US Capitol Police chief rips into Tucker Carlson over ‘offensive’ use of January 6 footage

[Phoenix Rising]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.  

So if there's footage of e.g. a guy committing murder but also footage of the murderer behaving "peacefully" before and/or after the murder this is relevant exactly how? 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Absolutely incredible to hear that. Isn't there a law against withholding exculpatory evidence? Rhetorical question, yes there is. The Brady rule.

A video showing that nothing is happening while omitting video showing him amidst violence isn't exculpatory evidence. 

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If they did, where did they? Where is your link? Just more baseless right wing talking points with a much support as casper the ghost. 

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

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

It seems you define cherry-picking as going through 41,000 thousand hours of video, editing out the parts where nothing unusual is going on, and showing the times when crimes were being committed.  Is that correct?  If so, what is wrong with it?

 

Returning to my earlier bank robbery example, if a bank with a video surveillance system was robbed, would it be cherry-picking for the police and prosecution to only use the videos showing the robbery?  Or should they subject the court to years of videos showing business as usual when the bank wasn't being robbed?

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? 

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Absolutely incredible to hear that. Isn't there a law against withholding exculpatory evidence? Rhetorical question, yes there is. The Brady rule.

 

Withholding evidence is exactly what that is. 

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

So if there's footage of e.g. a guy committing murder but also footage of the murderer behaving "peacefully" before and/or after the murder this is relevant exactly how? 

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.   

[Phoenix Rising]

22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.   

Well, to be fair I do think a lot of the wannabe coup makers/insurgents have mental issues, as do those who egged them on. That doesn't excuse their treachery though and they should be punished according to their extremely serious crimes, especially the one ultimately responsible.

When you have the ultimate responsibility (as a C-in-C does) only the ultimate punishment fits the crime. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Phoenix Rising

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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? 

By showing peaceful moments on January 6 without showing the violent moments Tucker is guilty of cherry-picking.

 

By showing videos of people clearly breaking the law the January 6 committee was showing that what happened was clearly illegal.  That is not cherry-picking, that is getting to the purpose of the committee; revealing the illegal activities of the day. 

 

Showing videos of times and places where trespassers were behaving reasonably peacefully would have drawn out the investigation without adding anything to it.  Showing the "nothing to see here" videos during the trials of those charged (I hope you know the J6C was not where they were tried) would have been a waste of time for the courts.

 

So the answer to your questions is "or what".  The January 6 committee showed laws being broken, and Tucker Carlson is trying to obfuscate by showing irrelevant videos of illegal trespassers not engaged in violence at particular moments.

[candide]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.   

This more peaceful part doesn't exculp him from what he has been charged of.

Additionally, it seems that Carlson omitted to mention the reason why the officers were so "peacefull"

 

“The officer is then seen on video walking behind Chansley as Chansley walks into the Senate Chamber,” Capitol Police said. “Moments earlier our officers and agents had to evacuate the Senate Chamber, which was closed to the public, to rush elected officials and staffers to safety. After that, multiple people snuck into the Chamber. At any given time, the officer is outnumbered by more than 20 or more people. At this point, it is clear the officer is trying to get everyone out of the Chamber.”

Capitol cops say they couldn’t get physical with rioters as new ‘QAnon Shaman’ video reveals hands-off approach

https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/capitol-cops-say-they-couldnt-get-physical-with-rioters-as-new-qanon-shaman-video-reveals-hands-off-approach/

 

 

[nauseus]

50 minutes ago, candide said:

This more peaceful part doesn't exculp him from what he has been charged of.

Additionally, it seems that Carlson omitted to mention the reason why the officers were so "peacefull"

 

“The officer is then seen on video walking behind Chansley as Chansley walks into the Senate Chamber,” Capitol Police said. “Moments earlier our officers and agents had to evacuate the Senate Chamber, which was closed to the public, to rush elected officials and staffers to safety. After that, multiple people snuck into the Chamber. At any given time, the officer is outnumbered by more than 20 or more people. At this point, it is clear the officer is trying to get everyone out of the Chamber.”

Capitol cops say they couldn’t get physical with rioters as new ‘QAnon Shaman’ video reveals hands-off approach

https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/capitol-cops-say-they-couldnt-get-physical-with-rioters-as-new-qanon-shaman-video-reveals-hands-off-approach/

 

 

Now they tell us.

[candide]

42 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Now they tell us.

No. They told it before.

 

From the linked NYPost article in my post, the event was described in the DOJ timeline:

"The DOJ timeline confirmed that Robishaw followed Chansley into the chamber as the “Shaman” took the seat on the dais recently occupied by Vice President Mike Pence"

 

As to the comments by the officer, they have been aired already in 2021 (quote from the same article):

"In a statement Monday, the Capitol Police pointed The Post to comments by Robishaw in the 2021 HBO documentary “Four Hours at the Capitol.”

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

By showing peaceful moments on January 6 without showing the violent moments Tucker is guilty of cherry-picking.

 

By showing videos of people clearly breaking the law the January 6 committee was showing that what happened was clearly illegal.  That is not cherry-picking, that is getting to the purpose of the committee; revealing the illegal activities of the day. 

 

Showing videos of times and places where trespassers were behaving reasonably peacefully would have drawn out the investigation without adding anything to it.  Showing the "nothing to see here" videos during the trials of those charged (I hope you know the J6C was not where they were tried) would have been a waste of time for the courts.

