Tucker Carlson starts to divulge the Capitol video tapes

That does not mean that the footage was not cut, edited, and portrayed with a specific political agenda.

Then you will be able to quote him.

 

And how is this connected to the Tucker Carlson footage?

 

Again, let's play this game, shall we. I have 1000 hours of footage of person X. I have one hour of footage in which Person X commits a crime. I have 999 hours of footage of Person X watching the grass grow. I only use the one hour of footage to get my conviction. The question is, did I cut the video? If I did, was the cut favorable or unfavorable to Person X in which it would absolve his guilt from committing the crime. Yes or no?

It was quite literally on his show.

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-jan6-videos-capitol-riot-1785944

Tucker played several videos of Chansley including him walking in the capitol building with two capitol officers next to him. Tucker then said, "acted as his tour guides."

Then we have the infamous Ray Epps in which Tucker said, "The surveillance footage we found shows that in fact, Ray Epps remained at the Capitol for at least another half an hour," Again, this conspiracy theory has been perpetuated by Tucker from the very beginning, but the video does not do anything against the hundreds of people who have pled guilty to minor crimes and the 30 or 40 or so who have been found guilty by a jury of their peers.

 

It was the basis of the riot that occurred that day and those who stormed the capitol by1000 or so people, including Asley Babbitt.

 

I never heard, from anyone in the media, that Sicknick had been "killed that day;" and certainly not from anyone on the J6 Committee, either. So what you all are trying to make, is the Ray Bolger of straw man arguments!

 

Beats me. I don't know if he was identified or not, and I'm not aware of the entire list of 900 or so arrested. But he was carrying strip ties, presumably to be used on targeted public officials. And he's wearing insignia typical of what the others wore. Hard to imagine an Antifa infiltrator going so far as to carry strip ties. This guy knew exactly what the agenda of the mob was.

 

I didn't say Tucker was 'forced to air any video'. I said he was forced to air portions of the violence because he knew the nation was already aware of the violence, and that had he not aired the violence and aired only the calm moments his story would've lost all credibility.

Tucker couldn't portray J6 as entirely peaceful even if he wanted to because he knew the whole nation already saw the violence. So I know he didn't. What Tucker did do was whitewash the violence & the insurrectionists' goal of overturning the election to re-install a dictator wannabe. If Tucker could've presented J6 as entirely peaceful, believe me he would've done so.

 

That's not what you said.

Besides, this took place in Statuary Hall, so it's not surprising that most stayed within the ropes. Obviously their aim was not to destroy the statues.

Tucker deserves the shots he gets because his take on J6 is an obvious attempt at whitewashing & distraction. Just accept the fact that Tucker is not a journalist looking for truth, but a well-paid shill of Fox heads & a Trump/MAGA apologist.

Many hardcore Republicans have already denounced the J6 rioters.

 

If you don't care what Tucker has to say, then why are you taking issue with criticisms about Tucker's J6 story?

So you're okay with Fox news/Tucker's heavily skewed & cherry picked portrayal of the footage as long as it's coming from a right-wing source?


The 'left'?

Full List of Republicans To Speak Out Against Tucker Carlson's Jan. 6 Show
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-tucker-carlson-jan6-fox-news-1786252

 

If you took issue with the manipulation of facts, then you wouldn't have posted the nonsense about BLM. You're either not aware of the facts, or you just don't care about the facts—the latter being a trademark of the MAGA folks.

 

Sorry, I meant to say that he wasn't killed FROM that day.

 

Merrick Garland... ""over a hundred officers were assaulted on that day, 5 officers died""
And Garland just said that again the other day... ff to 0:30
https://tinyurl.com/fyjsfjv3

 

Claim #1:

Specifics?



#2:

Proof?



#3:

Examples?

Which the media knew was coming. So it makes me wonder why they would set themselves up to be proven propagandists, by their own broadcasting & coverage of the trial, if they were purposely "suppressing" the facts. That doesn't seem to make sense.

But at least the "truth" was seen. Interestingly, at the end of the trial, everyone didn't "know," what the verdict had to be, because there was only one possible interpretation of the evidence; though that is the way you are presenting it. IOW, it sounds to me, that based on your personal interpretation of the evidence, you think that the media was manipulating it. But, I am sure that Right wing media was overly emphasizing anything that they saw as supporting the narrative they wished to push. There seems no basis for considering one narrative "factual," and the other one, "false." All we know is what the jury ruled. But that doesn't change the nature of the decision; that is, this ultimately comes down to the appraiser's judgement. There is no way to "check" that the verdict was "factually correct." To be sure, because of the jury's judgement, we can now say, that Rittenhouse was factually not guilty. But that is only because of the verdict-- which was not guaranteed, as much as you want to act like it was a verifiable sum. So, all I am taking from your criticisms, because they are devoid of any examples, is that your opinion differed from what you took to be the media's opinion.



Claim #4:

More unspecified charges; still based on only your word, that is, your personal assessment.

