Tucker Carlson starts to divulge the Capitol video tapes

Just to be clear, the officer didn't shoot her in the throat, he shot her in the shoulder that was coming through the window. It deflected off her bones and rather than be a minor wound it turned into a fatal one.

 

Your first source is merely the opinion of Right wing legal commentator, Jonathan Turley, who is as partisan as our current SCOTUS. Often, I can easily find a prominent legal scholar on the left-- Lawrence Tribe, for instance-- contradicting Turley's opinion. So if you want to present his arguments, I invite you to go for it. But, in lieu of that, I will move to your second source, which is about the trial coverage, and has nothing to do with your arguments. here is a snip, of the judge's main complaint, namely, the press was not treating him, as he would wish

<Snip>
“I’m gonna think long and hard about live television at trial again, next time,” Schroeder said Wednesday. “I've always been a firm believer in it because I believe the people should be able to see what’s going on. But when I see what’s being done, it’s really quite frightening.”

Specifically, Schroeder seemed to take issue with some of the reactions to his unusual method of selecting the final 12 jurors who will decide the fate of the 18-year-old Rittenhouse, who is being tried for fatally shooting two people and injuring another during tense protests against racial injustice in Kenosha in the summer of 2020. On Tuesday, Schroeder instructed Rittenhouse to pull six numbers at random from a raffle drum to determine which jurors would serve as alternates and be excused while the remaining 12 moved on to deliberations.
<End Snip>

So, you think that is partisanship, of the media, to see his unusual method as, well, unusual?

Your third source is the NY Post, which I know will come as a shock to you, is well known as a publication with a strong Right wing bias. It is owned by News Corp., the company run by Rupert Murdoch. Nevertheless, all it really said, was not that that left wing media were purposely misleading the public, but that they, themselves, are clueless. I will include a quote from an associated article in the Post, which does quote your pal, Turley.

<Snip>
What is most striking about the [Kyle Rittenhouse] trial is that, even more than a year later, prosecutors seem to be learning critical details at the same time as the jury,” Jonathan Turley fumes at The Hill. Testimony described one of those he killed, Joseph Rosenbaum, “as threatening Rittenhouse and others and engaging in random violence;” prosecutors opened the door to the revelation that he “suffered from bipolar disorder.” Gaige Grosskreutz admitted he was shot only after he “pointed his own 9mm handgun at Rittenhouse’s head.” Indeed, “even the prosecution’s medical witness proved beneficial to the defense.”
<End Snip>

So, he is calling the prosecutorial team, clueless. But how harshly can one blame the media, for not being more knowledgeable about a case, than the people prosecuting it? I am not going to argue that the left of center media, did a great job-- but that is because, before the trial, I didn't see this as anything especially relevant to me, so did not obsess over it, as some may have. And during the trial, my exposure to the case came mostly from the trial itself. Even when I saw clips, I drew my information from the clips, not from the commentary on the clips. So the reason you have stronger opinions about the coverage, is that you saw this case as having greater overall importance, than did I. Also, you apparently expect that viewers on the Left are as mindlessly credulous, as are those on the Right. I would need see data on this, if it is part of your argument. Some on Left, naturally, are that way, but I could not quantify it. I only know that I am not one who blindly accepts whatever opinion is presented for me.

Yet, if I nevertheless grant, what Turley and the Post contend-- that the media on the left misjudged the case-- I don't see how that is any different from the vastly wrong way that the media on the Right, had analyzed data to predict a huge Red Wave, in last year's midterm elections. We could say that they ignored evidence, or we could just say they read things wrong, so what they emphasized turned out to be less important than they'd gaged, and the things they'd minimized or discounted, turned out being way more important. Seems pretty similar to what the argument is about the Left, "being so wrong."

Your fourth source, from CNN, is only a single paragraph, but says essentially the same thing:

<Snip>
"Parts of the media dropped the ball on covering this case from the start," David French says. He says "there were media outlets who just did a disservice by not noting that Rittenhouse was running away" and "being pursued by the first person he shot very aggressively."
<End Snip>


So, to review, you took 4 media swings at this, to make the point that the media on the left did a poor job, & got this very wrong, but could not distinguish it from the fact that media on the Right has its own stories that it covers & judges poorly, and gets completely wrong. It would then be a wonder, how you could conclude that the media on the Left is any more worthy of criticism, than is that on the Right. To the contrary, you were able to find CNN offering self-criticism. Try to find that on FOX News, or any of the far Right sources, about their coverage of the "election fraud," in the 2020 Presidential election. That is, if you even realize that all that talk was promoted by FOX, even though they recognized it as a bunch of bull. The difference, of course, is that the media on the Left acknowledged the Rittenhouse verdict, but on the Right, they still equivocate over who is the fairly elected President-- your own "sources of information and all."

 

Actually, it is you, who is about 6 pages behind. Check out my reply to Ddyad, on the same thing you are just now trying to bring up.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-20#post-1074078321


He has, thus far, not responded to the simple question, in that post. Can you supply, that basic answer?

 

Who is out there saying that the fact that there is no evidence that Sicknick died as a result on the Jan 6 events, means that it was not an attack on the Capitol, or a riot/violent protest?

 

According to who? Tucker? LOL

 

Three trumpists were killed that day. Let me ask you a question, why do you talk about something you have no ****ing clue about?

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/

"There is reasoned debate about the number who died as a result of the Capitol riot. Ocasio-Cortez is including law enforcement officials who responded to the Capitol that day and committed suicide in the days and months afterward. None of them have been officially designated as “line of duty” deaths, though there is some congressional support for it."

