Why did McCarthy Give Tucker Carlson Exclusive Access to J6 Footage?

[Aldebaran]

Over the probably thousands of hours of footage that were taken, are you expressing astonishment that Tucker and his cronies were not able to find a few minutes to show you where nothing was happening?

Was that a serious point you were making?

Actually, something was happening. Police officers who were supposedly overwhelmed by "rioters" were escorting this guy who was supposedly one of the worst offenders around and even escorted him directly into the Senate chamber. At one point, there were 8 officers present while Chansley was being escorted, and they did nothing to stop him, or detain him, or make him leave.

 

[ralliann]

withholding of material evidence in a criminal trial, and concealing it from the public, was unethical at least.

This is the biggest issue for me. This is something that should concern everyone. We should never as a people accept this for anyone for anything.

 

[Aldebaran]

None of his rights were denied. He pleaded guilty. And his request for a mental assessment was granted. If you think that his attorney asked for something and was denied it, then put up. Show us what it was. Otherwise please stop wasting my time.

He had the right to access any information that showed he was not rioting, and was being cooperative with the police, and was even allowed to be there by the police. So yes, his rights were denied.
With this evidence being denied to be used by him in his defense, what choice did he have other than to plead guilty and hopefully get a lighter sentence when any real chance to defend himself in court was being withheld from him? All while a group of people on the Jan. 6th committee slanders him on national TV during primetime hours (and call it an "investigation")?

 

[ralliann]

None of his rights were denied. He pleaded guilty. And his request for a mental assessment was granted. If you think that his attorney asked for something and was denied it, then put up. Show us what it was. Otherwise please stop wasting my time.

I already did. He appeared on Carlson last night.

 

[ralliann]

He had the right to access any information that showed he was not rioting, and was being cooperative with the police, and was even allowed to be there by the police. So yes, his rights were denied.

Absolutely. Unfortunately people are going to dismiss it, instead of taking it as a serious accusation that needs to be proved or disproved. There are those who sadly don't care about it enough to do that. Lies and inuendo rule the day in that environment. Instead let's just wait and see what comes of it.

 

[Bradskii]

Then Hillary Clinton has brain damage along with all the Democrats who claimed Russia stole the 2016 presidential election

You might need to read up on that. Nobody said Russia stole it. Try not to exaggerate. Even for effect. It makes it look like you weren't listening to what was being said.

 

[Bradskii]

I already did. He appeared on Carlson last night.

Then explain what rights he was denied.

 

[Aldebaran]

Absolutely. Unfortunately people are going to dismiss it, instead of taking it as a serious accusation that needs to be proved or disproved. There are those who sadly don't care about it enough to do that. Lies and inuendo rule the day in that environment. Instead let's just wait and see what comes of it.

I'm really glad this video was released. I hope Tucker Carlson has many people looking through the 40,000+ hours of footage. I'm sure there is much more to it, and will reveal much more of the truth. The cherry-picked footage used for the "Jan. 6th investigation" is obviously only what was useful to those who wanted to go after Trump and his supporters. The "rest of the story" is causing the anti-Trump narrative to unravel. Of course, the MSM is ignoring this.

 

[ralliann]

He had the right to access any information that showed he was not rioting, and was being cooperative with the police, and was even allowed to be there by the police. So yes, his rights were denied.
With this evidence being denied to be used by him in his defense, what choice did he have other than to plead guilty and hopefully get a lighter sentence when any real chance to defend himself in court was being withheld from him? All while a group of people on the Jan. 6th committee slanders him on national TV during primetime hours (and call it an "investigation")?

obstruction of an official proceeding.
Very broad......in other words easy to pin it on whoever you wish. It originally was concerned with evidence tampering. A serious thing. Well, is withholding exculpatory evidence, evidence tampering?

Corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding is a felony under U.S. federal law. It was enacted as part of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 as a reaction to the Enron scandal, and closed a legal loophole on who could be charged with evidence tampering by defining the new crime very broadly. It later became known for its use as a charge against defendants associated with the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack for attempting to obstruct that year's Electoral College vote count.

 

[ralliann]

Then explain what rights he was denied.

Exculpatory evidence. And no, I am not going to get involved in a trial here. Way, way to much of that has gone on in media. So let's just see how this turns out now that this information has become public. Just for once care enough about this to see what comes of this.

 

[Bradskii]

If the cops thought this guy was such a violent insurrectionist, they wouldn't have been acting as his tour guide to help him get into the Senate chamber.

