Fox News’ Tucker Carlson was given access to more than 44,000 hours of video from the Capitol rioting on January 6, 2021. Carlson and his staff reviewed the video for three weeks (that’s not enough) and last night began showing footage that he believes exposes the false narratives about the event being pushed by the House’s partisan J6 Committee and the news media. He will continue tonight.
Observations:
- I do not endorse Tom Fitton’s characterization of the video because I have not seen it all, nor do I know what was “knowingly false.” Bias does make one stupid, after all, and regarding January 6, 2021, its hard to be more biased than Democrats, the Trump-Deranged and the mainstream media.
- Whatever benefits Carlson’s expose may have (other than boosting his ratings), choosing him as the messenger guaranteed that the footage will be dismissed, ignored, and get less attention from those who need to consider it than if Speaker McCarthy had chosen a reliable media figure (true, there may not be any) who has a well-earned reputation as a two-faced weasel. Just last month, emails were revealed in which Carlson ridiculed claims that the 2020 election had been corrupted while be was aggressively boosting such theories on hos show. Elon Musk handled the “Twitter Files” the correct and wise way, entrusting them to independent commentators like Matt Taibbi, whose agenda appears to be the old fashioned, out-of-date, ethical journalism mission of finding the truth.
- For what it is worth, Carlson’s video clips cast doubts on three stories that were accepted as truth by the J6 witch hunt and the media. Jacob Chansley, who is in federal prison for being the absurdly garbed “QAnon Shaman” that became the symbol of the riot, is seen being given a personal escort through the Capitol by police without indicating any violent intent at all. At one point, the officers are seen walking Chansley past seven other police officers outside the Senate chamber. They then escort him to various entrances of the chamber that appear to be locked, and eventually help him open a door to enter the chamber. Chansley, a 33-year-old Navy veteran, has been jailed for almost two years years for “obstructing an official proceeding.” In a jailhouse interview he tells Carlson, “The one very serious regret that I have [is] believing that when we were waved in by police officers, that it was acceptable.” There is now a question of whether this footage was presented at trail in Chanley’s defense.
- Carlson next showed a video of Officer Brain Sicknickwearing a helmet and walking inside the Capitol among the “insurrectionists” after media reports described him as being fatally bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher by the rioter. President Biden repeated this falsehood. Sicknick died of a stroke the next day, and there has been no credible connection established between the riot and his death. No officers suffered fatal injuries on January 6.
- The video also revealed that Ray Epps, an Oath Keeper leader believed by some to be a mole allied with federal intelligence, lied to the January 6 Committee when he testified that he was back is his hotel room when he sent a text to his nephew claiming to have helped orchestrate the attack. The video shows he was still at the Capitol. Epps was not prosecuted for his role in the rioting. Nobody is quite sure why.
- The reaction of conservatives and J6 skeptics to the footage seems a bit over-heated, at least based on last night’s “scoop.” They say it proves this was no insurrection. No additional proof is needed: it obviously wasn’t an insurrection based on what was already known. Those who want it to be seen as an insurrection—Hey maybe that will finally “get” Trump!—don’t care about facts, just Machiavellian politics. They say it proves that the rioters were subjected to a political prosecution. That was obvious long ago as well. So was the total corruption and unethical nature of Pelosi’s select committee.
- Nothing in the footage can or should change the verdict on President Trump’s conduct after the election. It was not illegal, but it was irresponsible, reckless, infantile, unpresidential and wrong. It would have been exactly as wrong and unforgivable if there had been no riot.
- So far, the mainstream media hasn’t deigned to cover Carlson’s act at all, just as it did not cover the revelation of the “Twitter Files” except in an incomplete and tangential manner. This shows that the MSM isn’t interested in the truth; it is interested in demonizing Republicans for the benefit of its favorite party and that party’s policies.
- But we already knew that, too.
UPDATE: Here is the reaction of my old freind, and the most ethical law enforcement officer I know, on Carlson’s big reveal. US Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger writes in part,
“Last night an opinion program aired commentary that was filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6 attack…The program conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video. The commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments….”
Ethics Alarms 
I don’t know, Jack. Your take seems to be the videos (of which we’ve only seen a few so far) are, as I’m sure some Democrat talking point will insist, “a big, fat nothing burger.” I disagree. I think a video is worth at least a few hundred words. Just because the rabidly Trump Deranged will be unmoved, doesn’t mean these videos won’t move some people to reconsider the worst event since the Civil War.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/03/07/schumer_to_fox_news_tell_tucker_carlson_not_to_run_another_segment_of_lies_about_january_6.html
Chuck Schumer signs in.