Yeah, right-- that's the way it works: you accuse the media of things, provide no evidence, and then whoever is on the other side of the debate, goes to research your claims.

If it is too much trouble, for you to research your own argument, that makes it a massive fail. And, by the standard rules, of debate, that is a fact.

 

Actually Joe did say it when he was suggesting the Capitol riot inspired Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine

Joe states 5 cops were killed, so not only was Sicknick was killed when ""the crowds stormed and broke down the doors" but 4 others were killed that day also. That was over a year later...

“Look, how would you feel if you saw crowds storm and break down the doors of the British Parliament and kill five cops, injure 145? Or the German Bundestag or the Italian Parliament?”

video here
https://nypost.com/2022/03/02/biden...apitol-riot-as-gop-cites-afghanistan-cut-run/

 

Garland does not say the five died that day. Anyone who knows anything about this story, knows he is including officers who subsequently committed suicide, because of the mental trauma, stress, and anguish, of the event; it is ludicrous for anyone to contend that this was a coincidence, and that there is no discernible connection. It is a pathetic ploy, for you to pick at details, as if they change the overall narrative, that the protesters were violent. They don't.


These were not prepared remarks by Garland, btw. His press conference was on some other topic, and a reporter asked him a question on this, which Garland said he didn't want to specifically comment upon, so he only summed up his general view of January 6th-- that it was a violent attack, on a fundamental tenet of our democracy: that power is peacefully transferred, after an election. He added that most of us saw this occurring, in real time. Over 100 officers were assaulted. Over 1000 protesters arrested. 500 already convicted. He thinks it is clear what it was-- and he is right, about that.

 

His exact statement without taking breath...""over a hundred officers were assaulted on that day, 5 officers died"".... Please do not twist his EXACT words.

 

I am not-- you are the one twisting words. Specifically, the words "that day," come after his saying that "officers were assaulted," not after saying that five died. This is your erroneous reading/hearing of his words. I will give you, that your assumption would not be an unusual one, for someone only now hearing about this, for the first time. Yet, you had known what the AG had meant, just as nearly everyone else would. He only left out going into the details of how & when they died because, again, this was not the purpose of his press conference. So in answering a reporter's question, he was just giving bullet points:

• Violent attack
• Against foundational principle of democracy: peaceful transfer
• 100 officers assaulted (that day)
• 5 officers died
• 1000 arrests of participants
• 500 convictions (to date).

Note that "that day," does not apply to any other thing on that list: The convictions, did not happen, on "that day." The 1000 arrests, did not all, or most, occur "that day." Nor did the 5 officer deaths. This is just the way that people speak: leaving out, a reiteration of details which are already well known.

 

Nobody died that day except the rioter who got shot in the neck and everyone you are trying to pin deaths on that day to make it seem worse than it was is laughable at best.

My faith in both the media or bullshit medical reports is at an all time low after the whole covid fiasco. And the george floyd bullshit.

 

Keep spinning my friend.... """"over a hundred officers were assaulted on that day, 5 officers died""""

 

...ultimately.
or
...as a result.

 

My own side?

The libertarian party?

You so busy cheerleading, you fail to admit the manipulation of information on both sides, and in THIS case, the left wing extremists and their media arm.

All of you on the left want to make this about ME to avoid condemning what is quite plainly political extremism.

 

I dont care WHO released the videos thay were suppressed intentionally for political reasons. I don't care if it was bugs bunny.

Unless your claiming Tucker Carlson fabricated them out of thin air, who released them has no bearing on my point.

Your desperately trying to spin this around to avoid having to condem those that desire to manipulate information.

About me.

About Carlson.

About Fox News.

Is it really THAT hard to oppose and condem information manipulation?

I dont care WHAT Carlson tried to portray on his show.

That has zero bearing except a deflection on your part.

My criticism is that clearly, based on the release of videos that were obviously previously suppressed from dissemination, we weren't provided the whole story.


All you on the left know of the Republicans and media ONLY released information on the BLM protests that showed violence and distraction, you would be up in arms when the truth comes out.

But expecting political extremists to admit they are extreme is a lost cause.

 

BLM showcased perfectly compared to January 6 just how hypocritical the extreme left is.

 

You live in left wing propaganda land.

How you can sit here and claim the pre-trial media coverage wasn't biased and one sided just completely defies what has been resoundedly published and discussed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...rdict-not-guilty-trial-media-bias/8686176002/

https://news.yahoo.com/rittenhouse-...trial-really-quite-frightening-214622099.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ittenhouse-coverage-and-other-commentary/amp/

Even CNN covered it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...tiques-media-coverage-of-rittenhouse-case.cnn


I guess you must have just missed it. Your sources of information and all.

 

First of all, Babbitt was shot in the chest. Secondly Roseann Boyland, a trumpist was killed that day after she collapsed and was trampled by her fellow trumpists. But reds don't care about her or make her a martyr because they never knew she existed because reds refused to watch video footage from that day that hasn't been cherry picked by Tucker.