 

The law says that the Education secretary is able to “waive or modify” federal student financial assistance programs “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency” such as the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“Congress doesn’t get much clearer than that. We deal with congressional statutes every day that are really confusing. This one is not,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan said. 

Conservative justices stress price tag of debt relief

The cost of student loan relief was made loud and clear inside the courtroom as the conservative justices balked at the estimated $400 billion the Congressional Budget Office says the program could cost. 

“We’re talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans. How does that fit under the normal understanding of ‘modifying’?” Roberts asked as the court discussed the meaning of “modify” and “waive” in the HEROES Act. 

The cost of the plan has been the subject of Republican scorn for months, with arguments about how it is unfair to use so much taxpayer money, especially from individuals who never went to college or worked to have no debt after they left school. 

“There’s some discussion in the briefs that going past with this provision or that modification or waiver, that this is, in effect, a cancellation of a debt — that’s really what we’re talking about — and that as a cancellation of $400 billion in debt, in effect, this is a grant of $400 billion, and it runs head long into Congress’s appropriations authority,” Justice Clarence Thomas remarked. 

The liberal justices pushed back against conservatives’ focus on the cost of the program, pointing out the student loan payment pause during the pandemic also has cost a significant amount, but no one is contesting the Education secretary’s authority to continue it. 

“The forbearance of pay is $5 billion a month or something like that?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “It’s an outrageous sum, and yet no one is disputing that. The secretary has that power. It’s not the amount of money, the question is what’s Congress’s intent?” 

Biden administration insists Congress foresaw debt relief in passing HEROES Act

Prelogar spent much of the time insisting to the justices that Congress knew there was a possibility that HEROES Act could be used to forgive student debt relief. 

“And if the Court overrides that clear HEROES Act language here, I think that it could only thwart Congress’s intent in this particular posture of ensuring that you have the tools, the Secretary has the tools he needs to take care of Americans in a — a national emergency situation,” she told Roberts. 

The conservative justices seemed weary that Biden’s plan could encroach on the separation of powers the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold 

“The fact that it hasn’t acted under the major questions doctrine but has considered the matter we cited as support for the notion that maybe it should be one for Congress,” Roberts said. 

Prelogar argued Congress could have amended the HEROES Act if it wanted, and that lawmakers even showed some support for the action. 

In the American Rescue Plan passed during the pandemic, Prelogar argued, the law “specifically anticipated and sought to facilitate a program of loan discharge by providing that it wouldn’t be subject to federal taxation from 2021 to 2025.”

What comes next?

The oral arguments have concluded and the fate of student debt relief now rests in the hands of the nine justices. 

The justices will now convene among themselves and likely go back and forth for months working on a draft opinion. 

Although the justices have the ability to release their decisions anytime, it is likely a final ruling won’t be made public until May or June. Once a ruling is made, borrowers will know the fate of their student loan relief and the timer will begin for the payment pause to end. 

As long as the ruling is announced before June 30, the pandemic repayment pause will end 60 days after the Supreme Court announces its decision to greenlight or kill Biden’s plan.

Source: TEST FEED1

New poll shows Lightfoot in third place in Chicago mayoral race

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) is currently in third place in the city’s mayoral election, according to a new Victory Research poll, released as voters head to the polls on Tuesday.

The poll found that nearly 19 percent of voters support Lightfoot for reelection, putting her behind former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas (27 percent) and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson (20 percent).

Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.) was in fourth place at 15 percent, with businessman Willie Wilson in fifth at 11 percent.

Lightfoot, the city’s first Black woman and first openly gay person to serve as mayor, is facing an uphill battle against eight challengers looking to unseat her.

Lightfoot, 60, needs to be one of the two top vote-getters Tuesday in order to head to a runoff election in April, assuming no candidate wins at least 50 percent of the vote. 

Nearly 245,000 votes were cast through early voting sites and mail-in balloting before Tuesday’s election, according to NBC Chicago affiliate WMAQ. 

The Victory Research survey was conducted from Feb. 24-26 with a total of 806 Chicago-based respondents and a margin of error of 3.45 percent.

Source: TEST FEED1

McCarthy’s Tucker Carlson decision ‘despicable,’ says Schumer

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said that Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) decision to share security footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol exclusively with Fox News host Tucker Carlson as “despicable” and damaging to security.  

Asked whether he would share the security footage of the attack, some of which was aired publicly during former President Trump’s 2021 impeachment hearing and during the hearings of the House select Jan. 6 committee, would need to be reviewed by experts.  

