Will TuCa change the narrative?

[Mik]

Not to mention the dishonest, weaponized way they did so.

[George K]

@Mik said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

Not to mention the dishonest, weaponized way they did so.

You mean like adding a soundtrack to the video?

Oh, my giddy aunt, James O'Keefe would have been proud, I suppose.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@taiwan_girl said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

Seems like a lot of Republic Senators disagree regarding Tucker Carlsons interpretation

“I think it’s bull****,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters in the Capitol hallways on Tuesday.

"I was here. It was not peaceful. It was an abomination," Sen. John Kennedy," R-La."

"I thought it was an insurrection at that time. I still think it was an insurrection today," Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D.

"To somehow put that in the same category as a permitted peaceful protest is just a lie," Sen. Kevin Cramer," R-N.D., said.

"It’s a very dangerous thing to do, to suggest that attacking the Capitol of the United States is in any way acceptable and it’s anything other than a serious crime, against democracy and against our country,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah said. “And people saw that it was violent and destructive and should never happen again. But trying to normalize that behavior is dangerous and disgusting.”

"I think it was an attack on the Capitol. … There were a lot of people in the Capitol at the time that were scared for their lives," Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., said.

"The point is, what happened that day shouldn’t have happened," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa

"Clearly the chief of the Capitol Police, in my view, correctly described what most of us witnessed firsthand on Jan. 6,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky said

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jan-6-video-tucker-carlson/2023/03/07/id/1111477/

Bueller?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Republicans speaking honestly about what they think and what they saw.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

For anybody to imply that [Trump] bears no responsibility for what happened

I doubt you'll find that viewpoint even on TuCa.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@taiwan_girl said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

Seems like a lot of Republic Senators disagree regarding Tucker Carlsons interpretation

“I think it’s bull****,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters in the Capitol hallways on Tuesday.

"I was here. It was not peaceful. It was an abomination," Sen. John Kennedy," R-La."

"I thought it was an insurrection at that time. I still think it was an insurrection today," Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D.

"To somehow put that in the same category as a permitted peaceful protest is just a lie," Sen. Kevin Cramer," R-N.D., said.

"It’s a very dangerous thing to do, to suggest that attacking the Capitol of the United States is in any way acceptable and it’s anything other than a serious crime, against democracy and against our country,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah said. “And people saw that it was violent and destructive and should never happen again. But trying to normalize that behavior is dangerous and disgusting.”

"I think it was an attack on the Capitol. … There were a lot of people in the Capitol at the time that were scared for their lives," Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., said.

"The point is, what happened that day shouldn’t have happened," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa

"Clearly the chief of the Capitol Police, in my view, correctly described what most of us witnessed firsthand on Jan. 6,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky said

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jan-6-video-tucker-carlson/2023/03/07/id/1111477/

Bueller?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Republicans speaking honestly about what they think and what they saw.

Yes, and fair play to them - it's refreshing to see their honesty. Their reaction seems to be rather at odds with some of the folks here.

[LuFins Dad]

So… Anybody changed their minds yet? Or do you pretty much think the same thing you did on January 13th, 2021?

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

For anybody to imply that [Trump] bears no responsibility for what happened

I doubt you'll find that viewpoint even on TuCa.

Well, the main reason frequently touted for Trump not accepting his defeat was the huge number of problems and inconsistencies with the US election process. The real reason he couldn't accept defeat, of course, is because he's Donald Trump.

[Doctor Phibes]

@LuFins-Dad said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

So… Anybody changed their minds yet? Or do you pretty much think the same thing you did on January 13th, 2021?

I used to think Donald Trump was a twat. Now I think he's an utter twat.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@Horace said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

For anybody to imply that [Trump] bears no responsibility for what happened

I doubt you'll find that viewpoint even on TuCa.

Well, the main reason frequently touted for Trump not accepting his defeat was the huge number of problems and inconsistencies with the US election process. The real reason he couldn't accept defeat, of course, is because he's Donald Trump.

Some people are psychologically incapable of taking an L.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

Some people are psychologically incapable of taking an L.

Sure, and that should be obvious just from watching him on TV. What I find a bit depressing is how many of his supporters go along with his bullshit.

I know, I know, the Democrats are the same, I'm sure we can find lots of examples.

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@Horace said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

For anybody to imply that [Trump] bears no responsibility for what happened

I doubt you'll find that viewpoint even on TuCa.

Well, the main reason frequently touted for Trump not accepting his defeat was the huge number of problems and inconsistencies with the US election process. The real reason he couldn't accept defeat, of course, is because he's Donald Trump.

And...You're missing the point.

There are huge problems with elections within some states in America. Anybody with eyes and one-half of a brain knows this.

The way to not have a candidate question the outcome of an election (at least where people wouldn't believe him) is to have elections that are honest beyond reproach.

[Mik]

@LuFins-Dad said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

So… Anybody changed their minds yet? Or do you pretty much think the same thing you did on January 13th, 2021?

Same.

[George K]

McCarthy's take:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/making-sense-of-the-capitol-riot-tapes/

Some of the highlights:

I’d have preferred for the committee to have been bipartisan; to have conducted traditional, adversarial hearings; and to have released full transcripts and videos of the witness testimony that it sliced and diced in its public presentations. That way, we could have judged for ourselves whether those presentations were fair and accurate.

But that’s not the way Democrats roll. To the extent this led to distortions that should be corrected, I’d have similarly preferred that McCarthy turn the video cache over to news reporters — there are plenty of outstanding ones at Fox News and elsewhere on the center-right — rather than to an opinion journalist who has as many ardent detractors as devoted fans.

