that Carlson and his ilk are remotely serious?
The continued self-debasing of the new right is a sad toilet swirl.
...We were having dinner and this topic came up. My forecast was that Carlson would find the most benign scenes possible to "prove" that this was all just a peaceful bunch, mostly.
Like video of an armed robber an hour after the robbery as he sits quietly quaffing a beer at his local tavern, proving that he's a peaceful guy.
knows very little about how law enforcement should act in a situation like that.
He does however, seemingly get off on Kyle Rittenhouse, vigilante-style law enforcement if you recall his hot takes on that event.
Tots and Pears.
I had the misfortune of bumping into the horned idiot on several occaisions in AZ. He's an asshole, a bully, and a complete psycho. He knows what he's doing. He's definitely more than a half bubble off but he's quite capable.
He threatened to attack me one day when he was protesting and I was walking out of a building. I strolled past him and attempted to act tough like I wasn't intimidated. If I'm being honest, he's a strong, wily looking dude so I was not hoping for a fight. But he was all talk.
But I will say, if the videos haven't been doctored, I'd at least want to know why so many Cap Police were escorting him around, opening doors for him. What the hell?
At first, I was having trouble figuring out whether you were talking about Tucker, Kevin McCarthy or the shaman dude.
I ruled out McCarthy when I got to your second paragraph. Finally ruled out Tucker when you said "he's a strong, wily looking dude so I was not hoping for a fight."
I'm sure there are many who wouldn't mind if Tucker started a fight with them.
it is Kevin McCarthy who comes across as most despicable in this episode, IMHO. What possible justification is there for his actions here?
after January 6th, or him releasing the tapes? I think it's a good thing that the tapes were released, but I think they should be released more broadly for all to see.
please give me the justification for giving exclusive use of these tapes to a private organization for their profit and propaganda purposes without providing anyone else the information to evaluate snippets they use.
I would not be surprised if the tapes were shared in bad faith. I read that they were subject to FOIA and could have been released in other venues; I have no idea. I also read that they already were made public, just not widely distributed. It's clear they cherry picked some footage here of Angeli.
But still, I would like to know why several of these idiots were allowed in areas where visitors would not be allowed in, certainly not when there's a damn riot going on outside.
I'm willing to accept that some authority decided it was for the best, but damn can we at least hear the rationale?
I provided an entirely speculative guess below:
Why?
The gist, is that this may have been the least bad strategy in this unanticipated circumstance.
Give the mob a little taste of what they wanted but under the disguise of leading them around. In fact they were leading them to areas that were away from where the politicians were stationed and where they were exiting. At least that is my recollection of why they did that
Those that pushed toward an unauthorized area were met by armed security and obviously one woman was shot.
But I could be mistaken. This feels like if it wasn't, the hearings were a clear avenue for doing so such that an experienced law enforcement expert could provide context.
more broadly for all to see. Also unclear why it has been withheld to date, with only snippets being shared over the last 2 years despite days of video footage.
Capital Police that giving out 46,000 hours of surveillance tapes that would allow people to determine exactly where cameras and other security devices are located might not be the best idea.
cameras are visible and safe to say anywhere you are in the capital building is under surveillance. That argument doesn't hold water for me. The capital police allegedly approved of this release to Fox, or at least that's what I heard. Haven't had time to validate it yet.
I recall during the hearing that some things were shared in audio only, including discussions among Secret Service and Pence and other high-ranking officials. I wonder if sharing the videos might reveal the strategies in place for emergency situation of this sort. Obviously that would be a bad outcome and a reason to withhold at least some of the tapes.
Bad actors could use the footage to out-maneuver security and Secret Service. Knowing where the recording devices are wouldn't necessarily be enough to do that. Getting minute-by-minute information on how things progressed and how security responded each time might.
The Capitol police saying we have to do this when Congress tells us to. It didn’t seem like something they support and I would guess in the Capitol not all of them are visible.
Your first point, the caveat of "more broadly" doesn't work for me.
