Tucker Carlson starts to divulge the Capitol video tapes

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by popscott, Mar 6, 2023.

  1. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, wrong-- that was not "the narrative." That had been merely my own, personal mixing up of the Capitol policeman who had been pummelled, with a fire extinguisher-- were you aware? and how "serious" a thing, do you consider this, if the victim lives? Would it then qualify, as a feature of a "mostly peaceful protest," in your mind?-- with this officer who was hospitalized after the attack, and died, the next day. I had just made an errant assumption. But the point is, this person who died, had been assaulted, with a chemical agent, most likely "bear spray."

    Even beyond that-- as I will now, hopefully, be repeating for the last time-- which acts of violence, led to which specific policemen, to be hospitalized or treated for which particular injuries, is something I see as minutia, as not really affecting
    the big picture, here. So that had been my question to you: what do these (relatively speaking) trivial discrepancies, all add up to, in your mind, as they relate to the overall January 6 narrative?*

    You offered no answer, so I repeat that question. Instead, you offered, what I consider only nitpicking-- because, as I have already said, I find the inclusion of that snippet of Hawley, in the J6 presentation, to have been largely irrelevant.
    The point-- other than to show Hawley as a hypocrite-- had been to show that Congress had been in danger! Therefore, the fact that MORE than one member of our Legislature had been running, actually further proves that point!!! If you did not have your head stuck so far up into a purely partisan vantage point, you would (I hope) be able to see that. It is meant to show that this was a credible threat because, presumably, Rep. Hawley does not typically run from "sightseers."

    The one justification, I will assert for the Committee, in using this clip, was that if they had shown only Democrats running, a whole bunch of you know who you are, would have just made fun of the Dems, as scaredy-cat sissies. But, if they hadn't shown anyone else, besides Hawley running, they should have. But not for reasons of partisan fairness: they should have done it to better demonstrate the serious nature of the attack on Congress.


    *Still waiting, as mentioned above, for your reply.

     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2023
    chris155au likes this.
  2. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am sorry, for making this assumption, of your understanding; let me, then, better explain my view. Human beings, as a species, are not even 100% honest-- I think it has been amply proven-- and far less than that, are they impervious to subjectivism. Therefore, anyone using the measure of perfection, to evaluate any facet of human society, would be the person, who is truly "living, in a...propaganda land." (Hopefully, you recall your quote?).

    So-- apparently unlike you-- I assume a certain amount of subjective interpretation, in any human communication, most certainly including a news program. I keep this in mind, as I assess what is being said.

    The
    important thing, to my mind, then, would be both the degree, as well as the cause/purpose, of any slant. Since most would consider a rejection of ALL NEWS, to be impractical (l will not, again, assume your own opinion, on this) reason, then, dictates that RELATIVITY, between different news sources, be taken into consideration. Have I lost you, yet?


    On the issue of the Capitol attack, nothing I have heard, coming from the patently, highly-partisan, unobjective perspective, of Tucker Carlson, has changed my BIG PICTURE view of January 6th-- arrived at, through MSM sources (which, in this case, should be noted, are also largely a result of the work of the J6 Committee, which a majority of Republicans, stupidly & irresponsibly boycotted). Therefore, it is an hilarious hypocrisy, to hear you claiming how non partisan you are, and yet to witness your criticism in this thread, directed at the liberal MSM, while not seeing you devote a great deal more (or any) attention to telling viewers of FOX News, and other Right wing media-- especially at this particular moment-- about the shortcomings of their own sources of information, which it is clear have been not just subjecting them to a less than completely comprehensive, and unjudging viewpoint, but rather, to knowing lies, while dispensing to them blatantly false images of reality (instead of just having some smaller details omitted, or changed, due to another occurrence, endemic and unavoidable, with practically all human endeavors: honest mistakes).