Bill, what is the size of the set of Americans who believe that the riots were an insurrection, think the J6 committee is legitimate, and that the rioters were treated fairly by the Justice Department that also believes and trusts anything that Tucker says? Is anyone in it? If anyone was paying attention and reading with discretion, they already knew that Sicknick wasn’t murdered, that the Capitol staff was disorganized and gave out mixed signals, and that it was a big, stupid riot by a bunch of goofs and not close to an insurrection. Now, if, say, Jake Tapper had made the same points using the videos, or even Megyn Kelly—heck, use Chris Wallace!—then there would be some impact. But Carlson? He’s a stone cold partisan and a proven liar. You might as well fluch the footage down the toilet.
How does anyone know what footage Carlson isn’t showing? It is the epitome of “cherry-picking”!
Good points Jack. Carlson has an opportunity to impress by handing over the vids to at least three reputable news people.
It makes a lot of sense just to increase exposure to an alternate narrative that will inevitably undermine the dems and MSM messaging.
I found the video of the guy with the Wagner hat being accompanied by and among the Capitol police pretty darned stunning. It’s one hell of a cherry.
Shouldn’t it give some people pause who are otherwise addled?
“Now, if, say, Jake Tapper had made the same points using the videos, or even Megyn Kelly—heck, use Chris Wallace!—then there would be some impact. But Carlson? He’s a stone-cold partisan and a proven liar. ”
With the exception of Kelly, I doubt if any of that video would see the light of day had McCarthy chosen anyone from ABC, NBC, or CBS news. Tapper and Wallace are perhaps not as partisan as Carlson, but they lean left and all three know what side they must please to stay in the good graces of the Washington elite. McCarthy should have given all media outlets copies of the video. Such videos can be copied in seconds or minutes and put on flash drives for the media. That would have at least prevented this to be seen a s completely partisan. Further, I doubt seriously if anyone who did not vote for Trump would care one iota about this information. They like the idea of harming Trump. That is why the broadcast networks would probably deem the content unworthy expending resources to evaluate the footage let alone broadcasting any exculpatory information. Using Carlson, McCarthy correctly determined that he would air the footage and be seen by the greatest number of voters who cared about any type of information that undermined the J6 Committee.
As for the Capitol Police officer who weighed in, he has a conflict of interest in this matter. He may be the most ethical officer you know but the story of the insurrection has been embedded in the American psyche and he would have to fall on his sword to disagree with that narrative. He is also one member of a group who failed to adequately perform their duties in the first week of January 2021. Relying on the word of someone whose agency’s performance is in question and under the microscope because of past relationships and ignoring that conflict could be construed as a personal bias as well.
No doubt about it: Tom has to weigh in supporting his officers. That’s especially true regarding Sicknick. He went on to say that he believed that had there been no confrontation with rioters, that officer would not have had a fatal stroke. (Remember. he wasn’t part of the Capitol Police on Jan. 6, and is trying to fix a mess.) That’s pure post hoc ergo propter hoc; the claim can’t be proved or disproved.
Which officers is he supporting? There appear to be a number of officers who were not being attacked and were escorting people through the Capitol.
Where I have the greatest difficulty is how one group is portrayed by the media as mostly peaceful protesters while the camera shows looting, arson as well as pelting officers with incendiary devices and frozen water bottles while another group is considered a bunch of domestic terrorists and should be shot.
If Manger was not there on January 6, then his comments reflect the biases of the Capitol police officers who seem to want to be seen as great heroes for preserving democracy.
The fact is that shots of some officers dealing with peaceful demonstrators doesn’t have any value in denying the violence of the riot, like, say, this scene: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fvisual-timeline-attack-capitol-hill-unfolded%2Fstory%3Fid%3D75112066&psig=AOvVaw2cXZxuO8ebBxM6nSHPyQ4N&ust=1678372886146000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAwQjRxqFwoTCPCs177IzP0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAQ
The footage of violence shows that the episode was violent. The footage of non-violence doesn’t show the episode was non-violent.
