day, you know, that presents a security threat. like, this is a corridor in the house of representatives. right. but if you watch 14 hours of that and then see, for example, senator schumer and speaker pelosi and, you know, perhaps vice president pence evacuaing through this corridor, then you move the next corridor, and you can piece together and map out exactly how these evacuation routes were used to keep people safe in the capitol. i think that gives away a large amount of information that s required for capitol security. there was a story this week in the washington post that a pretty wide-sweeping subpoena went out for a lot of the conduct that was scrutinized by the select committee and the work that you did around the fake electors. what is your sort of state of mind about the pace and the specificity of the federal criminal investigation being run by the special counsel into the president around january 6th? well, i m pleased to see each time that there s reporting t
i think it s a congress of grievances rather than governing, and they ve already proven that in their first week. i m just mulling your extraordinary answer about the footage and revealing the pathways and the tunnels and the evacuation routes. do you think that i guess i would ask, if you know the universe do you know the universe of surveillance footage that exists? and was that the reason why any of it was withheld in terms of what the committee showed the public and didn t? well, i mean, there s hundreds of cameras, thousands of hours cumulatively of footage. i mean, the committee, you know, used the footage to show particular moments in time that displayed, you know, the activities that were going on throughout that day. there was absolutely no way or real purpose of which we would have broadcast on live tv thousands of hours of footage. right. and when you take a small portion of it, which displays the activities happening that
internally to the creation of this new subcommittee under judiciary to do this. it s outside of the typical structures of normal committees. it s a subcommittee within judiciary but has the same chair. it s not clear who the membership will be. it s just harder to control what tangents they go off on once they get started. i m thinking about this group. there s a handful of new members on the republican side, this new group of freshmen from new york state, who have been the first people to call for george santos to resign. they are the majority makers in every real sense, right. the house republicans hadn t done as well as they had done in new york state this last midterm, they wouldn t be in the majority. they ll be the first call out santos and the first to rein this committee in because they could touch the hot gas stove here and make enemies out of the part of the party or the part of the country that they have long try so hard to represent publicly. it s a very delicate situation
because what this committee is going to do and what the speaker has clearly already demonstrated he s going to do, is they re going to discard the fact and attack people personally and endanger their lives. i have to tell you, from, again, the national security perspective, not only am i concerned that they re going to launch an all-out attack on fbi people, never mind the constant erosion of the institution, but now people i assure you are going to come under attack. and that s very dangerous. we ve already seen attacks at fbi offices. but further, don t forget, we see people not on the intelligence committee writing in to practice that they will get the intelligence briefings ordinarily provided only to the intelligence committee, so people like jim jordan and others want their hands on the real, live, raw intelligence that s briefed very discreetly to the intelligence committee. we re going to see threats, extortion, blackmail-type