     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2023
  3. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The hell he didn't. He quite literally said "it was mostly peaceful protest" and then go on to say that most of the "rioters" were allowed into the Capitol and were being given Tours of the capitol.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one on the Dem Side is in Panic mode. No one. GOP is using this crisis to further their own political arguments, at the expense of legal institutions I might add.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To change the narrative so the GOP does not look as bad as it did that day.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Brady Violations
    'Prosecutors must provide defendants with evidence that can be exculpatory, or help defendants prove their innocence. The rule was crystallized in Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court decision. “Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution,” the decision states.'

    Defendants are starting to move for dismissal as the previously suppressed video shows that J6 has been entirely misrepresented to both the Court and the American People.

    “The government knew that Jake had walked around with all of these police officers. They had that video footage. I didn’t get it. It wasn’t disclosed to me. It wasn’t provided to me,” Watkins said. “They had a duty, an absolute duty, with zero discretion to provide it to me so I could share it with my client.”

    'FBI special agent Nicole Miller' deliberately hid 'a tab in a spreadsheet that showed some of her emails.'

    THESE FBI FOLKS THAT DID THIS, ARE EVIL

    Defendant Moves To Dismiss Jan. 6 Case Based On Newly Disclosed Footage, FBI Testimony

    'Miller was testifying on March 8 when Nick Smith, a lawyer representing Proud Boys member Ethan Nordean, revealed the secret tab, leaving over one thousand hidden Excel rows of messages, Nordean’s attorneys said in a separate filing.'

    'Miller said in one email that “my boss assigned me 338 items of evidence i have to destroy” and in another that colleagues should go into a confidential human source report and “edit out that I was present,” according to the filing.'

    'The hidden emails featured Miller “admitted fabricating evidence and following orders to destroy hundreds of items of evidence,” Pezzola’s lawyers said, adding, “If justice means anything, it requires this case to be dismissed.”'
     
  7. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Clearly you haven't proved how the media lied.
    Post some evidence to your claim.
    All you have done is deflect to Floyd protests and then project my media. You've offered nothing.
     
    JCS and Bowerbird like this.
  8. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They can't change the narrative.
    Only fox viewers are going to see this and they already agree with those videos anyway.
    Just look at how many that post here that aren't that concerned they broke into the capitol and sent congress into hiding.
    It was just a sightseeing tour, between the ropes, even though not a single one of them should have been there.
     
    JCS and Bowerbird like this.
  9. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except, it WAS very much the narrative:

    Brian Sicknick, Capitol Police Officer, Dies After Riot (nymag.com)

    Officer who died after DC riot to lie in honor in Capitol | AP News

    Capitol Hill cop killed after being hit in the head with fire extinguisher by MAGA terrorist (upworthy.com)

    Brian Sicknick, Police Officer Killed in Capitol Riots to Lie in Honor (businessinsider.com)

    D.C. insurrection death toll now five as Capitol Police officer dies of injuries. (slate.com)

    Fact check by left wing Snopes:

    Did US Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Die After Hit With a Fire Extinguisher? | Snopes.com

    Well regardless of this, it was certainly a mostly peaceful protest. Remember when this line was used for the BLM riots in 2020?

    Really, you just made an "errant assumption" based on nothing that you saw in the media? You just came up with this assumption yourself independently, and so did the media? Wow, that sure is a coincidence!

    That's right. And your point is?

    It adds context. Why should Sicknick's death be politicised? The record SHOULD be set straight. Also, the Shaman - he was made the face of the riot and presented as the leader of the "violent insurrection." So seeing him being guided around by some of the police runs against that narrative. If this absurd, pathetic, laughable piece of dog crap was the leader of a violent insurrection, then I really am the POPE! :roflol:

    Please link to your original post in which you ask the question. I am of the belief that you did not previously ask it. The only thing that I am as good at as asking questions, is answering them. So if you had asked, I would have answered, unless I missed the reply alert.

    Then why didn't the Jan 6 committee show the other people running in the corridor footage? And how the hell does it show Hawley as a hypocrite?