“Look, I think what McCarthy did was despicable, damaged our security,” Schumer said of his House Republican counterpart. “Certainly … when he listens to a small group of the MAGA right, he’s going to run into trouble himself.” 

“As for releasing it, security has to be the No. 1 concern,” he said.  

McCarthy decided last week to grant Carlson access to all of the Capitol’s security footage from Jan. 6, sparking widespread controversy given Carlson’s work on a 2021 documentary series that framed the attack on the Capitol as a “false flag” operation intended to turn public opinion against former President Trump and his supporters.  

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Tuesday dodged a question about whether he agreed with McCarthy’s decision to share sensitive footage with Carlson, who entertained Trump’s claims of a stolen election on his show while privately expressing extreme skepticism about them.  

“Going back to when Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] was Speaker, my main concern is the security of the Capitol,” the GOP leader said tersely.  

Asked if sharing the footage may compromise Capitol security, McConnell reiterated “security of the Capitol,” which he said “was obviously severely threatened on Jan. 6” was his top concern.  

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), the chair of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, said Tuesday that footage from Jan. 6 would be subject to a security review before going to Fox News.  

“It’s basically controlled access to be able to view tapes. Can’t record, can’t take anything with you. Then they will request any particular clips that — that they may need, and then we’ll make sure that there’s nothing sensitive, nothing classified — you know, escape routes,” Loudermilk said in response to a question from The Hill. 

Emily Brooks contributed.  

Source: TEST FEED1

McConnell opposes defense cuts, calls for substantial increase

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Tuesday said Congress should not cut defense spending but instead increase it as necessary to meet threats posed by Russia and China.

McConnell made clear that he does not favor freezing the Pentagon’s budget or slowing its growth to less than the rate of inflation as part of any deficit reduction package that House Republicans may attempt to attach to debt-limit legislation.

The GOP leader, who attended the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, said the calculus on national security spending is changing and argued that past defense budgets didn’t anticipate the huge costs of supplying weapons to Ukraine to fight off the Russian invasion.

McConnell said he “absolutely” agrees with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a prominent defense hawk, who says that Congress should not cut defense spending and that if anything, “substantial defense increases” are in order.

“The defense budget ought to reflect the nature of the threat,” he said, citing “not only Russia and Ukraine” but also “the ongoing challenge of meeting China in the future.”

He said lawmakers “did a good job” of “plussing up defense” in last year’s $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package.

“In this environment we need to continue to plus up defense,” he said, pointing to what he called “problems” producing weapons and ammunition to meet the need in Ukraine.

He said “all of the NATO countries need to ramp up their emphasis on defense” and said after meeting with European leaders “the attitude is changed” among NATO allies.

“Certainly the attitude of Germany has changed,” he said, noting that even Japan has now pledged $5 billion to support Ukraine.

McConnell’s firm opposition to defense cuts will make it tougher for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to negotiate a large deficit-reduction package with President Biden as part of an effort to raise the debt limit later this year.

Both McCarthy and McConnell have already pledged that Republicans will not push cuts to Social Security or Medicare in the current Congress.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden to nominate Julie Su for Labor secretary post

President Biden on Tuesday nominated Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su to be his next secretary of Labor, potentially making her the first Asian American member of his Cabinet.

Su would replace Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, who left the administration to lead the National Hockey League Players’ Association. He was the first Cabinet secretary in the line of succession to leave his post since the start of the Biden administration.

Su, the former California labor secretary, was confirmed by the Senate to serve as deputy Labor secretary in a vote along party lines in July, 2021. In this Congress, Su faces a 51-49 Democratic-led Senate though Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is receiving treatment for depression at Walter Reed Medical Center for what his office said would be the next few weeks.

The Biden administration is the first in more than 20 years not to have an Asian American Cabinet secretary and Biden was under pressure to name Su to the post since the news of Walsh’s resignation.

Major unions like the Service Employees International Union and the National Education Association came out with endorsements for Su within the last few weeks. The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus also endorsed her, as well as the Asian American Action Fund.

“Julie has spent her life fighting to make sure that everyone has a fair shot, that no community is overlooked, and that no worker is left behind,” Biden said in a statement on Tuesday announcing Su’s nomination.

“Over several decades, Julie has led the largest state labor department in the nation, cracked down on wage theft, fought to protect trafficked workers, increased the minimum wage, created good-paying, high-quality jobs, and established and enforced workplace safety standard,” he said.

Su’s name was floated at the start of the administration for the top Labor post before Biden named Walsh. When news of Walsh’s departure broke, another name floated for Labor secretary was former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.). Ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pressed Biden to give Maloney a Cabinet slot.