"Two heart attacks: According to an April release from the Washington, D.C., medical examiner’s office, “Stop the Steal” protesters Kevin Greeson, 55, and Benjamin Phillips, 50, both died of cardiovascular disease, and the manner of death was deemed “natural.”"

"The day after the riot, a D.C. Police Department statement said that Philips, a computer programmer from Ringtown, Pennsylvania, had died due to a “medical emergency.” Like Greeson, the D.C. medical examiner later determined that Philips died naturally of “hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease” — heart failure due to high blood pressure."

"An accidental overdose: D.C. police also said on the day after the riot that Rosanne Boyland, 34, of Kennisaw, Georgia, suffered a “medical emergency.” The New York Times reported on Jan. 15 that Boyland died “in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line, according to videos reviewed by The Times.” That narrative was furthered by prosecutors pressing criminal cases against some of the rioters who said that as rioters clashed with police, Boyland “was dying after being trampled by the mob.”

But a month later, the D.C. medical examiner’s office released its conclusion that Boyland had died accidentally of “acute amphetamine intoxication.” According to the Washington Post, “The drug cited in Boyland’s death is addictive and can be prescribed to treat attention-deficit disorder and narcolepsy.”"

"A stroke victim: A Capitol Police release the day after the riots said that USCP Officer Brian Sicknick “passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty.” The report stated that Sicknick “was injured while physically engaging with protesters. He returned to his division office and collapsed.”"

"The New York Times, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, initially reported that Sicknick was struck by a fire extinguisher, but later updated its story to say that medical experts said he did not die of blunt force trauma."

"Four suicides: Four other police officers committed suicide in the days and months after the riot."

Soooo apart from people over dosing, commiting suicide or having a stroke. We have 1 rioter who died that day.

 

You have to actually face the truth before it can set you free.

“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tore into U.S. Capitol Police for failing to forestall the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, alleging some officers were sympathetic to the event. Ocasio-Cortez stressed that authorities never "got to the bottom" of whether officers aided and were "opening the doors" to rioters who stormed the Capitol.”
MICROSOFT NEWS, AOC says Capitol Police were 'opening the doors' for Jan. 6 rioters, By Ryan King, 7/14/22.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pening-the-doors-for-jan-6-rioters/ar-AAZzTgf

 

The democrats will be closely monitoring all those that were present that day. Ten years from now anyone that dies, their deaths will be declared the result of the riot of 1/6.

 

Sooooo apart from others that died as a direct result for being there that day, reds still believe only one person died that day.

LOL, wow.

 

Fact check.org disagrees with your assessment and they have the receipts to prove it.

Sowwy. You are trying desperately to make more of it then actually was.

 

Aw, so the folks that died from heart attacks, drug over doses and what not don't count as real deaths according to reds.

Fascinating.

 

Nope don't count.

Not in the slightest. Does this trigger you?

 

Yes, that is the facts. It may be a little misleading, especially on the part of one particular officer who died, but it still shows how violent the riot was.

But at the same time, you guys get extremely uppity if a black person accidentally touches a police officer calling it, "an assault on Democracy by BLM and Antifa." Geez

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/

 

On average about 20.1 people die in D.C. every day.
"wow"?

https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/district-of-columbia/per-year/

 

it makes it connected because of Tucker's tactics to rename January 6th from a riot to a peaceful protest and were invited in by the Capitol Police with everyone in the government and MSM lying. That is how.

The facts I presented, and you quoted, is what was in line that day. But if you listen to Tucker, you wouldn't know, much less anything else.

 

Nothing fake about their deaths other than the fake cause you're trying to get us to believe.

 

As Mr. Higgins said.... the answer should be NO....

 

Tucker Carlson did not call J6 a "peaceful protest". That is just another lie you must have picked up from the MSM.
Always remember: MSM = Fake News

Hint: Whenever the MSM and party bosses tell lies about Carlson it only diminishes their credibility while making Carlson appear ever more credible. IMO, they should resist the temptation to foolishly make such obviously false statements about TC.

 

Yes, Merrick Garland told a Big Fat Lie -- No, officers died on J6.

Lesson: Never trust government spokesmen, party bosses, or the MSM.

 

The Dems and Deep State are between a rock and a hard place. They've told so many lies for so many years that now the chickens are coming home to roost. They are in panic because the truth is becoming apparent to all.

 

The illegally withheld video aired by Carlson is damning. The DOJ/FBI must have assumed that it would never be revealed.
Garland should have known that the cover-up can be worse than the crime, and the price for such lapses in ethics and judgment can be very high.

See: CHAZ/CHOP (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone/ Capitol Hill Occupied Protest Zone) or Richard M. Nixon for instructive examples of how that works.

 

Yes, death happens -- that fact is not remarkable.
On average about 20.1 people die in D.C. every day. It varies every year.
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/district-of-columbia/per-year/

 

Is it hard to believe a federal under cover agent or informant was carrying strip ties."
Do you think the Proud Boys working for the FBI do something like that?

One thing you can be sure of: the FBI knows who that guy was and everyone else who entered the Capitol on J6.
They will have video of them from the moment they entered the district.

 

In fact, Carlson has denounced the rioters.
Anyone who takes "shots" at Carlson will not put a dent in him unless they just tell the truth, the whole truth. and nothing but the truth.
Crude biased political propaganda smears do not work against someone as skilled in those tactics as TC.