    Who has made the claim that they were NOT in danger?

    Oh, did Hawley refer to them as "sightseers?" Did Carlson refer to every single person as a "sightseer?"

    Nobody is suggesting that they should have shown only Democrats. So it's weird that you're bringing that up.

    My reply to which question?

     
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, because the Jan 6 Committee did NOT cherry pick! :roflol:

    No, the public did NOT in fact already know that the Shaman was guided around by some of the police. The public did NOT in fact already know about the Sicknick footage.

    Okay, so then why release ANY of the footage?

    It has turned into a NON-partisan party?

    Yes, because we all know that it was such a CLEAN exit from Afghanistan! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! :roflol:
     
  11. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At no point has Carlson suggested that the actions taken by the people involved were not in attempt to overturn the election. Simple.
     
  12. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    seems this republican gaslighting of the public is not going over as well as Republicans had hoped it would
     
  13. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The buzzfeednews.com article is talking about a set of clips lasting only 15 minutes long.

    The newsweek.com article states that the clip showing rioters walking calmly in (viewed 1.7 million times) is only 1 minute long. Did you bother reading the rest of the article where it talks about the other clips in the set that shows violent altercations?

    In reference to J6 participant Eric Chase Torrens' plea deal case & public petitioners' request for release of the videos, the document first clarifies that:

    The government submitted the videos next day and filed a notice describing the following nine video exhibits referenced in the Statement of Offense: five videos were taken from U.S. Capitol CCV system and were designated “Highly Sensitive”; three were publicly available videos posted on social media; and one was obtained from co-defendant Bledsoe’s cell phone.

    The government’s arguments against disclosure primarily rely on the strength of the asserted privacy interest and the potential prejudice from disclosure.3 Specifically, the government objects to release of the five videos taken from the U.S Capitol’s CCV system on grounds that doing so would create a security risk. Gov’t’s Suppl. Resp. at 2–3. 4 Conceding that “disclosure of one video may not present a significant security threat,” the government argues that “the U.S. Capitol Police has a larger legitimate interest in restricting the disclosure of 11 individual videos in an effort to avoid ‘unfettered access’ to CCV that may indeed give rise to a significant threat to the building and those victimized by the events of January 6, 2021.”

    The document then continues to grant the release of a single video (Video Exhibits, ECF No. 76) on behalf of the petitioners' request, based on the following reasoning:


    Moreover, the government has already released video from inside the Capitol in other cases and even more videos taken by individuals inside the Capitol on January 6 have been made publicly available. See Pet’rs’ Reply at 8, 10–11 & n.4. The government does not explain how the information it seeks to protect could not already be obtained by, for example, reviewing already-public videos taken inside the Capitol, and the government does not articulate a particular threat stemming from the release of these particular videos. As petitioners persuasively argue, the asserted security risk is undercut by the already extensive release of CCV footage from the Capitol.

    Similarly, the government fails to explain how knowledge regarding the “perspectives and capabilities of the cameras,” Gov’t’s Second Suppl. Resp. at 2, would provide information that would compromise the security of the building, or how the video exhibits would disclose “police tactics and capabilities,” id. at 3, and compromise Capitol security. Petitioners observe that a vast amount of released footageincluding 50 videos captured on body-worn cameras— depict officers’ actions during the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, see Pet’rs’ Reply at 11, and the government has not explained how the police tactics and capabilities depicted in these videos might differ from those already released.

    Sixth, “the purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial proceedings,” weigh in favor of disclosure. The video exhibits were submitted for the Court’s consideration in accepting the defendant’s guilty plea because they were referenced in the Statement of Offense submitted by the parties to support the plea. The public has a particularly strong interest in understanding the factual basis for the government’s plea agreements and, relatedly, understanding the government’s exercise of discretion in these cases.

    For these reasons, the government has not rebutted the “strong presumption in favor of public access,” In re Leopold, to the video exhibits submitted in connection with defendant’s plea hearing, and petitioners’ application is granted.

