Tucker Carlson starts to divulge the Capitol video tapes

More coming tonight...
These videos were not released for two years... seems like that kind of "trumps" any claim "Tucker won't show all the angles", as you have not seen ANY ANGLE of the Capitol videos for 2 years..

 

Hahahahaha...your desperation is showing.

 

The investigation was never anything more than out to get Trump. Whatever they could find that furthered that goal was released. Anything which id not further that objective was not released - until now.

 

Ya. They got caught up in the moment. But they had no plan. No arms...no realistic or plausible way to get that done. They were just saying words. They had no means or action to get the job done because they were not planning to do so. Hence why I keep saying that they were a mob who got caught up in the moment. And they should be punished for it.

This is what an insurrection actually looks like;



This? This is larping;

 

Now I realize what was missing from 1/6 to call it an insurrection. Turbans. (Well guns also, but batons are just as threatening).

 

Knew most of this 2 years ago, now the evidence is out, and there are STILL posters here that deny it was a protest AND that the civil rights of those arrested (so far) were viscously and intentionally violated. What happened to those protestor is just plain evil.

 

What causes me to not equate the integrity of a large group of Congresspersons (many of whom, have law degrees), to not tamper with official records-- which are going to remain government property (IOW, would become evidence of what would be their criminal acts, beyond just their misdeeds)-- with that of Tucker Carlson, who is-- by FOX News, itself-- an admitted fabricator, someone who "no rational person could be expected to take seriously," is not "bias."
It is common sense.

 

Yea, but you're ignoring the fact that a Congressman (one of those types you purport to find credibility with) released those tapes to Tucker under the claim that his fellow Congress persons were lying. Your bias just leads you to believe one over the other.

 

LOL-- like a bunch of other people, you didn't have time to watch, even that footage which the J6 Committee did show. Now, you're saying that it was dishonest of them, not to broadcast all 41,000 hours of it?

Pick a lane!

 

Capital videos are official evidence in the committee and they record everything within their purview. Pictures are just a snapshot. The Second picture shows fire which can mean a few possibilities, none of which are good IMO. The first picture shows huge crowd at one of the entrances. that was probably before they stormed into that part of the building.

That being said, there are now over 1000 people arrested, with about half who have pled guilty to whatever crime or crimes they were charged with. Another 20 or 30 have already been found guilty by a jury of their peers, all of whom had defense representation and rights fully intact. this includes someone named Rhodes, a "leader" of the Oath Keepers who was found guilty on all counts.

 

You're not doing very good with analogies, today. That any given Congressman can have bad judgement (in giving Tucker access), is nothing that is hard to believe; we see this all the time. That a large group of them, a bipartisan group, no less, working together, would illegally tamper with evidence, and show that altered product on television, while the evidence of their tampering would exist on the footage that remained in government possession, would be too recklessly stupid a thing, for me to believe that even McCarthy, on his own, would do it.

 

If celebrities want to put money up for bail, which is something that is guaranteed, generally, under the 8th amendment, even KR had bail and celebrities contributed to it, that is their prerogative. It does not mean charges are dropped or anything else you are trying to convey. But once bail is granted, then there are conditions set forth by the court, and they can get extensive. That is part of the judicial system unless you want to violate the 8th amendment and not give bail to Black Live Matter protests but give bail to insurrectionists?

 

He definitely wasn't supporting Biden or the Democrats, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, or whatever. It starts with a T and ends with a P.

but the person who brought the bat in that picture is one of two West Virginia brothers who were charged, pled guilty, and sentenced. One got 8 months and the other got 45 days suspended sentence.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/23/poli...-country-and-eric-cramer-january-6/index.html

 

So, now you're arguing that there is credibility in numbers. The so-called bipartisanship consisted of two well known Trump haters. But none that supported him. I'm sorry. I can't take your arguments seriously. Especially when you start out with a thinly veiled insult.