It is a horrible thing that it was shared in this manner. A leader of Congress disseminating private information to a propaganda media org that is in bed with his party, allowing them to control the narrative and mislead the public as they please? I would say McCarthy should be embarrassed, but I can't imagine he has any shame left.
outrage as if this kind of thing doesn't happen with members of congress frequently smacks of picking and choosing. Adam Schiff did this all the time. It was wrong then and wrong now. The FBI has been releasing classified pieces of investigations to specific news outlets for a long time.
back that up with a specific example so that we could discuss whether this is just business as usual or a new low.
smoking gun on russian collusion", he said multiple times. FBI leaking to favorable news organizations ahead of time when they're going to make high profile arrests of political figures. Pictures directly from the FBI of Trump's classified documents but no leaks on Biden's. The January 6th committee itself selectively edited the 1/6 tapes for their tv hearings. Were you asking that the committee at the time go ahead and release all tapes? If so I didn't hear it.
Happened was because the former President tweeted about it. I also believe the pictures you are referencing were only “released” in connection with DOJ brief related to the litigation the President filed and lost contesting the search.
On the last item: I'm OK with the tapes being released (unless there are security issues) but withholding them awhile longer versus sending them out now is not a big issue to me, hence I've never made any comment about it.
Releasing them to a private political arm who can make them selectively public without any means of verification is a much bigger deal to me. Hence my howling.
releasing this to specific outlets is not the way it should be done, which is why I don't think I defended McCarthy, who I personally despise. If I came across as defending him then it was unintentional and likely the result of poor phrasing. I also stated it should go out to everyone. What I don't know at this stage is the actual process. I heard this was a FOIA request and that it was approved by the capital police, so if other organizations have made similar requests but were denied I share your outrage. I would love for congress to work to just declassify these as well as the findings from certain organizations that have concluded (with varying degrees of confidence) that COVID came from a lab leak.
...is he will release the tapes to all outlets after Fox has finished running its exclusive on Carlson's show. Shouldn't be long now.
It will be interesting to see how others present this data to the public, or if they will present anything in addition to what we've already seen from the Jan. 6 Committee shows.
Although he has suggested that everybody will get it eventually, I haven't been able to find a reference to language in your post.
Thanks.
It's near the end of the relatively short article, which is also hard to read because of the ads.
Filling to meet the minimum number of words.
Filling to meet the minimum number of words.
Filling to meet the minimum number of words.
to win the Speaker's race and given his craven desire to become Speaker over everything I dont have trouble believing it.
That statement? I think that would have been broadly publicized by Fox of that were the case, no?
Seems like a reach to me - but I haven’t had time to research it…
If a politician goes on CNN and makes a (dubious) conclusion which he claims is based on a classified document (which he doesn't produce), that's equivalent to this?
I guess the "exclusivity" analogy is that the interview was for CNN rather than at a press conference in front of all comers? Even though, the interview, in it's entirety is available to all networks and the document is avilable to none?
And his description of an unamed document in an interview to one channel is equivalent to 40,000 hours of footage.
Damn, that's a reach.
You thought that the tapes should have been distributed widely.
I think that that steak should be eaten without catsup. However, I don't find it despicable when this doesn't happen.
What McCarthy did strikes me as a lot worse than that and I am truly at a loss to think what the justification could be.
should be shared more broadly? Also is this the first instance you've learned of where members of congress share materials with a specific news outlet that is favorable to them? If not I haven't seen you posting about it, and if so you haven't been paying attention. That doesn't make it in any way right, but it's not like it's unprecedented. Also we had an entire months-long committee on this, and they absolutely selectively edited tapes without sharing all the tapes with the broader public, which they should have done. I assume you were ok with that, despite the makeup of that committee?
Are you upset that it didn't have Republican witnesses on it? That McCarthy took his ball and went home? What, exactly?
As between Cheney and McCarthy, I know who I trust more and find more credible. Anyway, politicians "selectively editing" something that is released to the public is very different - in kind, not just degree - than politicians releasing information to one specific outlet for its exclusive use.
explainer. As ufl said above, can you provide an instance for this? If it's done all the time there should be more than a few examples.