    These statements in the document are further proof of what I've been saying: That the public was already well aware of the truth about the J6 riot from multiple sources, and at least two years before Tucker's false narrative. And that the narrative did not reveal any new information or revelation. As is typically the case with Fox/right-wing news talking heads and the GOP, it's all about putting on a show, not about getting to the truth.


    --------------------------------------------------
    In reference to the judge who ordered the release of a set of clips, this is what one can expect from an impartial Obama appointed Chief Judge. So much for "the Left trying to censor/suppress information", eh?

    Are you aware that the same judge denied Trump executive privilege in blocking witness testimonies? Because that would be the reasonable thing to do.

    (Feb 2023) In recent months, aides to former Vice President Mike Pence have appeared at the courthouse to testify behind closed doors after Howell rejected an effort by Trump to claim privilege over their testimony. Other top Trump allies have been seen heading into the federal courthouse’s sealed grand jury rooms — including former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his onetime deputy Pat Philbin.

    Press reports, typically attributed to people familiar with the proceedings, have also detailed a series of fights over legal privilege issues and a bid by Trump to assert executive privilege to keep some aides from testifying.


    And are you aware that the same judge denied Politico & the New York Times the requested release of details of Trump's attempts at blocking witness testimonies to a grand jury? Because that would be the reasonable thing to do to give the accused a chance to defend themselves in court.

    [Chief Judge Beryl Howell] has rejected a bid by two news outlets to obtain access to details of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to block testimony by aides to a grand jury investigating his effort to derail the transfer of power after the 2020 election.

    In a ruling on Thursday, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court in Washington said a federal court rule mandating grand jury secrecy precluded the release of court opinions and other filings about disputes she has ruled on behind closed doors.

    “Accordingly, [the grand jury secrecy rule] does not permit such disclosure, at least for now and perhaps forever, and so petitioners’ applications are denied,” Howell wrote in a 32-page opinion.

    “The continued secrecy of certain details about that investigation is required for the sake of grand jury witnesses and the government’s investigation,” Howell wrote.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/23/judge-wont-unseal-trump-jan6-details-00084283

    We need more non-partisan, fair, professional judges like Howell that are impartial and understand the relevance & importance of context.
     
  14. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reality check:

    Federal prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday that “nearly all” of the security footage played by Carlson was previously available to attorneys representing riot defendants. The disclosure came as part of a response to defense attorney Joseph McBride, who represents several Capitol riot defendants. McBride had asked a federal judge last week to delay his client Ryan Nichols’ upcoming trial so that he too could review the footage from McCarthy’s office.
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/politics/tucker-carlson-january-6-footage/index.html

    Besides, what's your point? That the rioters didn't illegally force their way into the building, assault police, or vandalize anything?

    Other than the crime of breaking & entering, assault, and vandalism, why is it so surprising that upon entering the rioters were mostly milling around aimlessly inside the building? It's not as if they knew what to do or where exactly to go (other than to locate the House Chamber), particularly as their aim wasn't to destroy the building. But, lucky for the congressmen they escaped.

    ----------------------------------------------
    (Video) Posted 2 years ago: Did you also forget the live footage aired on CNN where it shows rioters walking almost orderly through Statuary Hall? Tucker's story doesn't show us anything we didn't already know. Tucker's rant is all for show, just like the GOP's 'investigations' into Hunter, Merrick Garland, etc. It's nothing but a show put on for the MAGA lemmings.

    CNN: See stunning video of rioters inside Capitol



    ----------------------------------------------
    (Video) Posted 2 years ago: Here's over 12 minutes of video showing a mix of calm & violent moments that the public was made aware of long before Tucker's false narrative. Note at the 4:00 mark a rioter yelling "Where the f**k are they! Where are they!" as he looks into the evacuated House Chamber. And another at 4:20 yells "Where the f**k is Nancy!" The mob was looking for lawmakers and would've done who knows what with them. And at 6:52 the 'shaman' sits in the VP's chair and says "I'm gonna take a sit in this chair, cause Mike Pence is a f**king traitor." And finally at 11:36 outside of the building, a rioter yells "Start making a list. Put all those names down, and we start hunting them down one by one!" And another man replies, "Traitors get the guillotine!" Did Tucker air any of these portions?

