nauseus

It doesn't prove that someone didn't commit a crime. I didn't say it did.

This footage was new to most of the world. Remember?

It is relevant and also a question nobody here seems to be able to answer.

I saw the breech by a mob but I didn't see any clips of him actually smashing stuff.

I watched them. Truly amazing.????

Well I'm no fundamentalist Christian but if Jesus is truly on his way then that's fine by me.

So in Shaman Man's case did you see the moments where he was engaged in violence?

I did look. Quite a list. I've not said that I think I know what really happened but the extra VDO releases have filled a few gaps. There's a lot more unknown information out here somewhere, I'm sure.

Yes, laws were broken and those who broke them should take appropriate responsibility and punishment. However, evidence that was apparently requested by at least one defending lawyer but denied is withholding - illegal in itself. Aside from that, this footage shows that there was no sustained, broad scale violent insurrection going on, with real threats coming from a relatively low number of rioters compared to the huge crowd outside. The footage also shows little indication of any organized coup but the use of it would have demonstrated a more balanced view of what happened on J6.

This DOJ timeline is quoted in your NYP story on 6 March but not linked.

So in Shaman Man's case did you see the moments where he was engaged in violence?

Now they tell us.

Well the guy in question did not commit murder. The "peaceful" stuff shows this Shaman guy just walking about with several armed cops - no violence nor threatening actions by any party - the Shaman has a history of mental illness, apparently.

Withholding evidence is exactly what that is.

Nothing wrong with it but that evidence and technique should also have been available to the lawyers of those charged, at a minimum. Carlson has been accused of cherry-picking, while it is obvious that the J6C has done exactly that over many months. Hypocrisy or what?

I said "I think". Are you saying that a senate hearing committee would not have access to the Capitol CCTV VDO's?

He might do. His lawyer was on the TC show last night and claimed that none of this "peaceful" footage was offered to him before the trial.

Another fake narrative then.

I think the J6 committee had access to everything so they could cherry-pick for more than a year!

I was replying to a question from someone else. Not my fault if you're a nosy parker.

Why not? It was an insurrection, right?

So why are there these many more thousands of hours of nothing violent happening?

The complaints about cherry-picking are a bit laughable after the 'selected' footage allowed in those wonderful J6 hearings! I see Carlson did a follow-up on 7 March featuring a Capitol Police officer, Tarik Johnson, who was apparently responsible for getting the senators and congress people to safety - his only reward was a suspension after 22 years because he used a MAGA hat to help his way through the crowd to get to his colleagues - he was also never asked to testify before the J6 committee. Now that's pretty selective. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-55700011 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11833301/New-Jan-6-tapes-reveal-Capitol-cop-used-initiative-evacuate-senators-boss-went-SILENT.html

The best women often return about that time. ????

That would be the right thing to do. So it probably won't happen.