Biden on Tuesday touted Su as a “critical partner” to Walsh and said she helped with negotiations between railroad operators and union workers to avoid a strike that officials said would have crippled the U.S. supply chain. 

He called on the Senate to nominate her quickly “so that we can finish the job for America’s workers.”

Before serving as California labor secretary, Su was the California Labor Commissioner and had spent 17 years as a civil rights attorney.

Brett Samuels contributed to this report.

Updated 1:38 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Supreme Court's conservatives cast doubt on student loan forgiveness program

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices cast doubt on President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan during oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two challenges to administration’s the program.

The justices appeared skeptical that Congress gave clear enough authorization for the Biden administration to forgive billions of dollars in student debt. But conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in questioning whether a group of Republican-led states had legal standing to challenge Biden’s plan.

The administration has tied the plan, which forgives up to $20,000 in relief for qualifying borrowers, to the national emergency established during the pandemic.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration, cited the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students, or HEROES, Act, which was passed following the 9/11 terror attacks to aid Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, although it also applies to national emergencies.

The law gives the education secretary authority to “waive or modify” federal student financial assistance programs “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

“We’re talking about half-a-trillion dollars and 43 million Americans. How does that fit under the normal understanding of modify?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts, who repeatedly stressed the large price tag during the argument.

Beyond the merits, the case is likely to turn on whether the plan’s purported financial harm to the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA), one of the nation’s largest student loan services, gives Missouri standing to bring the challenge.

Barrett and the court’s three liberals probed as to why MOHELA itself did not bring the suit, but Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell, representing the states, argued the state speaks for the loan servicer.

“Why didn’t you just strong-arm MOHELA,” asked Barrett.

The justices are now hearing a second challenge, Department of Education v. Brown, in which two individual challengers who did not qualify for the full $20,000 in relief will similarly assert that the Biden administration overstepped its authority.

They will also argue that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona was required to provide a notice-and-comment period before implementing the plan, and they did not get their rightful opportunity to express disagreement with which borrowers received the full relief.

Decisions in both cases are expected by late June.

Source: TEST FEED1

Tucker Carlson Jan. 6 tapes subject to security review, Republicans say

Footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol will be subject to a security review before clips are handed to Fox News host Tucker Carlson to broadcast, according to Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chair of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight.

Loudermilk said that his panel is working with the sergeant-at-arms and Capitol Police to make sure that none of the footage released will pose security risks.

“It’s basically controlled access to be able to view tapes. Can’t record, can’t take anything with you. Then they will request any particular clips that — that they may need, and then we’ll make sure that there’s nothing sensitive, nothing classified — you know, escape routes,” Loudermilk said Tuesday in response to a question from The Hill.

Carlson said on his show last week that his producers had “unfettered” access to some 44,000 hours of security footage from the day of the riot and that producers had already started combing through the footage.

But little had been revealed about what kind of security protocols were in place for the footage’s release.

Democrats have reacted to Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) move to grant Carlson’s team access to the footage with outrage, warning that giving raw footage to a figure who has downplayed the Capitol attack could pose security risks for members and the institution of Congress as a whole.

And other media companies have complained about the exclusive access Carlson was granted.

The decision to grant Carlson’s team exclusive access came directly from McCarthy’s office, and it came before the House Administration Committee was fully organized. 

Loudermilk said he knew there were plans for Fox News to get access to the tapes, but he was not sure of when exactly that would take place. In the meantime, he knew the House had set up “access terminals” so Carlson’s team could securely view the footage.

House Republicans discussed the Jan. 6 tapes and Carlson’s access in their Tuesday morning conference meeting, and members said they were generally supportive.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said in a press conference that “what gets released is going to obviously be scrutinized to make sure that you’re not exposing any sensitive information.”

Loudermilk’s oversight panel, he said, is investigating security failures and how rioters were able to get into the Capitol on Jan. 6 and is in possession of all the documents and videos from the Jan. 6 Select Committee that disbanded at the end of the last Congress.

“The overall objective will be eventually to get it to where we can get it out to the public,” Loudermilk said, but he added that it could take “weeks to months.”

The panel is getting requests to view some 44,000 hours of security footage from House members, other members of the media and defense attorneys.

“We’re working on putting protocols together and policies and procedures and schedules,” Loudermilk said.

He expects that clips released to Carlson could then easily be released to other news outlets and parties.

“Anything that is released to Fox News, that will be something that can be released to the public,” Loudermilk said.

Source: TEST FEED1