    A Reporter’s Footage from Inside the Capitol Siege



    ---------------------------------------------
    (Video) Posted 2 years ago: And more video, over 14 minutes long, by the Washington Post. Here the WP examined hundreds of videos, analyzed publicly available maps of the Capitol Complex, gathered hours of police radio, interviewed dozens of witnesses including members of Congress and reviewed official communications to reconstruct how the pandemonium unfolded and retrace the peril that lawmakers faced. It also used a facial recognition algorithm to analyze video from inside the Capitol and estimated that at least 300 rioters were inside the building while police struggled to evacuate lawmakers. The video shows both calm and violent moments, including violent & chaotic moments inside the building. Notice also at the ~4:05 mark one of the rioters is talking to a cop and demanding that he "Go arrest the Vice President!"

    Inside the U.S. Capitol at the height of the siege



    ---------------------------------------------
    More footage that the inside wasn't as 'peaceful' as Tucker would have us believe. As long as security didn't try to block rioters from entering various rooms, they were fine. But some tried (in vain). Did Tucker air the following clips from inside where rioters threatened & got into altercations with resisting police?

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/insurrection-capitol-footage-secret

    ---------------------------------------------
    Additional footage from Capitol police body cams is available also dating back 2 years and up, which destroys Tucker's narrative. Hear also police testimonials in interviews & the hearings for further details.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jan+6+police+body+cam+footage

    ---------------------------------------------
    Did Tucker show clips of rioters stealing memorabilia, vandalizing the chambers/halls, going through potentially sensitive paperwork, or violating office privacy?

    Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, similarly told CNN, “I think that breaking through glass windows and doors to get into the United States Capitol against the orders of police is a crime. I think, particularly when you come into the chambers, when you start opening the members’ desks, when you stand up in their balcony, to somehow put that in the same category as a permitted peaceful protest is just a lie,” Cramer said.

    ---------------------------------------------
    Tucker showed some footage of the rioters breaking into the building, but...

    Video that Carlson didn’t air shows police and rioters engaged in hours of violent combat. Nearly 1,000 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack. About 140 officers were assaulted that day, and about 326 people have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, including 106 assaults that happened with deadly or dangerous weapons. About 60 people pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement. Two pipe bombs were also planted nearby but were not detonated.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...peaker-mccarthy-falsely-depicts-jan-rcna73673

    ---------------------------------------------
    And then we have damning testimonies from Capitol police which contradict Tucker's narrative. Recall Tucker stated, “The footage does not show an insurrection or a riot in progress. Instead it shows police escorting people through the building, including the now-infamous ‘QAnon Shaman.’”

    "Escorting"??? They weren't escorting anyone. They were outnumbered, afraid, and couldn't do anything but follow & monitor the invaders, while repeatedly asking them to leave the building.

    Re. Tucker's distortion of Chansley's (the 'shaman' guy) activities vs what Capitol police say.

    Carlson claimed that new Capitol security footage taken on January 6 shows Jacob Chansley, known as the “QAnon Shaman,” walking through the Capitol without pushback from police.

    In one clip, Chansley is shown with two officers who attempt to open a door near the Senate chamber. In a second clip, Chansley, still flanked by the two original officers, walks between a group of about half a dozen officers and none appear to try to step in.

    There is no audio in the videos, and it is not clear whether the officers and Chansley are talking to each other.

