Tucker Carlson releases the first wave of videos from Jan 6th

a reply to: Nevercompromise

Obvious to you that may be, or people who choose to subscribe to the likes of Tucker Carlson.

But to authorities and the people in charge, somehow i imagine they require actual evidence to support your claims.

Glad you admitted that it was an insurrection all the same.

Still not got a clue as to what a "cointel" is.

Yup
You are wrong to assume any of that.
There is video of them waiting for the electronic door to be unlocked after they climbed through the window

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Nevercompromise

Did they not smash open said "impenetrable window" climb through and then open the door?

An electronically locked door might not be locked from the exit side like most of them if memory serves.

The doors are there to keep people out after all and not bar those inside from exiting the building.

Plus simply pulling a fire alarm could have done the job and disabled the door lock.

I might be wrong all the same, just speculating.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: IAMTAT

Video of a person not committing a crime doesn't nullify the video of a person committing a crime.

It does when it includes context that completely changes the narrative and was removed by deliberately editing out said context.

No it doesn't when he is on video fighting the police line and admitting he entered through a door that was breached. Once he was in, especially through fighting through the cops and illegally entering, the crime is already committed. Who cares if he had tea and crumpets while inside.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Which is exactly what Tucker tried to do. He tried to present a small clip of the QAnon Shaman being escorted and from that extrapolated some huge conspiracy. The funny thing is, Tucker actually showed the clip of where he breaks into the Capitol, completely unescorted and part of the mob. Funny, how he didn't point that out in his presentation.

a reply to: Nevercompromise

Maybe they just threatened the poor fellow at the desk with menaces to press the open button.

Considering they were an armed band of lunatics that just smashed open and climbed through the window i can't see why he would not begrudgingly comply.

And they did have gallows erected outside or thereabouts and were screaming about hanging people.

Think i might have opened the door if i thought it would have saved my life, after all they were already in.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: IAMTAT

The defense is entitled to any evidence that may be exculpatory.

And who decides what may or may not be exculpatory?

They are not entitled to all 41,000 hours.

They are (or should be) entitled to peruse it in search of any potentially exculpatory evidence.

I have heard of no one who was denied access to any relevant footage for their defense.

How would anyone know they were denied access to something relevant if they didn't have access to everything to make that determination? Who decides what is 'relevant'? The prosecution?

Your brain cannot be this broken sookie.

originally posted by: litterbaux

It's pretty eye opening when you think about how much big media has influence over your perception of reality.

Then proceeds to list a video from Tucker Carlson - one of the biggest "big media" pundits and bias minipulators in all of media.

There was just a thread about how Fox News people making fun of their viewers for believing the election was fraudulent, but then they went ahead and pushed that notion to give the viewers what they want.

So, I don't know how anyone can take ANYTHING from Fox News seriously anymore. They have clearly and evidently shown they only push out opinions and messages that cater to what they think people want - rather than what they feel to be the truth.

I have no problem with questioning january 6th and media coverage of events. However, It's hypocritical to say not to trust mainstream media and then use right-wing mainstream media's biggest pundit to defend one's opinion.

Better to not use Tucker Carlson at all if you want anyone who isn't a fox news watcher to take it seriously.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: IAMTAT

If someone is charged with shoplifting, they are entitled to the video that indicts them, not ALL the footage of the entire day.

Really? Your mind is that broken?

You are wise. Its important to see the before and after footage. I got this b_tch fired from Walmart 3 months ago for letting others leave with unbagged stuff in their cart, but demanded to see my receipt. The VIDEO was the evidence/proof.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

What I'm against is only releasing them to Tucker Carlson,

This is only temporary, they will almost certainly ultimately be released to everyone...

who himself declared "no reasonable person would believe that he was about to state facts".

Yeah... except he didn't say that, some Fox attorneys said that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: IAMTAT

The defense is entitled to any evidence that may be exculpatory.

And who decides what may or may not be exculpatory?

They are not entitled to all 41,000 hours.

They are (or should be) entitled to peruse it in search of any potentially exculpatory evidence.

I have heard of no one who was denied access to any relevant footage for their defense.

How would anyone know they were denied access to something relevant if they didn't have access to everything to make that determination? Who decides what is 'relevant'? The prosecution?

Your brain cannot be this broken sookie.