The legacy media has been showing cherry-picked footage since the riot happened. Did they ever even request access to the rest of the footage? Or were they content to show the bits and pieces that they were supplied by the narrative pushing J6 committee ? I’m pretty sure I’ve read multiple pieces over the last few years where the legacy media argues against releasing the whole of the footage in order to prevent “misinformation” from being spread. What purpose does it serve to give such outlets the whole of the footage? I suppose it would prove they have no interest in covering the footage effectively, but I think they already did that by parroting the government line like good little propagandists and never protesting that there might be a different side to the story.
Personally, I think the entirety of the footage should have been made entirely public without any media guard dogs in the way. The media is a worthlessly corrupt institution on all sides of the propaganda aisle. They lie, distort and conceal all the information and shouldn’t be trusted to cover cat shows, much less politics.
It is being reported that the defendants have been denied access to the videos because the video belongs to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The defendants are petitioning to be allowed to use the evidence, the ‘Justice’ Department is opposing the move. One defendant has reportedly had her request to delay her trial in order to review the evidence denied. The judge ruled that she had to prove that the evidence was exculpatory before getting an extension to review the evidence.
This is a straight Brady violation.
From the Washington Post yesterday:
Albert Watkins, Chansley’s attorney through sentencing in November 2021, said he had been provided many hours of video by prosecutors, but not the footage which Carlson aired Monday night. He said he had not seen video of Chansley walking through Capitol hallways with multiple Capitol Police officers.
“What’s deeply troubling,” Watkins said Tuesday, “is the fact that I have to watch Tucker Carlson to find video footage which the government has, but chose not to disclose, despite the absolute duty to do so. Despite being requested in writing to do so, multiple times.” He no longer represents Chansley and said he could not comment on what remedy might be sought for the defendant. Watkins suggested that all Jan. 6 defendants who were convicted based on video from the riot should have their convictions vacated.
He is putting his law license on the line.
It certainly is.
It will take a few thousand more martyrs from all walks of life before the average hypnotized sleepwalking citizen begins to awaken from their comfy cozy obese inducing brain fog.
Yup.
Do not discount the possibility that Musk’s release of the Twitter files to Taibbi, et al, was the reason McCarthy chose Carlson as the conduit for the J6 tapes. The journalists used for the Twitter stuff probably got relatively few eyes on it, since Taibbi & Co were essentially “print” based and it took some snooping around on the net to find it. Seeing that, McCarthy decided to go with a more sensational outlet that was seen by more people, and easier to access.
Also, trying make sense of Twitter threads and short-burst essays is difficult for a lot of people, myself included. I have learned to rely a synopsis of Twitter items rather than to try to sort out who is saying what to whom. It may be a failing on my part, but I am OK with that. I’m old and have enough problem with just doing things I have always done.
And now the FTC is going to investigate Musk for disclosing to the press what belongs to him. They are also demanding lists of names of those journalists to which he released the information. We need to start asking why the government believes it has the right to deny public access to information that implicates the government with potential wrongdoing.
The use of the FTC to investigate businesses that interfere with the government’s narrative reminds me of how the Nazi party controlled the economic sector. Plenty of firms knuckled under to the demands of the Nazi party including the Associated Press that censored information the government did not want printed. The AP (in Germany) also fired its Jewish editors at the behest of Adolph Hitler. I wonder how many people know that the designer Hugo Boss designed and manufactured the SS and Brown Shirt uniforms for the Reich.
Washington, we have a problem.
“The commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments….”
With all due respect, we have gotten nothing but that context for the last two years.
What Tucker is presenting is the context we have not gotten. And, many of those cherry-picked videos serve to contradict the narratives we have received.
Or, should I just state that Tucker’s selected videos prove that this was a “mostly peaceful insurrection”?
-Jut
What’s truly sad is when I share stories like this with some of friends and relatives, people who are not even lefties (they are, more or less, centrists or center-left), most do not care, mainly because they are so consumed with their hatred and despise of Trump. It’s amazing how many people have fallen for the Dems/MSM Trump hysteria and have somehow convinced themselves that any and all efforts to take him down were and are still justified because Trump posed an existential threat to the US. I’m truly at awe at the left’s ability to make so many otherwise reasonable people completely buy into their narratives and excuse their shenanigans without considering the long term damage these shenanigans will cause.
Me too, Ron.
Yes, that’s the issue. The MSM will tell people what they should think about it, call the videos “heavily-edited” and whatever else it takes to downplay their importance and rely on partisan bias and apathy for the rest.