    In court documents, however, prosecutors say that Capitol Police officers repeatedly tried to engage with Chansley and others in the crowd, asking them to leave. Prosecutors say that Chansley disobeyed that request and walked to the Senate floor. Video from that day shows officers following Chansley around the building, and an officer walks into the chamber with Chansley and continues to ask rioters to leave.

    Additionally, Capitol Police officers have testified at several January 6 trials that after the initial wave of rioters entered the building, they felt outnumbered and were afraid of escalating violence by engaging with the mob. Members of the crowd were therefore able to walk into the building without much, or any, physical resistance, according to the officers.

    Chansley pleaded guilty to a felony charge of obstructing the Electoral College proceedings on January 6 and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/politics/tucker-carlson-january-6-footage/index.html

    -------------------------------------------
    And finally, why doesn't Tucker show more footage? He has 44,000 hours of it, but showed only a fraction. Is there footage that McCarthy didn't want the public to be aware of which prompted him to hand over the material only to Tucker rather than an assortment of news media? Talk about 'censorship'.
     
  15. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Um - Tucker is a host on Fox and this thread is about Tucker's J6 story on Fox. Did you forget?

    Plus, Fox is perhaps the most watched 'news' channel in the country. So if you want an idea of what the crazy half of the country believes, watch Fox (or OAN or Newsmax).

    Distractions & censorship are part & parcel of our stupid monetary/capitalist system. But what does this have to do with the obvious intentions of the J6 insurrectionists? Do you have a better explanation for why the rioters overtook the Capitol?

    It seems you're trying to deflect & distract from the truth of the matter with your irrelevant accusations of 'censorship'.

    Did you forget MAGA/J6? How about the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer?

    Or how about the Proud Boys - Oath Keepers - Boogaloo - The Base - KKK - Neo-Nazis - Posse Comitatus - Aryan Nation - Neo-Fascist Skullmask - Arm of the Lord - etc. See full list here:

    MAP - 733 Right-wing hate groups across the US
    https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

    From 116th CONGRESS: 1st Session - Mar 2019 (pursuant to S.894 - Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019 - introduced by Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-IL)
    To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.
    Congress finds the following:
    (1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States.

    View rest of list here - https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml

    Note: This was during Trump's administration, and all cosponsors of the proposed bill, except one Independent, were Democrats. Certainly no Republican would dare risk re-election by cosponsoring this bill.

    [​IMG]
    https://www.adl.org/resources/repor...e-25-years-right-wing-terrorism-united-states

    Yeah, we're all victims of the Nazi Left. You sound like Putin.

    Have you forgotten what kind of a country you're living in? You think the monetary/capitalist system cares about you? You think the American empire & the elites who run it care about you? You think Tucker, Hannity, et al. care about you? You think Elon Musk cares about you? You think Trump cares about you or his MAGA lemmings? Wake up dude.

    You seem to have been beset by the very distractions you claim to despise.

    So what's your solution? Pretend the election was stolen, that J6 was just a crowd of 'peaceful sightseers', and re-install Kim-Jong Trump?

    I don't need to try. Video footage from all sources, the phone records, Trump's 'speech' & actions, correspondence between White House aides, police testimonies and a mountain of other material speaks for itself.

    If you were genuinely opposed to the manipulation of information you'd have criticized McCarthy for not releasing the footage to all news media. But like Tucker, it's just virtue signaling. You don't mind manipulation & blatant lies as long as it serve the interests of the Right.

    Most people, except the elites & their witting minions, are for full disclosure & transparency (within reason & depending on context). But you have to be able to discern between nefarious & non-nefarious censorship.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2023
  16. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Read further below re. the bipartisan complaint against McCarthy's release of the material to Tucker.

    So tell me, what 'new revelations' did the public learn from Tucker's story that they, lawmakers, Capitol Police, DC Police, and the FBI didn't already know?

    Why not? You take no issue when the Right manipulates facts & outright lies. Besides, don't you believe that the election was stolen?

    The public didn't need to have access to the footage, only the FBI, DC Police, & lawmakers investigating J6 & Trump needed it. It was a security issue at the time that the Capitol Police didn't want to risk. That's what you don't seem to understand.

