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

[Isilwen]

It’s in Wilcox County. When I was on the Task Force and did work in Wilcox County the people there had a respect for law enforcement I didn’t find in the other Counties I worked

That I cannot speak to. I only got two meet two residents from there. The owner of the Oak Hill Grocery Store and his wife.

The home is an old plantation home if I am remembering correctly. It still has the slave quarters on the property where Miss Ruby Pearl lived. They even unofficially named the lake Ruby Pearl Lake. We plan on going up there again soon as her dad has invited us to spend some time there. After he and his brothers pass, the home then goes to my fiance and her half-sisters.

* I might be wrong about the name of the lady and will get back to you on that.

 

[BPPLEE]

We don't know any details (AFAIK) since it's a personnel matter, but 6 Capitol Police officers were recommended for discipline.

However, the police said “violations were sustained and disciplinary action was recommended” for six of the cases — including three for “conduct unbecoming,” one for failure to comply with directions, one for “improper remarks” and one for “improper dissemination of information.”

I saw an Officer on Carlson’s show who was not a Trump supporter. He put on a MAGA hat because it helped him get through the crowd to get to Officers that needed help. He was disciplined for wearing the hat and eventually quit his job

 

[NxNW]

Beats me!

Really?

Maybe someone should ask him/them.

He's had plenty of chances to answer.

Meanwhile, the narrative laid out by those who seems desperate to pin something on Trump is unraveling as the evidence they wanted suppressed is now out in the open after multiple years.

Which evidence is that?

It took a Republican House majority to make that happen.

To make what happen?

Imagine how much more transparent the process would become if Republicans held more than just the House.

I can imagine, all right.

 

[NxNW]

You started out saying that confirming the result of an election was being prevented simply by occupying the building, and then you start your last paragraph saying, "But none of that makes the events of that day any less of a direct assault on American democracy". Do you really believe American democracy survives or fails based on a particular building? Democracy is a system of government. It's not something housed in a particular building, and it doesn't survive or fail based on that.

Given that Trump supporters were trying to assassinate elected officials in that building, with Trump's approval, and deadly force was required to protect their lives, it was certainly a more serious situation than you seem willing to admit.

 

[rjs330]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/capitol-security-footage-january-6-mccarthy/index.html

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s office said on Tuesday that lawyers for defendants facing charges in the January 6, 2021, insurrection will be granted access to US Capitol security footage as the top House Republican has faced scrutiny for allowing Fox News host Tucker Carlson to view the video before widely releasing it.​

​

The House Administration’s subcommittee on oversight “is making accommodations to schedule time for any attorney representing a defendant,” McCarthy spokesman Mark Bednar told CNN.​

​

You mean the defendants were not given access to possible exculpatory evidence?

That is a violation of the Brady rule

The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.​

​

Initially, the Brady rule was only applicable if the defendant made a pretrial request for specific information which the prosecution denied. In United States v. Bagley, however, the Supreme Court eliminated this request requirement and stated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of whether it is requested. This duty is breached regardless of whether that information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally.​

Oh this is interesting. I didn't realize that the defendant's had no access to this footage. We may find some cases tossed out based on this and prior cases could be overturned.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. But honestly I am not surprised they hid the video.

 

[rjs330]

Good grief, you guys are so predictable...



Three times in the last 24 hours I have predicted separate ways in which views are headed in this thread. And within a couple of dozen posts three of you have confirmed each one. Y'all seem to have run out of ideas. Or should I say excuses.

Pot meet Kettle.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oh this is interesting. I didn't realize that the defendant's had no access to this footage.

The DOJ has denied that in court documents. We'll see what the court makes of it.

 

[DaisyDay]

Oh this is interesting. I didn't realize that the defendant's had no access to this footage. We may find some cases tossed out based on this and prior cases could be overturned.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. But honestly I am not surprised they hid the video.

They did have access to footage which was even indexed for their convenience.

 

[Aldebaran]

What an inept argument. Part of the democratic process is the peaceful transfer of power from one admin to the next. Which includes the ratification of the election result. That process was prevented from happening on Jan 6. Let me repeat that. The democratic process was intentionally prevented from occuring.

Not only that, it has just been pointed out to you that Trump demanded that the DOJ declare the election corrupt. And you have the effrontery to plead dumb when asked what he might have meant by '...and leave the rest to us.' That in itself shows you have no intention of entering into a reasonable discussion.

"Part of the democratic process"......
IOW, democracy wasn't nearly overthrown that day.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm wondering what would have happened if Ashli Bobbitt wasn't shot. Just what would have that mob done after they breached through the doors?

That mob was violent and could have done some serious damage.

It sounds like you're saying that the most serious damage was stopped by shooting an unarmed woman. If she hadn't been shot, then there would be one more unarmed woman alive today. Not much damage to speak of from that.

 

[Bradskii]

"Part of the democratic process"......
IOW, democracy wasn't nearly overthrown that day.

Please don't insult my intelligence. If you asked even the most inept policial student what democracy is, she'd tell you that it was the right of every citizen to choose their government. That there was an attempt to subvert that right is not questionable. That it succeeded in stopping the very process is undeniable.

That we have reached a point where the arguments are so facile that you now even have to argue that it wasn't even an assault on democracy itself shows the paucity of your position.

 

[Aldebaran]

Please don't insult my intelligence. If you asked even the most inept policial student what democracy is, she'd tell you that it was the right of every citizen to choose their government. That there was an attempt to subvert that right is not questionable. That it succeeded in stopping the very process is undeniable.

That we have reached a point where the arguments are so facile that you now even have to argue that it wasn't even an assault on democracy itself shows the paucity of your position.

Wait....why do you assume that the most inept political student of democracy is a "she"?

