guest: kevin mccarthy released documents to fox news hosted tucker carlsen. i expect there will be a lot of questions about these security questions that come up. how much access -- carlsen has said it is unfettered. what does that look like? he and his teams have spent the last week on the hill going through those tapes because they have to do it in a secure room through a terminal. he has previewed that he will start to show some of that. host: are these tapes the january 6 committee has already gone through? guest: the committee has gone over 14,000. carlsen said he had access to over 40,000. members on the committee have gone through it. host: the sergeant at arms of the house said when the speaker asked for those tapes, he basically has to give them the tape. will other media outlets get access to the tapes? guest: that is the question. there has been a lot of pushback. why this one specific anger is getting access. the speaker has constitutional power to question or pushback on so it remains to be seen. host: let's get to calls. we have frank in staten

house republican leaders have given tucker carlsen exclusive access to thousands of hours of video.morning, fox news host tucker carlsen says he has been given over 40,000 hours of the january 6 attack video. it is unclear where his team reviewed the footage. abc news reports kevin mccarthy granted his team access to the videos. carlsen has repeatedly spread conspiracy theories about january 6. he claims the footage appears to show contradictions. this comes after a court filing revealed private text messages from fox news personalities. the text including carlsen showed they doubted allegations of voter fraud after the election even though many continue to report it. carlsen says his findings will be made public soon. abc news has reached out to mccarthy about the claims. his office has yet to respond. kumasi: oral arguments underway at the supreme court in a case that could reshape the internet. it centers around the killing of an american college student in paris during the terror attacks in 2015. yesterday, the parents argued it allow isis vs onld liable foe youtube ommended vid

that's right, we're talking tucker carlsen, sean hannity, laura ingraham -- what they knew and when theyt. stay with us. ♪♪ [music break] amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with juan gonzalez. the foreperson of the special grand jury in georgia that is investigating attempts by former president donald trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election confirmed tuesday that the jury recommended more than a dozen indictments and that the list might include trump. khors spoke tuesday with cnn's kate bolduan about the evidence they reviewed over the past eight months, including testimony from 75 witnesses. >> there is just too much for this to just be,, ok, we're good, bye. >> if it were just a perjury charge, would that be acceptable? >> that's fine. i will be happy as long as something happens. amy: that was the georgia grand jury foreperson emily khors. among the evidence the grand jury likely reviewed was a recording of trump in january 2021 threatening georgia's republican secretary of state brad raffensperger to overturn biden's vi

there is a text in particular from tucker carlsen suggesting that a fox news white house correspondentbe fired for fact checking a trump claim about the election. he says please get her fired. i'm actually shocked, it needs to be stopped like tonight, it is measurably hurting the company, the stock price is down, not a joke. how concerned was fox about losing viewers to the right wing rivals? david: it was feverishly anxious about this issue and raised fears in sight vitriol, anger, and you see that in the private message between tucker carlsen and i believe sean hannity. you saw the chief executive suzanne scott lashing out at their washington managing editor, senior executive over political news for the network because he took part in fox news's call of arizona for joe biden, which was what its audiences did not want to hear. people talked internally about breaking credibility and trust between fox news and its viewership built up over pony five years. -- over 25 years. you don't hear them talking about how credit ability and trust can be broken by not sticking to the facts and yet f

we know that after this information came out, hosts like tucker carlsen were continuing to peddle theie. so, unfortunately, unless something significant happens -- and i believe glenn kirschner spoke about this earlier, unless the government is willing to take steps to protect the american people from the lies that are peddled from -- buy outfits like fox. we are going to continue to be in this very dangerous place where almost half of the country is being lied to. being told that their rights are being taken away from them when, in fact, the opposite is true. >> yesterday, the michigan gop chose election denier and former secretary of state candidate, christina karamo, to be their state party chair. far-right extremists and trump loyalist, karamo made headlines for a wild and very bizarre claims about the excise-ism of demons and how abolition was a fraudulent theory. we laugh, we chuckle, but the reality is, mary, what is this telling you about the current state of the battle for our democracy? i mean, we saw trump fail with his primary candidates that he was pushing in the last mid