    And, it didn't matter anyway because the whole fiasco was filmed live by J6 rioters, spectators, and various news media themselves—from start to finish. The public was also aware of Trump's rally at the White House prior to the riot. All one had to do was add 2 and 2.

    You really believe the entirety of the Capitol surveillance footage would've painted a different picture of the intentions & violence of the rioters? Well, it didn't.

    The Capitol Police had initially already released 14,000 hours of footage to lawmakers pursuant to the J6 hearings and Trump's impeachment trial. The amount of footage later obtained by House Select Committee added up to 44,000 hours. Unlike the FBI, the committees weren't investigating individual rioters for crimes. Thus the committees had more than what they needed to conclude that (1) J6 was an attempt at insurrection by way of using force to overturn the election (ie, de-certifying the results), and (2) Trump incited the insurrection.

    The FBI alone needed the footage & supplementary materials for themselves because they had to investigate individuals for crimes.

    The Capitol Police have also shared the 14,000-hour subset of footage with the FBI and the D.C. Metropolitan Police to support ongoing investigations. And it has shared a “very limited number” of video clips from Jan. 5 to assist the D.C. police with “potential ... incidents.”
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/29/capitol-police-jan6-footage-478439

    You can review the J6 committee's archive of evidentiary videos, documents & other material here. Keep in mind, the Capitol building surveillance footage is not the entirety of what the committees were looking at. They had to look at timelines, Trump's speech, text messages, phone records, and so on. This was about proving an insurrection attempt.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/h...er/house/committee/january6th/collection/CHRG

    You can also look at my recent replies to popscott for J6 footage dating back 2 years from multiple sources. These prove that Tucker's false narrative provided no new revelation about J6, and that it was nothing but a show to appease its viewers. (Remember also, Tucker doesn't believe in the Trump/MAGA BS he has to pander to. He's made that clear. But he understands what he has to do to maintain Fox's ratings & viewership.)

    Additionally, according to a communication between Tucker's show and a McCarthy representative, the process with Carlson started in early February.


    Consumer group, former advisers file complaint over McCarthy’s release of Jan. 6 riot footage
    Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and ethics advisers who served in the White House under President Barack Obama and George W. Bush submitted a complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics on Tuesday urging an investigation of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s exclusive release of Jan. 6 footage to Fox News.

    The complaint argues that McCarthy’s actions undermined the “safety and integrity of Congress” and asks the OCE to investigate whether McCarthy violated congressional rules.


    “The exclusive release of the Jan. 6 video footage appears to have been the result of a political agreement between McCarthy, Tucker Carlson and others in McCarthy’s bid to become Speaker,” the complaint states. “Just as importantly, it was wrong for Speaker McCarthy to provide this footage to one organization that happens to be politically aligned with him and not release the videos to the media generally at the same time.”

    “This is not like granting an exclusive interview; this is providing a valuable government resource exclusively to one news outlet and discriminating against others, which flies in the face of First Amendment values,” the complaint continues.


    For the do-nothing 'neo-Right', it's always about party politics and attack after attack against the Left & disloyal Republicans, which is why J6 happened. I call 'em as I see 'em.

    The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html
     
  17. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's what I've been saying. It would have zero credibility if not for the airing of a portion of the violence/mayhem. That's why I said he was basically forced to do it. Even Fox heads would've complained I'm sure had he not done so.

    No one cares about calm moments in a riot & people milling around aimlessly. That kind of stuff can be observed in any riot (as opposed to a protest that is usually entirely peaceful). People, authorities, and investigators want the juicy stuff. The whole point remains, however, that the rioters had no business even being in the building. How they got in and what they did to the Capitol & to the police, and the intentions they had upon entering the Capitol just adds to their criminality.