People used this as an excuse for Hillary's use of a personal email address and it didn't mean it was any less irresponsible. It may provide context for the scope of the problem, but it's not an absolution of the problem itself.
comprehension. When did I say it was an ok "explainer"? In fact if you read my posts I said the exact opposite. I said it doesn't make it ok, but whatever, people respond to what they want. My point was the selective outrage about it. Adam Schiff leaked that he had seen "a smoking gun" multiple times to favorable media, and was not pressed on it. Schiff entering a fake conversation between Trump and Zelensky into the congressional record, lying about producing the whistleblower. He was all over tv with this stuff. The FBI leaked ahead of time to favorable news organizations that they knew would cover high profile and over-armed arrests of disfavored political figures. The 1/6 committee itself selectively edited tapes and did not release the full footage. Not to lend cover for someone I personally dislike, but the video footage of Hawley running out of the capital was edited (essentially they were all being escorted out of the capital, and if you extend the clip it shows dozens of others rushing out right before him with police escort, but we didn't see that in the selective clip). It was selectively leaked that Trump was "briefed" on the Steele Dossier, thus giving the dossier credibility, while failing to disclose that much of it was funded as opposition research and sources for the document itself were themselves Russians with dubious backgrounds. This got play in the media for years, and was true simply because it hadn't been "disproven". The Biden laptop that the FBI had for a year was labeled as a Russian plot, despite the FBI having had it for over a year and knowing it was real (and people who actually paid attention knowing it was true contemporaneously). Yes, selective leaks and commentary have been going on forever and this reeks of selective outrage.
I didn't really pay attention in debate, but this is the general argument, no?
ufl et al: releasing footage exclusively to a partisan news outlet is bad.
krudler: "Adam Schiff did it too"
me: when?
krudler: you're not reading my post correctly.
---
Followups:
"Schiff entering a fake conversation between Trump and Zelensky into the congressional record,"
That's not what happened.
He was recounting a conversation that actually happened, but in the process he decided to editorialize. I don't think anyone thought he was being verbatim, though I would push back that he was "parodying" - if so that's still highly unprofessional. CNN did a reasonable breakdown.
"The FBI leaked ahead of time to favorable news organizations that they knew would cover high profile and over-armed arrests of disfavored political figures"
...which high profile political figure was arrested by 'over armed' FBI? This sounds like something the Tucker crowd at my parents retirement home would tell me.
fact that others were also running in fesr for their lives change the fact Hawley wants to downplay the events of the day when in fact he was running in fear for his life. If it was simply a little civil disorder why didnt he go talk to his supporters and get them to understand this was not appropriate touring?
On the one hand, there is a "selective leak" whereby certain information or spin is shared with the public, perhaps through a preferred media source, and other information is withheld from everyone. In this scenario, everyone gets the same information, but not the same opportunity to ask questions perhaps. And everyone is denied the same set of withheld information.
On the other hand, there is a "selective leak" whereby broad information is shared exclusively with a preferred outlet and withheld, in its entirety, from everyone else. That one outlet gets all the information. No one else gets any.
I think that distinction matters a great deal. It also explains the "selective outrage" you are perceiving here. The things you are describing are not really equivalent. There is good reason to be more bothered by one than the other.
this board is that the spread of the posters across the country and abroad so often means this sort of first-person reporting and local color. Given "the big sort" that has been slicing and dicing us for a couple decades now, it's really helpful to get word especially from places I'm unlikely to visit and don't know squat about.
The folks who breached the doors and barricades quickly rushed down hallways to get Pence or whatever. Many of the security folks rushed to protect or whisk away the Senators and Representatives.
With the doors open and much of the security forces away from the entrances other members of the "crowd" strolled in and many did, indeed, act like tourists.
The remaining security folks couldn't push them all out, so they let them mill about as long as they didn't seem to be violent. It was a calculated risk, based on a situation which none had anticipated.