In Chansley’s case, we should be mindful that what is new to us is not necessarily new to him. Knowing what the proof against him showed, Chansley, represented by experienced defense counsel, voluntarily pled guilty to obstructing a congressional proceeding (namely, the January 6 joint session of Congress at which the state-certified electoral votes were counted and then-candidate Biden’s Electoral College victory was affirmed). His lawyers would have insisted on being shown any potentially exculpatory evidence prior to the guilty plea, and the prosecutors would have been obliged to produce it. I presume Chansley knew about this video, or at least images just like it; after all, he was in the Capitol and knew what he experienced there, including his interactions with the police.

And he pled guilty anyway, because there is nothing exculpatory on the video clips that Carlson has published.
Understand: As a matter of law, what is exculpatory or incriminating is not assessed based on a media narrative. It is assessed based on the specific charges in the case. Here, the charge was that Chansley obstructed Congress. One need not engage in an insurrection, or even a riot, to obstruct Congress. One need only be in a place one has no lawful right to be in, and willfully engage in action that prevents Congress from conducting its proceedings. In that sense, the just-released video is the antithesis of exculpatory evidence; it shows Chansley committing the crime charged.

This was a riot. It was not an insurrection — the word Abraham Lincoln applied to the Civil War, and the word for a federal crime that none of the 900 defendants has been charged with. The riot was condemnable but utterly ineffectual.

The mindlessly repeated refrain that the riot “prevented the peaceful transition of power” is overwrought. The transition of power was never in doubt. Was the peace disturbed? Yes . . . that’s why so many people have been prosecuted, some for serious offenses, and many others for trivial crimes that the Justice Department would normally decline to charge. But there was so little damage done to the Capitol that Congress was able to reconvene a few hours after order was restored. It promptly affirmed Biden’s victory, as it was always certain to do. No one tried to blow up the Capitol. No one tried to mass-kill the security forces. Our Constitution held firm, and there was never any reason to suspect it wouldn’t. Our democracy was not realistically imperiled, much less at the precipice of annihilation.

The video we are now seeing does not establish anyone’s innocence. It does, however, bolster the conclusion that the Democrats’ political messaging about the day has been a duplicitous exercise in mythmaking. Is Tucker Carlson presenting a depiction of January 6 that is overly sympathetic to a violent mob? Probably so . . . but then, the Democrat-dominated January 6 committee put its thumb on the scale as it presented Götterdämmerung.

Neither version is accurate, as we already knew from having watched the televised goings-on in real time. What happened on January 6 was a riot. It was as surreal as the QAnon shaman’s getup. It was a disgrace. It has resulted in scores of worthy prosecutions. Though Donald Trump did not incite it in the strict criminal-law meaning of that term, it is an indelible, disqualifying stain on his record as president.

But it wasn’t the end of domestic tranquility and republican democracy, much less the end of the world.

[George K]

Schumer agrees to go on Carlson's show if....

[89th]

When Tucker says "to this day there is dispute over how the Shaman got into the Capitol", which is an odd phrase since they literally just played a clip of him coming in through the broken down doors/windows with the first wave of people.

He also said that the Capitol Police acted as the Shaman's tour guide. Umm no, they were monitoring him as he walked around the Capitol. It was clear on Day 1 that there was a point where the police decided not to stop the remaining protestors as they explored the capitol, including the chambers, as I would imagine personnel were prioritizing the evacuation and protection of congressional members and exterior defense at that point.

I have no problem with the Jan 6 committee selecting footage needed to prove their case that what some folks did on that day was criminal. Or maybe the Jan 6 committee was needed to balance out the Tucker Carlsons of the world who think the protestors innocently queued up to take a tour of the rotunda. (his words, not mine)

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

I’d have preferred for the committee to have been bipartisan ...

There were multiple offers to make the Jan.6 investigation bi-partisan, but McCarthy rejected them:

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997836874/top-house-republican-opposes-bipartisan-commission-to-probe-capitol-riot

https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-rejects-mccarthy-nominations-banks-jordan-jan-6-commission-1611930

[George K]

@Axtremus said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

There were multiple offers to make the Jan.6 investigation bi-partisan, but McCarthy rejected them:

Tradition has been that the minority leader gets to pick who sits on such committees. Pelosi broke that tradition. She wanted people sympathetic to her cause sitting at the show trial.

@89th said:

I have no problem with the Jan 6 committee selecting footage needed to prove their case that what some folks did on that day was criminal. Or maybe the Jan 6 committee was needed to balance out the Tucker Carlsons of the world who think the protestors innocently queued up to take a tour of the rotunda. (his words, not mine)

You got that exactly backward. As Carlson pointed out the Jan 6 committee presented highly edited (see Hawley) and produced (see sound effects) videos to make its case. Here, Carlson is responding to the case presented by the committee. It was just as partisan and skewed as his was (see Sicknick).

As McCarthy points out, a legitimate investigation would have involved the presentation of adversarial testimony. Carlson provided that.

Again, Carlson is a partisan and a muckraker. It would have served his case better had the videos been released to a different party, because giving it to him immediately raises the specter of "CARLSON!"

(insert @Doctor-Phibes pic of Carlson here: ______________)

[Axtremus]

Actually, the Jan.6 committee was bi-partisan due to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's presence.

[89th]

@George-K said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

As McCarthy points out, a legitimate investigation would have involved the presentation of adversarial testimony. Carlson provided that.

I agree with that, although... and maybe just me... I thought it was known that protestors were allowed to roam free for a period after the original invasion. Often I think about the folks praying in the house chambers without any cops near them. I presumed the cops, at that point, were focused on keeping the situation as-is, knowing these folks would be charged with crimes.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:

Again, Carlson is a partisan and a muckraker. It would have served his case better had the videos been released to a different party, because giving it to him immediately raises the specter of "CARLSON!"
(insert @Doctor-Phibes pic of Carlson here: ______________)

If you insist...