Again for about the 5th time. He helped break through a police line to get to the building. He admitted going through a door breached by the group. The crime was already committed. Nothing done after that excuses it.

Now if the cop was one of those facing disciplinary action for what he did, that makes sense, however that cops actions cannot excuse a crime already committed.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: tanstaafl

Did not say they had all been charged with insurrection and also why not, you really need to learn to read on.

So, how many were charged with and convicted of insurrection?

Naw people like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers spring to mind through.

Yes, the ones that were infiltrated with FBI undercover agent-provocateur's.

About 1003 at last count.

The vast majority weren't charged with violence, most were charged with trespassing.

Whereas you are completely on the ball.

Why yes... yes, I am.

What i speak of doesn't matter much

Well, at least you're honest.

12 cops were fired
that should tell you something
interview them
oh
sorry
the truth
can
be harmful
to the minds of
bidens dictatorship

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: tanstaafl

Which is exactly what Tucker tried to do. He tried to present a small clip of the QAnon Shaman being escorted and from that extrapolated some huge conspiracy. The funny thing is, Tucker actually showed the clip of where he breaks into the Capitol, completely unescorted and part of the mob. Funny, how he didn't point that out in his presentation.

Right. It's undeniable Tucker Carlson has an agenda to present. An agenda he may not even believe in, but what the news station is deciding to push.

It's the same as if a MSNBC pundit was showing clips of january 6th and pushing an opinion. Would people trust MSNBC? If no, then you shouldn't trust Tucker Carlson who is just a mouth piece for Fox News' agenda.

Why didn't the J6 committee show or enter all footage?

Why do all the pundits here discount Tucker?

Because the actual facts may not support their narrative.

People would rather lie than admit to being wrong.

But you lefties just think a moment. . . . .

The same media and government that is telling you the Jan 6 folks were all domestic terrorists and insurrectionists are the same ones telling you that covid came from a poorly cooked bat and that vaccines are safe and that wearing masks helps people and that ANTIFA is just a made up thing and that rail safety is their top priority and that the border is secure.

a reply to: tanstaafl

So, how many were charged with and convicted of insurrection?

Well, the nutter with one eye springs to mind.

They flung the book at him did they not?

They tend not to charge people with insurrection because it's hard to prove in court.

The other crimes they committed, not so much given the number of guilty verdicts returned.

Yes, the ones that were infiltrated with FBI undercover agent-provocateur's.

That's just mad speculation and qanonacrap along the same lines as they were all Antifa plants.

The vast majority weren't charged with violence, most were charged with trespassing.

And how's that working out for the vast majority keeping in mind where they choose to trespass, when, and what they tried to disrupt?

Why yes... yes, I am.

Only in your own mind methinks.

Well, at least you're honest.

Shame you're not with yourself.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Defendants have had access to the full trove of video footage. Which is exactly how we know there are no actual bombshells contained in it.

Defendants and their lawyers are getting access to surveillance footage, but only under protective orders that restrict their ability to make the videos and other evidence they receive from the government public.

Source

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why didn't the J6 committee show or enter all footage?

Why do all the pundits here discount Tucker?

Because the actual facts may not support their narrative.

People would rather lie than admit to being wrong.

But you lefties just think a moment. . . . .

The same media and government that is telling you the Jan 6 folks were all domestic terrorists and insurrectionists are the same ones telling you that covid came from a poorly cooked bat and that vaccines are safe and that wearing masks helps people and that ANTIFA is just a made up thing and that rail safety is their top priority and that the border is secure.

How was the committee going to show 41,000 hours of footage? That's really your argument? They did show footage of those illegally in the building but not violent.

What facts don't support the narrative? They broke through the line and broke into the building. By their own admittance.

a reply to: Nevercompromise
I have seen some of this footage on the web but not all of it. I seem to recall that they hired a production company to produce the footage.......Nothing sus about that is there?



PM'd ya

a reply to: frogs453

Your argument holds no merit.

You are basically defending a cop just showing video of him shooting a violent suspect, but ignoring the rest of the video where the cop might have been culpable.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: tanstaafl

Defendants have had access to the full trove of video footage. Which is exactly how we know there are no actual bombshells contained in it.

Defendants and their lawyers are getting access to surveillance footage, but only under protective orders that restrict their ability to make the videos and other evidence they receive from the government public.

Source

And why wasn't the public allowed to see it all?

We don't do that with vest cameras on cops.