geoff: should other news outlets have access to the same material other than tucker carlsen, a knownspiracy theorist and liar? tom: yesthey suld. they made it available to people they wanted to. you are better off avoiding that and let anybody who wants to have a look do so and make whatever case they want to make. the american people are pretty smart, they will figure it out. geoff: congressman, always enjoy thanks for having me. ♪ amna: with abortion banned or severely restricted in u.s. 18 states, abortion pills have now become the new battle grou for the anti-abortion movement. in a story co-produced with the pbs newshour, kaiser health news correspondent sarah varney reports on a new lawsuit brought by a conservative christian anti-abortion group that could end access to the medication nationwide. sarah: at whole woman's house in virginia, a clinic manager -- health in virginia, a clinic manager is struggling to find appointments for women coming for abortion care in nearby states. >> we are in this half circle around the east coast of states including west virginia, kentucky, t

houser public and leaders appeared to have given controversial fox news host tucker carlsen exclusiveto of hours of video. jobina: fox news host carlsen says he's been given over 40,000 hours of the january 6 attack video. it's unclear what his team -- why his team reviewed the footage but evan mccarthy granted the team access to the video. carlsen has repeatedly spread conspiracy theories about january 6. he claims new footage appears to show contradictions to what is widely known about the attack on the capital. this comes after a new court filing revealed private text from fox news personalities. the text which includes carlsen show they doubted allegations of voter fraud after the 2020 election even though many continue to report otherwise on the air. carlsen says his team's findings be made public soon. we have reached out to mccarthy's office about the claims. his office has yet to respond on the situation. kumasi: oral arguments underway the supreme court that could reshape the internet. it centers around the killing of an american college student in paris airing the terror att

this idea speaker mccarthy handed over these thousands of hours of security footage to tucker carlsene that argue to let everyone see everything and make up their own minds. is there validit? >> sure, simply because the speaker has given all of this footage to tucker carlson. if you would give it to him, you should give it to msnbc, cnn, give it to pbs,ive to everyone. you know what? i don't need to see 44,000 hours worth of footage. i watched our government being attacked by supporters of the former president live on television in real time over several hours. i don't know what couple carls -- tucker carlson is going to do with this footage and how he will presented on his show but whenever he does it, it will be a disservice to his viewers. a disservice to this country. amna: we don't know what he's going to do with it. i'm baffled by this idea that it seems like for a long time republicans wanted to get as far away from january 6 as they could. this feels like they are resurrecting it now. >> marjorie taylor greene was ecstatic over this. this is clearly what they wanted in exchang

the possibilities for somebody like tucker carlsen, who has no relationship with the truth, is to cherry-pickvarious portions and tried to weave it together and wanted to create a false narrative that can then be gone through the right-wing ecosystem. >> i have to ask you because you're in congress, and of course there is a partisan divide here. the fact that he has not answered for any of this, the only communication we have from him on the topic is the fundraising emails that he sent out. what does this do inside congress? he's breached somebody that has never been -- here but all of their lives at risk. what are the repercussions inside of congress? >> there's not a lot of trust from the democratic caucus with the speaker. i don't think the anyone recognizes the democratic side, how he sold his soul in order to become the speaker of the house. what this demonstrates is not just a breach of protocol, not just a breach of security, but a breach of the rules, ethics, and practices of the house. the fact that as chairman thompson said that he did not even consult with the capitol police before

so, the possibilities for someone like tucker carlsen, who has no relationship with the truth, is tocherry-pick various portions of it and try to weave it together and create a false narrative that can then go through the right-wing eco sphere. >> i've got to ask you because you are in congress and obviously there's a partisan divide here. the fact that kevin mccarthy has not answered for any of this and the only communication from him on the topic are the fundraising emails he has sent out. i mean, what does this do inside congress? he's breached somebody that that has never been breached before. and he may have put all of your lives at risk. what are the repercussions inside of congress? >> there's not a lot of trust from the democratic caucus with the speaker. i think everyone recognizes on the democratic side that he sold his soul in order to become the speaker of the house. but what it demonstrates is not just a breach of protocol, not just a breach of security, but a breach of the rules, ethics and practices of the house. the fact that, as chairman thompson said, he did not eve