Does every single person need to be violent at every single moment for it to count?
Does a video of someone wandering around in the Capitol doing nothing erase all the videos of others bashing into police officers, beating them with poles and such, breaking stuff and threatening members of Congress?
I agree that the notion that some eople did no damage and weren't violent isn't groundbreaking. And it justifies nothing. That we still have people trying to justify and explain away January 6 is absurd. It isn't hard to say "That was wrong and never should have happened, and we'll make sure it will never happen again."
it's trying to play into the "mostly peaceful protest" language used to describe some other protests that got out of hand recently. The link below gives some color with some screen grabs of CNN using the "mostly peaceful protests" caption while parts of Kenosha burned. I think it's also pushback against those who claim that everyone who entered the capital on January 6th was an insurrectionist and should be prosecuted.
Is the point that January 6 was, in fact, violent and wrong, but also those other protests were violent and wrong? It's just trying to point out the supposed hypocrisy of CNN or whatever?
Put differently, do you think Tucker Carlson is denouncing what happened on January 6 rather than minimizing it?
Because that wasn't my understanding. He could be playing some kind of 4D chess, though, that I've simply missed.
It seems to me to be trying to string together a narrative that Trump and his supporters are patriots who would never do anything to hurt America. They love America. However, there were a handful of instigators (probably radical leftists) who started trouble and played into the passions of some patriots who were there and got them riled up a bit.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with any of this stuff. I'm just offering my interpretation of what I think Carlson is trying to do.
over to Fox but says it is a mistake for Fox to characterize the events incorrectly.
I give him credit for trying to support the truth but the firehose of lies coming from Fox, OAN, Trump and a host of Republican elected officials and candidates gives him no chance.
If the point is that January 6 was fine, peaceful, no problem, I don't know how you'd ever argue against BLM protests or really almost any protest. I'm sure you can find footage of people not being violent in every single protest.
Saying January 6 was fine sort of gives away the ballgame. You don't really care how people protest as long as they're on your side.
There's no way I can interpret this as an attempt to condemn other media's headlines by satirizing them.
The "CNN downplayed violence in protests which they described as mostly peaceful so we can do that too" point simply does not come across here.
including January 6. I remember posters on this board banging the drum on the insurrectionist point and demanding prosecutions. I try to avoid watching or reading the more slanted or opinionated news sites, so I can't point to you a specific smoking gun with respect to who made that claim.
With regard to the media portrayals of BLM protests vs January 6, I don't think you or I are the target audience. I think Carlson is playing into Trump's claims that the media is "unfair" to Trump and Trump is really a good guy who loves America. The target market appears to be some of Trump's base that is starting to think critically of Trump and perhaps lean toward DeSantis or another candidate over Trump.
I think that's what's called a strawman. If the view being contradicted is not sufficiently widely held to provide an example, it's a strawman.
Somehow I don't think it contradicts my views to point out that I'm not in the target audience. The target audience consists of those folks whom Fox is attempting to woo back to Fox from Newsmax, etc. That the Speaker of the House should try to help them do that is, as I mentioned, despicable.
With respect to your first paragraph, I don't know if it's a strawman or not (I don't have the time or desire to try to find out who is making these types of claims), but strawman or not, I think there are plenty on the right who believe it and that Carlson is playing to them.
The logic would seem to be that showing video of OJ Simpson when he was not murdering anyone proves that he was innocent.
The network doesn't operate in the real world. Whatever they "report" is simply to feed the beast of pissed off MAGA folks looking to get their fix after dinner.
There is no rational or traditional logic that goes into these segments, or the show in general. They start from "how can we own the Libs and rile up our viewers" and go from there. The thought of "is there logic behind our argument" never crosses the minds of Tucker and the showrunners, and it doesn't need to. Their viewers don't give a shit about logic, they just want to own the Libs.
There's nothing serious about this. Hearing about their internal communications regarding the Dominion lawsuit, I think they've moved from being silly into the zone of being downright dangerous.