Here was an exchange on usenet newsgriups back in 1994.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.rush-limbaugh/c/gZg_XyptjyU/m/NiPCvQIctwUJ
Well I have to look that up for myself. I’m just going by what I
see/read in the news media.
– Darryl Hamilton
That’s an interesting approach, kind of like trying to determine the actual
intelligence and character of Black people by watching “Birth of a Nation”….
– Christopher Charles Morton
The government, media and tech oligarchs have gotten very, very good at teaching people how to think about anything and everything. Anyone who manages to form their own opinion and share it is labeled as spreading mis-dis-mal information and a conspiracy theorist. This lets everyone who hears alternate opinions discard them without thought, which also serves the purpose of maintaining control over how people think. Even when you know what the powers that be are doing it is very difficult to escape the thought control because they have just about perfected the art of stirring emotions into the mix to use outrage and discontent to lock in opinions. Trying to escape the control rails results in anger and fury that sends people straight back to their controlled bubble. How dare this person tell me I’m mad about nothing? How dare this person tell me I’m mad about the wrong thing? How dare this person criticize that person I like?
Until people get more angry about the way they are being manipulated than they are about whatever the propaganda is telling them to be mad about, nothing will change. I see no signs that most people will ever reach that point. Most people lack the will to go looking for the lies, deal with their anger when they are confronted with the manipulation they have been subjected to and acknowledge they might be significantly wrong about most of what they have been taught to believe. People don’t want to believe that they could have been stupid enough to fall for such manipulation. Part of the process has to involve accepting that even smart people can be easily tricked when their entire reality is manipulated and that that doesn’t actually make you a stupid person.
Dealing with the blanket reality manipulation is not going to be easy. I watch sometimes as entire swaths of reality get erased from all normal sources of information in real time and it is terrifying.
Great point NP
For all the hoopla, seems one fair point is being run over.
Saying Carlson only cherry-picked the best of the peaceful footage misses the point. For over two years, the American Public has seen nothing but the cherry-pickings of the worst …and for ill-intended, misleading purpose. I see no one else attempting to show the public the other side of the coin. Personally, I’ve thought nothing good about the Viking Guy for two years. Now four years in prison for what Carlson cherry-picked for our viewing ?? Give the Viking and Carlson a break.
Then he is free to provide the context.
Personally I don’t care who the video evidence was released to as long as it is released to the public in a responsible manner. I’m not a big fan of Carlson’s tactics but he’s the one that’s now got all the video, we can’t do a dam thing to change that fact so, sobeit. He better take this responsibility to the people of the United States very seriously.
The government and the political left has had a absolute monopoly on the evidence to support their narrative since January 6th, it may be tit-for-tat rationalization but it’s fair political game for an opposing narrative to be presented (using the video evidence) that completely contradicts the narrative that has been pushed by the political left.
Jonathan Turley has a blog post out this morning about the QAnon Shaman, The Curious Story of QAnon Shaman: Fox Footage Raises New Questions Over the Chansley Case
In the midst of all the internet trolls commenting on Turley’s site, here is my comment to this blog post.
After seeing the video evidence, I honestly think that the government intentionally withheld relevant evidence that contradicted their narrative against Chansley.
I had checked Turley last night to see if he had comments about the video, and did not. Thanks for the heads up.
Oh—Comment of the Day, including your Turley comment.
Why is it, do you think, that almost all of Althouses commentators now are red pilled critics of the news media and the rising totalitarian Democratic state, and so many Turley commenters are knee-jerk, Trump-Deranged zombies?
Jack wrote, “Why is it, do you think, that almost all of Althouses commentators now are red pilled critics of the news media and the rising totalitarian Democratic state, and so many Turley commenters are knee-jerk, Trump-Deranged zombies?”
I can’t answer that question, I can only state that it’s appears to be very true. I never read any of the comments on Althouse’s site and stopped participating and following a while back, going there seems completely futile now. It seems to me that trolling has become much more prominent and socially acceptable, it’s a very clear sign of social and cultural moral degradation.
Jack wrote, “Oh—Comment of the Day, including your Turley comment.”
Thanks. Care to fix my typos along the way? 😦
There are also claims of Fox News “doctoring” the video. Here is an exchange on Turley’s site regarding this. One of my replies in this subthread was…
Here is the confession that Chansley signed.