    Actually, Tucker lost whatever remaining credibility he may have had after doing his J6 rant. I see Tucker as the stupid man's smart person. That's why he and his kind appeal so well to the MAGA folks.

    Perhaps you should watch this debate between Cenk and Tucker.

     
  18. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IMO, Tucker was just playing lip service to reason, because what reasonable person would not denounce the rioters. But he knows he can't piss off Fox's MAGA-dominated viewership. If he was sincere he wouldn't have made the following claims.

    7 false claims from Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s segments on Jan. 6 footage
    https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/08/tucker-carlson-airs-jan-6-footage-downplays-violen/

    < 1 > "The protesters believed that the election they had just voted in had been unfairly conducted, and they were right. In retrospect, it is clear the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of American democracy." - Carlson

    < 2 > "These were not insurrectionists, they were sightseers." - Carlson

    < 3 > Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell refused "repeated requests" by the Capitol Police chief "for backup, for the National Guard." - Carlson

    < 4 > Capitol Police officers "helped" QAnon Shaman Jacob Chansley and "acted as his tour guides." - Carlson

    < 5 > Video shows the media lied about Brian Sicknick’s manner of death. (see article for details on this point)

    < 6 > "I remember asking reporters at the time, you know, why do you keep calling these people ‘armed insurrectionists’ when there's no evidence that anybody used any arms against it? And they said, ‘Well, they had flagpoles.’ So it’s because people were walking around with American flags that made them ‘armed insurrections.’" — Charles Hurt, Washington Times

    < 7 > "Under public pressure, the Jan. 6 committee finally interviewed Ray Epps. Epps told the committee that he never entered the Capitol, and therefore never committed a crime. His text messages showed that at 2:12 p.m., he boasted to his nephew that he had ‘orchestrated the protests at the capitol,’ he admitted he ‘helped get people there.’" – Carlson

    NOTE: Carlson aired similarly baseless claims about the attack being a false flag in his November 2021 "Patriot Purge" three-part series about the insurrection — which we also fact-checked.
     
  19. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not hard at all for me to believe that, especially after 9/11, JFK, covert ops, CIA-orchestrated foreign regime changes, corporate collusion, the fake virus & push to vaccinate, and on and on. We are an empire and this is what empires do. Give diabolically insane people a lot of money/power & they'll go to town with it. It's just what they do. They know most people are good people, so deception & secrecy is necessary to make good people do bad things.

    The man in the Capitol was masked to hide his identity either because he was an agent, or because he didn't want to be arrested if the mob failed to carry out its goal—because, after all, he was carrying strip ties which would not help his sentencing if he was tried. I'd be masked too if I were him. I did however spot a rioter in the House Chamber that also had strip ties and was not masked.

    But it's not important (for us) to pursue the path of who the masked man was. If he's an agent, we'll never know. And if he's a Trumper, the FBI, like you said, will find out who he is. It's obvious what the mob's intended goal was, and that Trump incited them knowing very well what they would do.
     
  20. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But of course they did, just like the election was stolen.
     
  21. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True. The context/connotation makes a difference. 'Suppressed' was jcarlilesiu's term so I just used that, but you're right that it's not really a fitting term in the case of withholding J6 surveillance footage.
     
  22. StillBlue

    StillBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    13,006
    Likes Received:
    14,653
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've come to the conclusion that his comments are to further support his Russian handlers by trying to further divide the US.
    FOX has gone balls out Russia and the House Speaker has joined in.
    Say **** you FOX! and Continue support for Ukraine! Down with Putin and his American mouthpieces.
     
  23. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    12,554
    Likes Received:
    9,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Low key what about ism.

    I'm satisfied on the election results after the investigations.
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever you say lady, whatever you say. :lol:
     
  25. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think fox News is largely propaganda with a bias agenda as well. Having an agenda however Iis not the same as purposeful manipulating information and censorship to try to persuade the audience in alignment with that agenda.

    Doing that, intentional misrepresentation or censorship is a whole different level.
     

Share This Page