https://www.axios.com/2023/02/20/kevin-mccarthy-tucker-carlson-jan-6-riot-footage Do you feel this document tranche is a chance to see the truth, or is it mostly all phony, forged, and fake designed to protect Trump and Republicans?
I doubt it's phony. We've known about the 14,000 hours (or more) of footage since approximately January 10th. Let 'er rip. What are Democrats and the Deep State hiding?
Partisan folks seem to have adopted the destructive practice of the media’s immediate turn to the negative in all things “presumed” to be conservative. Sometime some people act like they want to live in a thought controlled world.
I honestly don’t understand why speaker released these videos. For Republican these video will keep J6 at the forefront of the discussion next 2 years which is not good for GOP. If GOP has any chance winning the WH, GOP needs to distance themselves from Trump and J6
No it isn't. The only odd thing is, why just give the footage to one person. At the end of the day, the American public should see the footage to find out - 1 - Why did the Jan 6 committee flop 2 - Should the Jan 6 committee have gone ahead
Most people do not have 14,000 hours to spend sifting through this. We already got the partisan clips that show the trespassers in the worst light. Now, let the other side have a turn. We've already seen a clip of a woman asking why some guy basically dragged them into the capital. The charge against the Left is that they, not Trump, instigated the excesses of that day. That deep state actors or their assets, including apparently Ray Epps, wanted a story to deflect from the apparently stolen 2020 election. I hope they finish quickly as I do think people want to know about the future. But if the right is correct about January 6, that it was the Left that instigated it for this reason, it would help the people in their decisions.
Although I agree you make a valid point, I also know that it's quite common for one media outlet to get the scoop on news which is then dissimulated throughout other outlets (spurring investigative reporting of their own). It would be more odd if the other sources of news ignore the info that's being shown.
For the simple reason that Americans deserve the truth, good or bad. Wow! What a concept. I am interested in the whether the FBI as involved are a facilitator or not, and I am curious of where the mysterious Ray Epps fit in to this.
That's an easy one. In his own words - "I made a promise..." He also says he plans to make the videos more widely available to other sources in the future, but he is fulfilling his promise to members who voted for him by releasing them to fox first.
The Committee had their chance to obtain all the video and show it. They only showed what supported their narrative.
The best way to support a preconceived narrative is to fully (and honestly) look at evidence that doesn't support it. The kangaroo court wasn't interested in doing that.
It was sent to Fox to do the initial report, then they will release the applicable tranche of documents. Who else is competent to handled 40,000 documents? It's about getting the truth out, and the media cannot be trusted to do it. I can tell you who won't be telling the country how it is: MSNBC and it's ilk. Besides if the democrats played it straight, they should be proud to have the public look inside and see how good they really are.
let everyone have it, what they want the right wants is to spin it with lies do you really think you're gonna get the truth from Hannity, lol
Not sure what you mean, by your questions. Should the Committee have "gone ahead," and done what? Or do you mean, should they have conducted any investigation, at all? As they have identified flaws in Capitol security protocols, and recommended fixes, I think the answer to that, is a no-brainer. What did you mean, in asking why the J6 Committee "flop(ped)?" Regardless, it certainly, then, seems unlikely that giving this to Tucker, is going to give us the answer to your question. But here is the place for an IRONY ALERT! Because all of those who'd refused to watch the J6 hearings, or the footage, released by the Committee, will now, watch whatever non-representative tidbits, Tucker can find, to spin some alternative reality, conspiracy hypothesis. So how much of the J6 Committee hearings, did you follow?
I'll rephrase slightly and explain. I image Pelosi et.al. needed/wanted it to be an insurrection. I also image when people get to see the footage, they will think, "Looking at the footage, why did the committee continue and continue for so long, I can see why they flopped/crashed". The embarrassing thing is, the American tax payer funded that clown show.
Yes, send it to Fox, but send it to other places too. How about a certain institution/university that are politically biased etc.. The footage will simply show what a farce the Jan 6 committee were. I'm in the UK, is Pelosi in your news about this? Any statements off her?
As someone who saw what happened on January 6th live, on TV, the embarrassing things, are: 1) that you think that what happened, was not serious enough, to merit an investigation; 2) that you think the investigation "flopped/crashed," which you still haven't explained (but since your ideas are clearly not very realistic, generally, don't worry about trying to explain that comment); 3) that you think Tucker is going to be able to spin things in such a way as to change people's minds about January 6th. People already have been able "to see the footage"-- where do you think all that other footage came from? There was a very long list of injuries, many serious, among the Capitol Police Force, from that pillow-fight, or whatever you consider it to have been. So you are spouting complete nonsense. If your ludicrous fantasy, that this was all something which Nancy Pelosi had just cooked up-- and got, not only two Republican Congresspersons to go along with, but also just about all the officials in Trump's government, including his Attorney General, Bill Barr, who testified-- had any truth to it, Kevin McCarthy wouldn't need to limit the tapes to just one media person. Does that not make sense to you? Oh, but that's right-- just about everyone else in the mass media is in on the conspiracy, as well. How could I almost forget that? And whenever one's argument against an investigation is light on substance, you can expect them to point at the cost: just like your own criticizing the cost of the J6 investigating-- which was less than the Ben Ghazi investigation, but which was far more productive, than that Republican war party, out for Clinton's scalp. Speaking of which, I bet the cost of the investigation was no more, adjusted for inflation, the the Kenneth Starr witch-hunt of Bill Clinton-- but I'm sure you had complained of the expense of those two, as well as that of the long drawn out, Durham investigation, which yielded nothing, right? Or were those completely different? You know, Ken Starr has completely changed his mind about special counsel investigations of the President, as well-- or at least he had, during the Trump years-- if hypocrisy loves company. Not to worry, there will be more Republican House investigations of the investigations, which you will likely see as a good use of funds, unlike investigating an attack on our Nation's Capitol (and who knows, maybe even Ken Starr has flipped back his views, once more, now that a Dem is in the White House). The rubbish in your argument should require its own dump permit.
Said the man who assumes that Tucker Carson will cause the country to do a 180° spin, since "when people get to see the footage, they will think, 'Looking at the footage, why did the committee continue and continue for so long...(?)'"-- L.O.L. The important thing is that your characterization of January 6th is baseless-- and mostly unexplained-- and your thinking that Carlson is going to expose the truth is baseless, and basically unexplained. Those are the two central considerations, here. Since your entire hypothesis, is based on assumption, that you would criticize my assuming too much, is an hilarious counter-argument. But even if every other assumption I had included, was wrong, it would not change the main fact, that your debate points are a joke. EDIT: Without assumption, explain your comments, that "Pelosi needed/wanted it to be an insurrection," and that, with Tucker now in the game, "the footage will simply show what a farce the Jan 6 committee (was)." If you can do those things, then you can try to fault me, for assuming too much.