I would have never, ever signed such an obviously skewed confession narrative with all the direct and indirect implications that it contained. Who advised him to sigh that piece of crap document?
Yeah, I don’t understand what his lawyer was doing.
Jonathan Turley just wrote in a new blog…
Mistrial?
Government misconduct?
Prosecutorial misconduct?
Brady violation: reversal on appeal.
Prosecutorial misconduct: discipline called for.
Ineffective assistance of counsel.
I’m a high school graduate, and I read this plea agreement to see that the defendant was guilty due to the actions of others. It confirms trespass. So the same police officer had several interactions with the defendant in which the defendant was *asked* to leave.
I’m the sort of person who would likely comply with being asked to do something if asked to by a police officer, but refusing a *request* from law enforcement seems perfectly legal. In a plea agreement, if police had ordered the defendant to leave, I would expect to see *ordered* and not *asked.
Perhaps counsel was under duress or was similarly Trump Deranged and didn’t provide zealous representation for his smelly, dirty Trump-supporting piece-of-crap client.
I’m afraid your police chief friend is suffering from the forest/trees bias problem. He is simply too close to the situation, too inundated with the closeted leftist world of D.C., and unable to see the reality that Carlson’s videos are providing missing context for the January 6th hearings.
It’s understandable. Wrong, but understandable.
Undoubtedly there was violence, lawlessness and criminal acts. But Carlson’s selections show something in clear relief that most of us with actual reasoning ability and lack of TDS already knew — this was no insurrection, and the J6 committee did nothing but attempt to create a false narrative that suited purely partisan (in the sense that it was all about getting Trump) agenda. There were many outright falsehoods stated as facts by the committee and by Democrats and the media. They are redoubling those efforts now, because God help them if the American people suddenly decide to start thinking for themselves.
How do you know when you are over the target? When the AAA becomes the most intense, like… now.
Trust me on this, Tom is as far from being influenced by Leftists as I am. And he has never claimed that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection,” which is part of my point: Carlson doesn’t need to show any peaceful moments to make that case–it’s made. This wasn’t an insurrection. The people who say it was don’t care about law, definitions or reality, so the footage won’t stop them from saying that. It was, however, a terrible, violent, scary riot in a place where Americans shouldn’t riot. Similarly, it’s just moral luck that no police were seriously injured or killed. The narrative that Sicknick was killed was debunked long, long ago. Ethics Alarms wrote about it almost TWO YEARS ago, here. What kind of scoop is that by Carlson?
Scoop?
No scoop is necessary, nor implied by my comment. Just like I said, it is needed context to the event — not for me or anyone else normally in here, but for many. I don’t disagree it was terrible, violent, a riot, and never should’ve taken place. There is a reason the partisan J6 committee didn’t want anyone to see what Carlson is peddling though — that’s become evident.
But America needs to see it, because unlike your assertion that the insurrection was “debunked,” it really hasn’t been except to those who pay attention to other news sources than the mainstream media. Despite your point about Ethics Alarms, both you and I know it is woefully underexposed, if you’ll pardon my polite but galactic-overlord-level mastery of understatement.
Whether this grabs anyone’s attention or not (other than the Left and national media, who are spinning like high-speed gyroscopes) is certainly debatable, but watching the aforementioned freak out is instructive. Their reaction is becoming the story, and will hopefully drive others to start thinking for themselves who previously swallowed the dominant narrative whole.
That would be an unalloyed good thing.
As to your opinion of your friend, I accept it as true because you reassure me it is so. That’s enough for me.
Yes, it was moral luck that no police were hurt, but it’s also about time some of the false narratives (like Sicknick being killed by the riot) were emphatically debunked by pretty much irrefutable evidence. That falsehood is still widely accepted as true, and there is even a lawsuit accusing Trump of being culpable.
I think Carlson’s segments on this are useful, and needed. Yes, it would be better if his bias weren’t over-the-top, but these days, that is the kind of job for which there are simply no positions available.
Point of order: I never said the notion of an insurrection was debunked, because it doesn’t have to be debunked. It wasn’t any more an insurrection than it was a cheesecake. Nor was it “an attempted coup.” That’s why nobody has been prosecuted under insurrection law. If it can’t possibly be an insurrection, and the people who call it one are lying or don’t know what the word means, then no footage can “prove” it wasn’t one. I did say the Sicknick narrative was debunked, but its also impossible to prove that the riot didn’t somehow hasten Sicknick’s demise.