They didn't think he was violent. He wasn't convicted of being violent and neither was he charged with it. Maybe you should either quit exagerating or spend some time reading about the matter instead of listening to what people like Fox tell you. Which is, you might have heard, not necessarily the truth, but what you want to hear.

 

[ralliann]

I'm really glad this video was released. I hope Tucker Carlson has many people looking through the 40,000+ hours of footage. I'm sure there is much more to it, and will reveal much more of the truth. The cherry-picked footage used for the "Jan. 6th investigation" is obviously only what was useful to those who wanted to go after Trump and his supporters. The "rest of the story" is causing the anti-Trump narrative to unravel. Of course, the MSM is ignoring this.

I agree. But right or wrong, the truth needs to come out, and we won't have the truth until everything comes out. People should care about this, no matter which end one leans..

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, I think the question in the OP has been sufficiently answered.

 

[Bradskii]

obstruction of an official proceeding.
Very broad......in other words easy to pin it on whoever you wish. It originally was concerned with evidence tampering. A serious thing. Well, is withholding exculpatory evidence, evidence tampering?

Maybe we should check with Chansley himself. You know, to see if he had reasons for complaints about his trial. Whether he was being used as a scapegoat. Whether he felt justified in his actions. Let's see.

'Before he was sentenced, Chansley told U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth it was wrong for him to enter the Capitol and that he accepts responsibility for his actions. He emphasized he wasn’t an insurrectionist and is troubled with the way he was portrayed in news stories in the aftermath of the riot.

“I have no excuse,” Chansley said. “No excuses whatsoever. My behavior is indefensible.”

Seems there are plenty of people who disagree with him. And will defend him even though he admits he was wrong. How actually does this work? I'm kinda curious. Logic and common sense seem to have deserted us. So how do you get to a point when a man says he did wrong, was sorry he did wrong, expressed regret states that he has changed his ways abandoned qanon and yet...yat tou say he did nothing.

What madness is this?

 

[ralliann]

Maybe we should check with Chansley himself. You know, to see if he had reasons for complaints about his trial. Whether he was being used as a scapegoat. Whether he felt justified in his actions. Let's see.

'Before he was sentenced, Chansley told U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth it was wrong for him to enter the Capitol and that he accepts responsibility for his actions. He emphasized he wasn’t an insurrectionist and is troubled with the way he was portrayed in news stories in the aftermath of the riot.

“I have no excuse,” Chansley said. “No excuses whatsoever. My behavior is indefensible.”

Seems there are plenty of people who disagree with him. And will defend him even though he admits he was wrong. How actually does this work? I'm kinda curious. Logic and common sense seem to have deserted us. So how do you get to a point when a man says he did wrong, was sorry he did wrong, expressed regret states that he has changed his ways abandoned qanon and yet...yat tou say he did nothing.

What madness is this?

He did not plead guilty to insurrection. Doing wrong, and having regret about ones actions does not make someone guilty of insurrection.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, something was happening. Police officers who were supposedly overwhelmed by "rioters" were escorting this guy who was supposedly one of the worst offenders around and even escorted him directly into the Senate chamber. At one point, there were 8 officers present while Chansley was being escorted, and they did nothing to stop him, or detain him, or make him leave.

Do you think that if you keep repeating the same thing time after time it will magically change the facts of the matter? Maybe you do. Maybe you'll keep on posting stuff like this. But I do appreciate you keeping them short and to the point, so it doesn't take me long to read them.

 

[BPPLEE]

You might need to read up on that. Nobody said Russia stole it. Try not to exaggerate. Even for effect. It makes it look like you weren't listening to what was being said.

Hillary said it was stolen. You can find it on YouTube. I’ve posted the video on here several times.

 

[Bradskii]

He did not plead guilty to insurrection. Doing wrong, and having regret about ones actions does not make someone guilty of insurrection.

Quite right. And one heck of a non sequitor. Correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't plead guilty to arson either. Or DUI. Or indecent exposure...

 

[Bradskii]

Hillary said it was stolen. You can find it on YouTube. I’ve posted the video on here several times.

Then you'll know where to find one of her saying that 'the Russians stole it'. I'll wait here while you dig it up.

 

[BPPLEE]

Do you think that if you keep repeating the same thing time after time it will magically change the facts of the matter? Maybe you do. Maybe you'll keep on posting stuff like this. But I do appreciate you keeping them short and to the point, so it doesn't take me long to read them.

Do you think if you keep pretending it didn’t happen it’ll go away?