"We did not receive that video footage. 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....They did not disclose that footage because it ran contrary to their rote narrative.... I’ve never seen anything so vile as what I’m seeing right now.... It’s a departure from a pretty high standard they’ve maintained for a long time. Anyone who needs to have belief in the integrity of our justice system, whether they’re a left-wing New England academic or a raging right-winger, needs to say that this is really wrong and f—ing it up for everyone."

Said Albert Watkins, who was the lawyer for Jason Chansley ("The QAnon Shaman"), "‘It’s Appalling’: QAnon Shaman’s Lawyer Says DOJ Lied, Withheld Videos Aired By Carlson" (Daily Wire)

"Looking at the news, half of it is getting mad at Tucker.... What the f— does Tucker have to do with any of this? Except that he was smart enough to get it in our faces.... Whether you’re right-leaning, you like Tucker Carlson, you hate Tucker Carlson, is irrelevant. This is about putting a dagger in the heart of our justice system. And the person holding the dagger and thrusting it with all its might is our Department of Justice. This required collaboration from the top of the Justice Department right down to the Assistant U.S. Attorney lying to me, a fellow officer of the court, knowing I had a duty to put my client in the best position I could based on the evidence.... This is as egregious a violation of the trust as I have seen, with the exception of hiding DNA evidence in a murder case.... 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."

And here's Jonathan Turley's discussion of the topic: 

I spoke with Chansley’s new counsel, Bill Shipley, and confirmed that defense counsel did not have this material. In the hearing, federal prosecutor Kimberly Paschall played videos showing Chansley yelling along with the crowd and insisted “that is not peaceful.” That portrayal of Chansley would have been more difficult to maintain if the Court was allowed to see images of Chansley casually walking through a door of the Capitol with hundreds of other protesters and then being escorted by officers through the Capitol. At no point is he violent and at no point is he shown destroying evidence. Instead, he dutifully follows the officers who facilitate his going eventually to the unoccupied Senate floor. 

We all knew that Chansley was treated more harshly because of his visibility. It was his costume, not his conduct, that seemed to drive the sentencing. In the hearing, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, “He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.” Lamberth hit Chansley with a heavy 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.” However, the QAnon Shaman was led through the Capitol by officers. Defense counsel could have noted that his “obstruction” in going to an unoccupied Senate floor was facilitated by officers. While the police were clearly trying to deescalate the situation after the Capitol was breached, this is evidence of how Chansley came to the Senate.... 

At first blush, this would appear a clear “Brady violation” when a prosecutor fails to provide a defendant with any evidence that is favorable or exculpatory to his case.

Turley notes 3 complicating factors: 1. Chansley pleaded guilty quickly, 2. the video was in the possession of Congress, not the Justice Department, and 3. Chansley's plea agreement waived the right to appeal.

The Congress and the January 6th Committee knew of this footage and its relevance to a pending criminal case. Yet, they refused to make it public.

Shameful. Illiberal. 

Instead, the January 6th Committee hired a former ABC producer to put on a made-for-television production of highly edited images for public consumption. Countervailing evidence or images were consistently excluded and witnesses appeared as virtual props to support high-quality video packages. Even The New York Times admitted the narrative was meant to “recast the midterm message” and “give [Democrats] a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power.”

And they posed as democracy preservationists!