AMNA NAWAZ: A Monday-night court filing in the defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against FOX News revealed a new admission by Rupert Murdoch, the network's owner.

Murdoch acknowledged that several FOX hosts knowingly repeated false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Laura Barron-Lopez has more.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: The latest revelation from Murdoch's deposition follows another filing in the case that showed us some of the -- some of FOX's biggest stars privately dismissed former President Trump's election fraud lies.

Publicly, however, they gave airtime and support to those known falsehoods and brewing conspiracy theories.

The findings come as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given FOX host Tucker Carlson first access to more than 40,000 hours of the security footage from January 6.

Here to discuss is Timothy Heaphy, who served as chief investigative counsel to the Select House Committee on the January 6 Attack.

Tim, thanks so much for joining us.

TIMOTHY HEAPHY, Former January 6 Committee Lead Investigator: Thanks for having me, Laura.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: In Dominion's court filing, they included exchanges from Murdoch's deposition.

And I just want to run through a little bit of that with you right now.

In it, Dominion attorney asked Murdoch: "You are now aware that FOX endorsed at times these false notions of a stolen election?"

Murdoch: "Not FOX.

No, not FOX, but maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria Bartiromo as commentators."

The attorney then asked him about hosts.

"FOX host Jeanine Pirro?"

Murdoch: "I think so."

"FOX host Lou Dobbs?"

"Oh, a lot."

"FOX host Sean Hannity?"

"A bit."

Finally, the attorney asks about -- this is specifically about their endorsement of a stolen election.

Murdoch: "Yes, they endorsed."

You investigated the January 6 attack for months.

How did FOX News' coverage and the lies about election fraud in the weeks and months contribute to January 6?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Look, what the FOX News hosts were repeating, without foundation, was part of a chorus of repeated bogus theories of election fraud.

They came from the former president himself.

They came in the form of social media posts repeated.

They came in the form of fund-raising material sent out by the Trump campaign, which became essentially a Stop the Steal money machine.

So there were lots of different places, Laura, where this false narrative, no foundation in fact, was repeated.

And it absolutely had a lot to do with people getting really angry and going to the Capitol believing genuinely, albeit misguidedly, that the election had been stolen.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And now Speaker McCarthy is handing over footage, tens of thousands of hours of footage, to FOX host Tucker Carlson.

What's the impact of that footage being shared?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Look, it's dangerous.

We got access, the committee got access to that footage under really tight controls.

We had a dedicated terminal.

Only a couple of staff had access to it.

It was password-protected.

And then, 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.

So, we took very seriously the law enforcement sensitivity of that information and took steps to minimize the potential damage of disclosure.

I don't know if the -- Mr. Carlson or others who might get access to it will abide by those same rules.

That's why it's dangerous.

If it's just posted, that will make it easier for people to evade those security protections in the future.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: There's been a lot of footage already out there, whether through your investigation or other people's personal body cameras.

Some Capitol Police officers told my colleague Lisa Desjardins that they're not necessarily worried about the security risks or about people finding out camera locations.

But what they are worried about is the potential for FOX to cherry-pick a narrative out of that footage like this.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX News Anchor: The DOJ has been allowed to prosecute and jail hundreds of nonviolent political protesters whose crime was having the wrong opinions.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: He said nonviolent there, but what do you say to that from the Capitol Police officers?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Look, they're -- there's no question that you can look at all of that footage and find some people that were there and not engaging in violence.

Not everybody was assaulting police officers.

Not everyone was breaking windows.

That doesn't take away from the fact that this was a riot, that this was a violent attack on the United States Capitol.

So it's a bit misleading to take a piece of footage from over here, where there are people walking with signs, when, 50 feet away, there were people hitting police officers and breaking windows.

Again, it is important to look at the entirety of what happened.

Not everyone there was bent on violence.

There's no question that there were some people there who were not violent.

The crimes extend beyond violence.

The crimes involve breaching a barrier and trespassing on the Capitol grounds.

And there are a lot of people that have been charged with nonviolent offenses who have been pleading guilty to those crimes, misdemeanors, and not getting jail time.

There are degrees of culpability, as there are in any mass demonstration event.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Looking at the bigger picture, your ultimate report, your committee recommended that Donald Trump, the former president, be charged.

In court, you have to, as you know, show specific actions and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, what specifically did the former president do that you think he should be charged for?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Yes, so degrees of culpability.

He is the main proximate cause of the riot.

The committee found evidence of his specific intent to obstruct, interfere or impede the joint session.

That's the main statute, is obstruction of an official proceeding.

And there's lots of evidence of specific intent that President Trump and his co-conspirators took to ensure that the joint session did not go forward, that the transfer of power did not occur.

That started well before January 6 with efforts to use the Justice Department, misuse the Justice Department, pressure state officials, put pressure on the vice president, and then, ultimately, on January 6 itself, a really incendiary speech to a crowd that he knew was armed and was angry, and then inaction once the riot occurred.

Despite repeated encouragement to quell violence, to say something publicly, he did not act.

All of that informed the committee's recommendation that there's evidence of the violation of federal crimes by the former president and by others in his immediate circle.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And the special counsel investigation could potentially get more evidence than what your committee was able to get.

Namely, you in your investigation, you spoke to senior staff, to former Vice President Mike Pence.

And there's a fight going on right now about whether or not the former vice president will testify before a federal grand jury.

Privileges aside, on the substance, given what you learned in your investigation, do you think that a Vice President Mike Pence testimony would have vital information about what Trump did in his actions, his statements around in the lead-up to January 6?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Yes, absolutely.

And it's predictable that the special counsel would want to speak to him.

We did speak to his chief of staff.

We talked to his chief counsel.

We talked to his national security adviser.

We talked to everyone around him.

But the firsthand account of the vice president himself, conversations that he had with the president before January 6, his lived experience during that day would be directly relevant.

Again, they would bear potentially upon the president's state of mind.

That's the crucial issue for the special counsel.

And the vice president, who had a lot of direct communication with the president might provide really direct information about that.

Separate from him, the Justice Department could actually push through privileged assertions that limited us, there are a lot of witnesses, like some of those vice presidential staffers, who asserted an executive privilege and said, I will tell you about what happened, but for I can't really talk about direct communications that I witnessed between the president and the vice president.

That's protected by privilege.

A grand jury investigation arguably overcomes that assertion.

That may be litigated quickly.

That's another procedural benefit that the Department of Justice had that we didn't have.

So, those issues could be resolved, and they could get new firsthand accounts that we weren't able to get because of just the difference between a congressional process and a criminal justice process.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Timothy Heaphy, thank you so much for your time.

TIMOTHY HEAPHY: Thank you.