 

Not really. You have a right to redress your grievances. That can mean a lawsuit, a hearing, filing a complaint, etc. But you may want to tell that to the Shays Rebellion for that one, who lost BTW. But nothing in the US Constitution gives you the right. Not even the DCI made that statement or argument. And if they lost, all who insurrection would have been hanged by the government in those days.

 

Seeing as you knew this, and were able to cite references, would I be mistaken in assuming that this is public knowledge? And you are not claiming that anyone has been charged, with killing Sicknick, are you?

I get that you are saying those on the Committee, had found the mob's behavior so reprehensible, that some shaded their descriptions, in ways that did not bend over in the direction of the attackers, to give them the benefit of every doubt. But, have you ever seen a Congressional hearing, before? They are most definitely not like court proceedings. Every Representative expresses things from their own perspective, typically, which sometimes does not look much different from an editorial on Tucker's program. The Committee did a much better job than most, to keep most of what was said, to consensus opinion. The person whose criticism was harshest, ironically, was Republican member, Liz Cheney.

So, since this was not a legal proceeding, you cannot call for a mistrial, because of a technicality, like Cheney characterizing Sicknick's death as being due to the rioters-- which we don't know that it wasn't (and would be an extraordinary coincidence, if they were unrelated)-- or because you think you'd heard someone in the "Leftist" MEDIA, mistakenly say that he'd died that day, instead of that he'd gone to the hospital, and died subsequently. If FOX had a scrap of integrity, you FOX viewers would realize that news reports-- and even more so, news opinion programs-- sometimes give out incorrect information. The reason you don't understand this is because it seems that FOX, unlike every other mainstream news, is not inclined to apologize for, and correct their misstatements.

I therefore have my doubts that, at this point, "the Left keeps pushing the narrative that he (Sicknick) died that day." Can you offer an example of this? Secondly, does this seem like it makes a big difference, to the overall, general picture?

 

Try again-- Liz Cheney voted with Trump's agenda, over 90% of the time (I think I had heard 97%, but I am not sure). So she did support President Trump unless, what you had really intended to say, was that she did not support his attempts to overturn the election, which is quite true; but it only goes to the enduring shame, of all those Republicans who did support this. None should have.



P.S.-- If you are so thin-skinned, that my noting defects in your analogies (and I had not even used such a harsh sounding, but accurate, word as "defective"), offends you, as a "thinly veiled insult," it is a wonder to me, how you manage, here. Nevertheless, I am willing to try putting extra-cushioning on any of my faultings of your logic, provided that you respond in an equally "downy" fashion. If that has been your trademark, I have somehow not picked up on it.

 

Apparently, straw man arguments are all you have, to offer.

 

Liz Cheney voted on policies, but hated the man.

I'm quite able to handle insults, but the spirit of the board promotes discussions absent them. If I didn't care about the rules of the board and it's intended theme I'd show you what a flame warrior really looks like.

You could have just apologized, but that wouldn't have been wordy enough for you.

 

No big news here, but: you are misinformed. There is no video evidence, of Ray Epps "telling people they need to break into the Capitol."

Do I need to tell you, that such so-called evidence, would be found completely in the audio part, of that "video evidence?"

 

Are you going to apologize, for that remark?

I had not thought (and still do not) that saying your analogy is not a good one, is anything that should require an apology. There is nothing at all personal, in that remark-- it is strictly about your argument (unlike your little jab at me, which actually made me chuckle).


EDIT:
As for Liz Cheney not liking Trump, this is a straw man argument, and irrelevant. You are claiming, this would lead her to lie, manufacture & purposely misrepresent evidence, because she didn't care, personally, for Trump? Get off it. I'm sure you know that Liz Cheney's integrity is unassailable, even by those who disagree with her perspective.

 

sure.

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1632919227572137985

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1632946103296376833

Note the audio and video.

 

you are arguing more about political loyalty above country than anything else, a Trumpian-style theme in today's politics.

 

I'm giving you your argument back at ya.

 

The civil war which helped to free slaves says "hi!"