this idea that speaker mccarthy has handed over these hours of security footage to tucker carlsen. e who argue, let everyone see everything and make up their own mind. is there validity? jonathan: sure, simply because the speaker has given all of this footage to code -- to tucker carlson. if you're going to give it to him, give it to everybody. so that they can look at it. but i don't need to see 44,000 hours worth of footage. i watched our government being attacked by supporters othe former president, live, on television, in real time over several hours. i don't know what are -- what tucker carlson is going to do with the footage and how he is going to presented on his show, but whatever it is and however he doesn't and whenever he does it will be a disservice to his viewers, a disservice to this country. amna: we don't know what he is going to do with it. i am baffled by this idea that it seemed that republicans wanted to get as far away from january 6 as they could. this goes like they are resurrecting it. why talk about it? david: marjorie taylor greene was ecstatic over this. t

people like -- tucker carlsen are not stupid. they know that the election was fair. they know that donald trump lost. and this was purely a calculated move to keep viewers watching. trump was upset with fox because of a call they made on election night in 2020. this was a way to keep them close. this was a way to keep trump from telling his followers to go other places. what they did was shameless and appalling, but it's not shocking. you're talking about the same network that was denigrating the covid vaccines well every single person there was vaccinated. this is what fox does. there's no morals here. it's only about ratings and keeping viewers entertainment and watching and, you know, boosting their advertising numbers. >> i'm so glad you brought up the issue of vaccines. i think that's one of the points that's often lost and forgotten. that fox, at one point, had a vaccine mandate for its employees to entered the building. but they're willing to have their unaired hosts peddling vaccine conspiracy theories. foxes counterclaim in this defamation lawsuit in part is

amna: now, speaker mccarthy is handing over footage, tens of thousands of hours of footage, to tucker carlsenthe impact of that footage being shared? tim: it is dangerous. the committee got access to at footage under tight controls. we had a dedicated terminal, only a couple of staff had access to it, it was password protected. even after we reviewed footage, if we were going to use any of it in a public hearing, we had to negotiate with the capitol police to try to trim how much of it might compromise a camera location or a route of evacuation, or any security issue. we took very seriously the law enforcement sensitivity of that information and took sps to minimize the damage of disclosure. i don't know if mr. carlsen or others who might get access to it will abide by those same rules. that is why it is dangerous. . if it is posted, it will make it easier for people to evade those security protections in the future. laura: there has been footage out there already, whether through your investigation or other people's personal body cameras. some capitol police officers told my colleague that t

guest: kevin mccarthy released documents to fox news hosted tucker carlsen.xpect there will be a lot of questions about these security questions that come up. how much access -- carlsen has said it is unfettered. what does that look like? he and his teams have spent the last week on the hill going through those tapes because they have to do it in a secure room through a terminal. he has previewed that he will start to show some of that. host: are these tapes the january 6 committee has already gone through? guest: the committee has gone over 14,000. carlsen said he had access to over 40,000. members on the committee have gone through it. host: the sergeant at arms of the house said when the speaker asked for those tapes, he basically has to give them the tape. will other media outlets get access to the tapes? guest: that is the question. there has been a lot of pushback. why this one specific anger is getting access. the speaker has constitutional power to question or pushback on so it remains to be seen. host: let's get to calls. we have frank in staten isla

you will see tucker carlsen, fox news. it is not just facebook. look at spotify. the roost at spotify at 190 million downloads a month. and that was several years ago. you look at dave rubin, jordan peterson on youtube, over 500 million views. we want to keep the problem in perspective, not to my things need to be changed, but remember who is competent to do the change and make the change. here is, personally, one of my big concerns about this. the supreme court is not institutionally equipped to set ai policy. the supreme court is looking, in this case, at youtube's technology in 2015, frozen in time, eight years ago. the court is looking backward. that is what they do, they look backward. it is congress who looks forward. they look backward and try to resolve policy, cases, controversy. that is what the constitution says they should do. we think the law, if it needs to be changed and tweaked, as congress has a number of times in the last 10 years or 20 years, that should come from congress. host: what if lower courts decided, because you had mentioned you were s