Coming from Carlson, who could this stuff convince? Whose mind did it change? It’s so easy to spin as an effort to excuse something that was inexcusable, and to cover for Trump. And important revelations, like the fact that the J6 committee apparently added fake sounds to its clips, will be discounted..coming from Carlson.
A total botch.
Point of order: I never said the notion of an insurrection was debunked, because it doesn’t have to be debunked.
Quite right, you didn’t. I imputed that wrongly to another part of your comment, it was Sicknick’s death you said was “debunked.”
I did say the Sicknick narrative was debunked, but its also impossible to prove that the riot didn’t somehow hasten Sicknick’s demise.
Is it, though, given what we saw in the Carlson video? Granted, that doesn’t conclusively prove that the riot wasn’t a factor in his demise, but it certainly makes the earlier “debunking” far more persuasive, in my opinion.
Coming from Carlson, who could this stuff convince?
Even if I stipulate that, the problem is this is the best we can hope for (and perhaps that’s a sad commentary, but there you are). If it doesn’t convince anyone because both sides refuse to believe reporting from the other regardless of probative value because they distrust the source, well, that is how life must go. There simply is no place to release this information that the other side will trust, and Andy McCarthy rightly pointed out that this is exactly the wages of the unethical January 6th committee. They demanded a partisan witch-hunt, and the media was 100% on board with that, so how can they complain about a partisan rebuttal?
A total botch.
Well, your opinion, I guess, and it’s certainly a valid take. I’m of the opinion that nobody Speaker McCarthy could’ve given it to that would treat it fairly would be any more trusted by those who believed the J6 committee’s nonsense.
I wonder why Charles C.W. Cooke calls it an attempted coup.
I have the same jhigh regars for the January 6, 2021 rioters as I do for the May 29, 2020 rioters.
While we are at it, all security footage regarding the events of May 29th should be released as wel;l.
Two points Jack. First, you insist Trump cannot be absolved for insisting the 2020 election was stolen. If Trump truly believed it was stolen, does he not have the right and obligation to speak up? There’s plenty of evidence it was. I won’t go into claims of unattended lock boxes, midnight ballot dumps, etc. but just mention factually that judges in several states that were arbitrarily changing election law to allow invalid ballots to be counted. Democrats went judge shopping on election day and enticed some judges to make last minute election law when they had no authority to do so.
Second, you seem to want to be dismissive of this uncensored J6 video simply because you don’t like the messenger.
Finally we do agree that despite leftist insistence, J6 was never anything resembling an actual insurrection. We saw a bunch of unarmed people entering the capitol building, milling around for a couple of hours than leaving of their own accord. I don’t know of anyone other than the rabid TDS afflicted that still insist it was an insurrection.
“If Trump truly believed it was stolen, does he not have the right and obligation to speak up?”
No. He has the Constitutional right as a citizen, but a President cannot use his “bully pulpit” that way: you can see the results. It is just an improper and irresponsible as Biden’s “Republicans are fascists” speech. I believe such public claims are not impeachable, but it’s a close call.
“Second, you seem to want to be dismissive of this uncensored J6 video simply because you don’t like the messenger.”
No, he’s a bad, untrustworthy messenger, and thus mangles the message. I would feel the same way if Musk gave Tucker the Twitter Files.
Carlson is untrustworthy? Is it because he insists the 2020 election was stolen? Didn’t you just state in your reply that as a citizen he has the Constitutional right to do so? And he’s mangling the message. What does that even mean? Are you disputing what the uncensored video shows? Do you believe these videos may provide enough previously withheld evidence indicating some of those convicted should at the very least receive a new trial?
Undoubtedly Carlson will be showing a lot more video, unless his boss succumbs to intense leftist pressure (who seem to be in full panic mode) to rein him in.
Local Lefty blogger and former Madison Mayor David Cieslewisz MADE_THIS_CLAIM_TODAY:
“Both BLM and MAGA protests were ‘mostly peaceful. BUT WHEN YOU COMPARE THE TIMES WHEN THEY WEREN’T THE MAGA VIOLENCE WAS MUCH WORSE (bolds/caps/italics mine)
IMO, that’s the most easily debunked garbage I’ve read in a LONG TIME; others?