Will TuCa change the narrative?
-
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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
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)
-
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 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.newsweek.com/pelosi-rejects-mccarthy-nominations-banks-jordan-jan-6-commission-1611930
-
@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.newsweek.com/pelosi-rejects-mccarthy-nominations-banks-jordan-jan-6-commission-1611930
@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: ______________)
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Actually, the Jan.6 committee was bi-partisan due to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's presence.
-
@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: ______________)
@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.
-
@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: ______________)
@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...
-
Actually, the Jan.6 committee was bi-partisan due to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's presence.
@Axtremus said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
was bi-partisan due to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's presence
Only in the sense that they were (cough) members of the GOP.
They were picked by Pelosi, not by the leader of their party.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I think he has done a nice job with the video so far.
The video shows the guy with the horns being escorted all over the Capitol by a couple Capitol police. They open doors for him and escort him all over the place including into the Chambers.
He was treated like an honored guest.
So far he has shown that virtually everything said by the democrats about the events of 1/6 was a lie. He probably has set a record for using the word "lie" tonight.
As LD points out, so what?
So, the narratives won't change, the lies will be repeated and celebrated.
The deadly insurrection never happened.
A few doofusses taking selfies, that is about it.
So, the narratives won't change, the lies will be repeated and celebrated.
The deadly insurrection never happened.
A few doofusses taking selfies, that is about it.
You keep repeating that over and over.
Appears to me you enjoy celebrating it as if it were a revelation from above.
That or you’re trying to be funny.
Elbows up!
-
So, the narratives won't change, the lies will be repeated and celebrated.
The deadly insurrection never happened.
A few doofusses taking selfies, that is about it.
You keep repeating that over and over.
Appears to me you enjoy celebrating it as if it were a revelation from above.
That or you’re trying to be funny.
@Renauda said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
So, the narratives won't change, the lies will be repeated and celebrated.
The deadly insurrection never happened.
A few doofusses taking selfies, that is about it.
You keep repeating that over and over.
Appears to me you enjoy celebrating it as if it were a revelation from above.
That or you’re trying to be funny.
Bless your heart.
-
Actually, the Jan.6 committee was bi-partisan due to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's presence.
-
So, the narratives won't change, the lies will be repeated and celebrated.
The deadly insurrection never happened.
A few doofusses taking selfies, that is about it.
You keep repeating that over and over.
Appears to me you enjoy celebrating it as if it were a revelation from above.
That or you’re trying to be funny.
@Renauda said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
So, the narratives won't change, the lies will be repeated and celebrated.
The deadly insurrection never happened.
A few doofusses taking selfies, that is about it.
You keep repeating that over and over.
Appears to me you enjoy celebrating it as if it were a revelation from above.
That or you’re trying to be funny.
Hmmm....Trucker's Strike.
-
@Renauda said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
So, the narratives won't change, the lies will be repeated and celebrated.
The deadly insurrection never happened.
A few doofusses taking selfies, that is about it.
You keep repeating that over and over.
Appears to me you enjoy celebrating it as if it were a revelation from above.
That or you’re trying to be funny.
Hmmm....Trucker's Strike.
-
What about it?
It was appropriately brought to an end by Parliament and combined law enforcement.
@Renauda said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
What about it?
It was appropriately brought to an end by Parliament and combined law enforcement.
I seem to remember you telling all your South of the Border friends to MYOB.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Axtremus said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
was bi-partisan due to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's presence
Only in the sense that they were (cough) members of the GOP.
They were picked by Pelosi, not by the leader of their party.
@George-K said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
@Axtremus said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
was bi-partisan due to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's presence
Only in the sense that they were (cough) members of the GOP.
They were picked by Pelosi, not by the leader of their party.
Cheney and Kinzinger had to volunteer or otherwise agree to be in the committee. Pelosi could not force their involvement against their will. The Republicans (at least two of them) agreed to serve in the committee.
-
@Renauda said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
What about it?
It was appropriately brought to an end by Parliament and combined law enforcement.
I seem to remember you telling all your South of the Border friends to MYOB.
I seem to remember you telling all your South of the Border friends to MYOB.
Indeed and right you are, because you doofuses were listening to and believing lock, stock and barrel what that fucker Tucker had to say about was happening here and getting it all wrong.
-
I seem to remember you telling all your South of the Border friends to MYOB.
Indeed and right you are, because you doofuses were listening to and believing lock, stock and barrel what that fucker Tucker had to say about was happening here and getting it all wrong.
@Renauda said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
I seem to remember you telling all your South of the Border friends to MYOB.
Indeed and right you are, because you doofuses were listening to and believing lock, stock and barrel what that fucker Tucker had to say about was happening here and getting it all wrong.
Personally, I don't care if you wish to wade hip-deep into the blood sport of American politics. But occasionally, retrospection is necessary to prevent future mistakes.
-
@Renauda said in Will TuCa change the narrative?:
I seem to remember you telling all your South of the Border friends to MYOB.
Indeed and right you are, because you doofuses were listening to and believing lock, stock and barrel what that fucker Tucker had to say about was happening here and getting it all wrong.
Personally, I don't care if you wish to wade hip-deep into the blood sport of American politics. But occasionally, retrospection is necessary to prevent future mistakes.
Personally, I don't care if you wish to wade hip-deep into the blood sport of American politics.
Difficult not to when Rome is your closest neighbour.
But occasionally, retrospection is necessary to prevent future mistakes.
What Carlson projects cannot be described as anything near retrospection let alone sober thought.
-
Wasn't talking about Carson...