 

[Bradskii]

It sounds like you're saying that the most serious damage was stopped by shooting an unarmed woman. If she hadn't been shot, then there would be one more unarmed woman alive today. Not much damage to speak of from that.

I can understand, and agree, with the actions of some of the armed police in areas of the Capitol who didn't go full John Wayne and turn some areas that were relatively peaceful into a bloodbath. Theirs was, thankfully, a considered response. God only knows the violence that would have followed in subsequent days if the body bags were being piled up.

That said, the closer the mob got to the elected officials, the more necessary became an attitude of 'this far, but NO further.'

If a mob has beaten down the door to my house, there's no chance of me stopping them. I'll have already put my family in the safest possible place and I'd wait for help. But...if I thought they were in danger and some of the mob tried to get to their safe place, then I'd warn them once and then use all means necessary to keep them away. I'd kill to protect them. I think we all would.

 

[Bradskii]

Wait....why do you assume that the most inept political student of democracy is a "she"?

Yeah, it looks odd to you doesn't it, because you'd always use a male pronoun when referring to a random person. It's the way your mind works. Obviously, because if I'd have said 'he' you would never have thought to ask why I assume an inept political student is male.

Says more about you than me or the ability of political students.

 

[Isilwen]

It sounds like you're saying that the most serious damage was stopped by shooting an unarmed woman. If she hadn't been shot, then there would be one more unarmed woman alive today. Not much damage to speak of from that.

Sure, you could spin it that way.

She was shot, and she shouldn't have been doing what she did either. It was really her own fault. Sad that she was shot, but still her own fault.

However, it sure stopped that particular mob from breaching through those door windows.

 

[Isilwen]

I'd kill to protect them. I think we all would.

In this tiny apartment, there isn't much room for a safe space. The furthest room from the front door is the master, where I sleep. The kid's room is the room right next to it. They would be in my room and if anyone starts to advance down the hallway, those advancing down the hallway would be dead.

Damn right I would kill to protect my family.

 

[Bradskii]

In this tiny apartment, there isn't much room for a safe space. The furthest room from the front door is the master, where I sleep. The kid's room is the room right next to it. They would be in my room and if anyone starts to advance down the hallway, those advancing down the hallway would be dead.

Damn right I would kill to protect my family.

And the officers in the Capitol were sworn to protect the elected members. By deadly force if necessary. And the mob had reached a point where that was most definitely an option. The mob was 'in the hallway.' Thus far but no further. Warn them once. Maybe twice. Yet they didn't stop. And a young woman paid the price.

 

[BPPLEE]

And the officers in the Capitol were sworn to protect the elected members. By deadly force if necessary. And the mob had reached a point where that was most definitely an option. The mob was 'in the hallway.' Thus far but no further. Warn them once. Maybe twice. Yet they didn't stop. And a young woman paid the price.

Except there were 3 police officers in front of that door who moved out of the way and allowed Babbitt to attempt to climb through the window and there was a tactical team right behind her that attempted to provide first aid after she was shot. One lone officer decided to use deadly force. Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ashli Babbitt at U.S. Capitol

 

[Bradskii]

Except there were 3 police officers in front of that door who moved out of the way and allowed Babbitt to attempt to climb through the window and there was a tactical team right behind her that attempted to provide first aid after she was shot. One lone officer decided to use deadly force. Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ashli Babbitt at U.S. Capitol

What's to say? She went too far. She paid the price. Would you have preferred the mob to have gained access to the elected officials? The very most, the absolute most you could say is that some officers at the door should have risked their lives in preventing anyone from moving forward. Just pushed them back perhaps? Or drawn their weapons? And we know, as a fact, that any officer who draws his or her weapon is prepared to use it.

There would have been a warning before the shot was made. How much more of an incentive does anyone need to stop? And what would you expect to happen if they didn't?

People violently gained access to the Capitol. Some forced their way through the building. To a point where they were just metres from elected officials who were being held in a protected area. They were ordered to stop. Thus far, but no further. They were warned that they would be shot. They ignored that warning, they could see a raised gun and still they actually attempted to get access to the officials. The officer went through with his warning. To protect members of the government from a violent mob. It might not have happened if the heavily armed officers had arrived a couple of minutes earlier but there was not guarantee that they'd be there when they did.

And you say it wasn't her fault. Someone should have stopped her earlier. How much of a twist on the whole sorry mess can you guys keep coming up with?

 

[BPPLEE]

What's to say? She went too far. She paid the price. Would you have preferred the mob to have gained access to the elected officials? The very most, the absolute most you could say is that some officers at the door should have risked their lives in preventing anyone from moving forward. Just pushed them back perhaps? Or drawn their weapons? And we know, as a fact, that any officer who draws his or her weapon is prepared to use it.

They could ALL hear the warning being given before the shot was made. How much more of an incentive does anyone need to stop? And what would you expect to happen if they didn't?

People violently gained access to the Capitol. Some forced their way through the building. To a point where they were just metres from elected officials who were being held in a protected area. They were ordered to stop. Thus far, but no further. They were warned that they would be shot. They ignored that warning and actually attempted to get access to the officials. The officer went through with his warning. To protect members of the government from a violent mob.

And you say it wasn't her fault. Someone should have stopped her earlier. How much of a twist on the whole sorry mess can you guys keep coming up with?

I didn’t absolve her of fault, the situation was one person coming through a window, one unarmed, small framed woman, deadly force was not justified. The officer said in an interview that he couldn’t see her hands. You can’t just make an assumption that someone is armed. The tactical team was coming to stop the other protesters, the parameters for the use of deadly force were not met. As to whose fault it was Babbitt made the decision to go through the window even though a gun was drawn and she would be responsible for that decision if she was alive but that doesn’t make it a good shooting.