light of all evidence in the record, the court’s error was harmless. The district court’s ruling and Thomas’s convictions are AFFIRMED. 1 . The interrogation video is part of the record and was entered into evidence before the district court. Neither the Government nor Thomas challenges its accuracy or authenticity. Even construing the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we do not simply ignore accurate video evidence that "completely and clearly contradicts [that] party's testimony.” Cf. Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir.2013) ("[W]here an accurate video recording completely and clearly contradicts a party’s testimony, that testimony becomes incredible.”) (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (<HOLDING>)). 2 . Cf. McKinney v. Ludwick, 649 F.3d 484,
holding that for purposes of summary judgment in the qualified immunity context a plaintiffs factual narrative need not be accepted if contradicted by credible unchallenged video evidence holding that factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment only when they pertain to the qualified immunity defense holding that summary judgment was improper on qualified immunity grounds when defendant was aware of prisoners need for medical treatment but failed to provide it holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to  1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim