News outlets demand release of Jan. 6 footage given to Tucker Carlson

[Lastamender]

Why consent to an interview with someone who admits to not being a Journalist?

Why consent to an interview with someone who says they are a journalist and clearly are not? Most likely because they are just as dishonest.

 

[Lastamender]

Must have been ANTIFA

Because EVERYBODY knows TRUMP supporters wouldn’t attack our Capitol

View attachment 760728

I see, the demonstrators bought their own tear gas and rubber bullets. Fedsurrection.

 

[Care4all]

Much like their election videos, Jan 6 video will be heavily edited and it’s content will be misrepresented.

And their black lives matter protest coverage...no coverage of the hours upon hours of peaceful protesters nor covered the blm cause, but hours upon hours of regurgitated rioters at night.

And this is the rightwing go to, when promoting lies and distortions.

Bill Barr gave his lies on what the Mueller report actually said, then waited 3 weeks before the other side could have access to what the investigation report really said.... The three weeks used to portray, what was not, and time to brainwash their followers with their propaganda.

Giuliani giving the New York Post exclusive Hunter Biden lap top story, and refused to release the laptop server copies to the press, so they could verify the Post's rightwing spin vs actual facts on the content.... time to brainwash their followers with spin and propaganda, before the real press can factcheck.

It's the same thing now, with the Speaker..... It is what their modus operandi is....

The speaker doing it is wrong... he's a chicken shit and weasel combined.

 

[miketx]

Conservatives have been caught by surprise by this move, in which the media attempts to make government material available to more than a right wing commentator.
The fascist rigjt wanted the only commentary on the tape to be monopolized by one of their guys.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/24/tucker-carlson-jan-6/

Indeed, I was caught by surprise so bad I didn't even know about it.

 

[0311]

What the fuck is so damn scary about other news outlets have access to same 41,000 hours?

News Outlets Demand Access To Jan. 6 Footage Given To Tucker Carlson By Kevin McCarthy

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) gave the Fox News host access to 41,000 hours of surveillance footage taken during the U.S. Capitol attack.

www.huffpost.com

Fucker Carlson will cherry pick what parts of the footage he wants to use, even it means telling a lie in the process, and bear in mind MAGA MAGGOTS we already have proof through the Dominion Lawsuit against Fucked Snooze that network execs and talking heads put profits ahead of the truth.

Fair and equal access to the same footage that Fucker Carlson got would result the whole "Fair and Balanced" reporting you people are bloviate about.

 

[miketx]

What the fuck is so damn scary about other news outlets have access to same 41,000 hours?

News Outlets Demand Access To Jan. 6 Footage Given To Tucker Carlson By Kevin McCarthy

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) gave the Fox News host access to 41,000 hours of surveillance footage taken during the U.S. Capitol attack.

www.huffpost.com

Fucker Carlson will cherry pick what parts of the footage he wants to use, even it means telling a lie in the process, and bear in mind MAGA MAGGOTS we already have proof through the Dominion Lawsuit against Fucked Snooze that network execs and talking heads put profits ahead of the truth.

Fair and equal access to the same footage that Fucker Carlson got would result the whole "Fair and Balanced" reporting you people are bloviate about.

 

[Rambunctious]

Congress either releases the footage or it doesn’t

Releasing it for the use of one reporter is preferential treatment

How does it feel?.....

 

[Rambunctious]

What the fuck is so damn scary about other news outlets have access to same 41,000 hours?

News Outlets Demand Access To Jan. 6 Footage Given To Tucker Carlson By Kevin McCarthy

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) gave the Fox News host access to 41,000 hours of surveillance footage taken during the U.S. Capitol attack.

www.huffpost.com

Fucker Carlson will cherry pick what parts of the footage he wants to use, even it means telling a lie in the process, and bear in mind MAGA MAGGOTS we already have proof through the Dominion Lawsuit against Fucked Snooze that network execs and talking heads put profits ahead of the truth.

Fair and equal access to the same footage that Fucker Carlson got would result the whole "Fair and Balanced" reporting you people are bloviate about.

So you don't like what your side has been handing out when Pelosi was in charge... turn about is fair play pal....

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[0311]

View attachment 760776

Not an answer. It is a very simple question. Why shouldn't other news outlets be given the same access to the 41,000 Hours of video tape of the Reich Wing Insurrection that Fucker Carlson has. You do not post an answer, you post utter bull shit.

 

[Rambunctious]

Not an answer. It is a very simple question. Why shouldn't other news outlets be given the same access to the 41,000 Hours of video tape of the Reich Wing Insurrection that Fucker Carlson has. You do not post an answer, you post utter bull shit.

Turn about is fair play that's why....

 

[0311]

View attachment 760776

I'm sure Fucker appreciates this you posting one of his favorite at home with Fucker selfies.

 

[Rambunctious]

0311 .... don't fret the other networks will get a peek when Tucker is done with them....

 

[Rambunctious]

CNN PBS NBC ABC CBS......

 

[Coyote]

A person who walks into the Capitol with the Capitol police holding the door open for them is NOT a terrorist nor a law breaker in my opinion.

That's a defense used by some of them who claimed they were in the back of the mob and "didn't see" the mob tear down the barricades" and overwelm the police. At best that might cover a handful of people out of the almost a thousand who swarmed the Capitol. I stated this before and I will again, I reserve the word terrorist for a subset of those who broke into the Capitol.

Is "the door was open so I walked in" a valid defense?

Consider this scenario. When a Floyd protest turns into rioting and looting, the door to a shop is open and a protester walks in, did he commit a crime? Can he claim the door was open so I just walked in? Should he be charged with anything even though he didn't loot?

A person inside the Capitol with the Capitol police standing amicably among them and/or escorting them are NOT terrorists nor law breakers.

There were a couple of police doing that and taking selfies, and they have either been reprimmended or lost their jobs. But it isn't. The people breaking in KNEW they were entering illegally and yet they still did. I can't believe they were completely oblivious to the violence going on around them. Terrorists? That depends on other factors. Breaking the law? Most certainly.

You apparently see that differently. But then you probably haven't seen the video I have seen or heard the testimony I have heard--of course video and testimony nobody watching the rigged J6 hearing saw or heard--and so oh well.

I do see it differently. And while the hearing was politicized it was neither rigged nor inaccurate. The violence was real and well documented as well as the injuries inflicted on the police. The fact that some did not engage in violence doesn't change the fact that all were there illegally and engaged in some form of illegal activity: tresspassing, impeding, picketing etc within the Capitol.

Will I continue to defend peaceful people who harmed or threatened absolutely nobody? Absolutely.

The peaceful people were those that chose not to enter the Capitol. They are the ones I defend. The rest were at best fools who made bad choices and at worst terrorists.

Nobody can find a single syllable I've uttered or written that condoned the violence or vandalism that day. I
don't care if it was planned in advance and/or who planned it though Wray still refuses to say whether FBI agents were amidst it.

I do.

We still don't know why Ray Epps who is recorded in video multiple times urging people to go into the Capitol was never arrested and is not in jail while others who did far less than that still are in jail.

I disagree. Ray Epps has become a focal point of conspracy theorists who imo, are just trying to shift responsibity away from those who shouldbeheld accountable but are considered by some tobe "patriots".

The ones still injailare those who are facing major charges...not "far less" . These are not the ones charged with tresspassing.

On the other hand 'peaceful' is not blocking entrances to businesses and homes, obstructing traffic in streets or on bridges, disrupting meetings to the point they take over the podium and microphones or threatening people. It isn't occupying blocks of a city and dictating who can and cannot be there.

Like the truck convoy was doing?

We might have a point of agreement here.

Law enforcement walks a fine line between free speech rights and criminal behavior andI get that. People have a right to protest, even if it means blocking streets or obstructing traffic, but at some point it has to stop because it is impinging on the rights of other people: localbusinesses, folks who commute orlive there etc. That is what happened with the truck convoy when they started blocking access to a bridge, preventing local business' from operating, keeping residents awake with their horns etc. That is why they were finally forced to to move.

And that applies to any other protest. The CHOP zone went on way too long and severely impacted local busi esses. And city officials are now the subject of lawsuits by those businesses (deservedly so).

And it darn sure isn't assaulting, injuring, murdering innocent people, breaking and entering, looting, burning, vandalizing, destroying, terrorizing that was a component of so many of those rallies the media is fond of describing as 'mostly peaceful protests.' And I have yet to see a BLM organizer or leader condemn any of that or tell anyone to stop it.

There were thousands of protests, the majority of which WERE peaceful. Not any different from the Jan 6 rallywere the majority of participants chose to be peaceful and stop short ofbreaking into the Capitol.

And I agree,

And it darn sure isn't assaulting, injuring, murdering innocent people, breaking and entering, looting, burning, vandalizing, destroying, terrorizing

and that is why I strongly disagree with about those who entered the Capitol that day.

Until those on the left can admit the summer of violence in 2020 was far worse than anything that happened at the Capitol on J6 we will never arrive at a point where all unnecessary or unlawful violence is condemned no matter who does it.

It was not far worse. Our nation's Capitol was attacked, our lawmakers were attacked, and there was an attempt to violently overturn an election that was unprecedent in more than a century and a half of respecting the peaceful transfer of power. There is nothing to compare and that is not excusing the riots, they just aren't in the same ballpark.

(I apologize for breaking it up but there are too many different points in here)

 

[Coyote]

What about those who were allowed/encouraged to enter?

If you see an open door and now you aren't supposed to enter, is that a valid defense?

 

[miketx]

I'm sure Fucker appreciates this you posting one of his favorite at home with Fucker selfies.

Makes no sense, oh wait, you're a leftist, got it.

 

[miketx]

Not an answer. It is a very simple question. Why shouldn't other news outlets be given the same access to the 41,000 Hours of video tape of the Reich Wing Insurrection that Fucker Carlson has. You do not post an answer, you post utter bull shit.

Howler monkey says what?

 

[miketx]

That's a defense used by some of them who claimed they were in the back of the mob and "didn't see" the mob tear down the barricades" and overwelm the police. At best that might cover a handful of people out of the almost a thousand who swarmed the Capitol. I stated this before and I will again, I reserve the word terrorist for a subset of those who broke into the Capitol.

Is "the door was open so I walked in" a valid defense?

Consider this scenario. When a Floyd protest turns into rioting and looting, the door to a shop is open and a protester walks in, did he commit a crime? Can he claim the door was open so I just walked in? Should he be charged with anything even though he didn't loot?




There were a couple of police doing that and taking selfies, and they have either been reprimmended or lost their jobs. But it isn't. The people breaking in KNEW they were entering illegally and yet they still did. I can't believe they were completely oblivious to the violence going on around them. Terrorists? That depends on other factors. Breaking the law? Most certainly.




I do see it differently. And while the hearing was politicized it was neither rigged nor inaccurate. The violence was real and well documented as well as the injuries inflicted on the police. The fact that some did not engage in violence doesn't change the fact that all were there illegally and engaged in some form of illegal activity: tresspassing, impeding, picketing etc within the Capitol.


The peaceful people were those that chose not to enter the Capitol. They are the ones I defend. The rest were at best fools who made bad choices and at worst terrorists.


I do.




I disagree. Ray Epps has become a focal point of conspracy theorists who imo, are just trying to shift responsibity away from those who shouldbeheld accountable but are considered by some tobe "patriots".

The ones still injailare those who are facing major charges...not "far less" . These are not the ones charged with tresspassing.



Like the truck convoy was doing?

We might have a point of agreement here.

Law enforcement walks a fine line between free speech rights and criminal behavior andI get that. People have a right to protest, even if it means blocking streets or obstructing traffic, but at some point it has to stop because it is impinging on the rights of other people: localbusinesses, folks who commute orlive there etc. That is what happened with the truck convoy when they started blocking access to a bridge, preventing local business' from operating, keeping residents awake with their horns etc. That is why they were finally forced to to move.

And that applies to any other protest. The CHOP zone went on way too long and severely impacted local busi esses. And city officials are now the subject of lawsuits by those businesses (deservedly so).




There were thousands of protests, the majority of which WERE peaceful. Not any different from the Jan 6 rallywere the majority of participants chose to be peaceful and stop short ofbreaking into the Capitol.

And I agree,

and that is why I strongly disagree with about those who entered the Capitol that day.

It was not far worse. Our nation's Capitol was attacked, our lawmakers were attacked, and there was an attempt to violently overturn an election that was unprecedent in more than a century and a half of respecting the peaceful transfer of power. There is nothing to compare and that is not excusing the riots, they just aren't in the same ballpark.

(I apologize for breaking it up but there are too many different points in here)

Why didn't they have any guns?

 

[miketx]

What about those who were allowed/encouraged to enter?

Don't bring up facts! It makes them lie and spew more!