 

So the answer to your questions is "or what".  The January 6 committee showed laws being broken, and Tucker Carlson is trying to obfuscate by showing irrelevant videos of illegal trespassers not engaged in violence at particular moments.

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

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

No. They told it before.

 

From the linked NYPost article in my post, the event was described in the DOJ timeline:

"The DOJ timeline confirmed that Robishaw followed Chansley into the chamber as the “Shaman” took the seat on the dais recently occupied by Vice President Mike Pence"

 

As to the comments by the officer, they have been aired already in 2021 (quote from the same article):

"In a statement Monday, the Capitol Police pointed The Post to comments by Robishaw in the 2021 HBO documentary “Four Hours at the Capitol.”

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

[ozimoron]

35 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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

He was in possession of a spear. 

[LosLobo]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

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.   

 

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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

For someone who thinks he knows what really happened on January 6th perhaps you should review the charges against the "Shaman guy" before you ask questions about violence.
 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

By showing peaceful moments on January 6 without showing the violent moments Tucker is guilty of cherry-picking.

 

By showing videos of people clearly breaking the law the January 6 committee was showing that what happened was clearly illegal.  That is not cherry-picking, that is getting to the purpose of the committee; revealing the illegal activities of the day. 

 

Showing videos of times and places where trespassers were behaving reasonably peacefully would have drawn out the investigation without adding anything to it.  Showing the "nothing to see here" videos during the trials of those charged (I hope you know the J6C was not where they were tried) would have been a waste of time for the courts.

 

So the answer to your questions is "or what".  The January 6 committee showed laws being broken, and Tucker Carlson is trying to obfuscate by showing irrelevant videos of illegal trespassers not engaged in violence at particular moments.

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. 

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

For someone who thinks he knows what really happened on January 6th perhaps you should review the charges against the "Shaman guy" before you ask questions about 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.  

Edited March 9, 2023 by nauseus

[LosLobo]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.  

If you have already looked why are you asking about violence then?

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by LosLobo

[candide]

59 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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

Well, It's much better than you making assertions which are not backed by any source.

[candide]

14 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

If you have already looked why are you asking about violence then?

 

So that we lose our time looking for sources. It's his m.o.

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

If you have already looked why are you asking about violence then?

 

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

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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

yes did you not? Maybe you missed the crowd smashing there way into the building, he was right there with them

 

https://ia902307.us.archive.org/10/items/Cwxj9RMtddritN4Ds/Cwxj9RMtddritN4Ds.mpeg4

 

[placeholder]

52 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.  

 

You're like a fundamentalist Christian who believes that Jesus is coming any day now.

Who need evidence when you have faith or paranoia?

 

[candide]

When the hearings were diffused on TV, I remember that the main MAGA channel (Fox News) refused to diffuse it, and also that MAGA posters on this forum were often claiming that they will never watch such a biased (according to them) investigation.

 

Surprisingly enough, it seems that MAGA and/or right-wing posters now know exactly what has been shown (or not shown) during the committee hearings. ????

Edited March 9, 2023 by candide

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

You're like a fundamentalist Christian who believes that Jesus is coming any day now.

Who need evidence when you have faith or paranoia?

 

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

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, candide said:

When the hearings were diffused on TV, I remember that the main MAGA channel (Fox News) refused to diffuse it, and also that MAGA posters on this forum were often claiming that they will never watch such a biased (according to them) investigation.

 

Surprisingly enough, it seems that MAGA and/or right-wing posters now know exactly what has been shown (or not shown) during the committee hearings. ????

I watched them. Truly amazing.????

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

yes did you not? Maybe you missed the crowd smashing there way into the building, he was right there with them

 

https://ia902307.us.archive.org/10/items/Cwxj9RMtddritN4Ds/Cwxj9RMtddritN4Ds.mpeg4

 

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

[SunnyinBangrak]

3 hours ago, candide said:

When the hearings were diffused on TV, I remember that the main MAGA channel (Fox News) refused to diffuse it, and also that MAGA posters on this forum were often claiming that they will never watch such a biased (according to them) investigation.

 

Surprisingly enough, it seems that MAGA and/or right-wing posters now know exactly what has been shown (or not shown) during the committee hearings. ????

Do you approve of accused people not being allowed a defense? Is it fair to force an accused person to have people that harbor irrational hatred(Liz and Adam) for the accused to pretend to act as their defense? Would you like it if you were accused of a crime and only your worst enemy could defend you?

This is the Jan6th achilles heel. By not allowing Trump a defense - who would have showed the clips TC showed to give proper perspective - they are a sham, something you would find in a fascist country.

 

 Think of it like this. If Nancy P was accused of some ridiculous nonsense, and only David DePape and Donald Trump could defend her in a trial. Would you consider such a crazy court to be "biased"?

Edited March 9, 2023 by SunnyinBangrak

[Credo]

The Capitol building is a restricted-access building.  Tours are conducted only by authorized personnel.  People with appointments are granted access, but restrictions apply.   

 

All guests to the building must go through screening.   

 

The Capitol building was closed to most visitors and to tour groups in the spring of 2020 and remained closed until March 2022.  Tours are not conducted by the Capitol Police.   

 

None of the January 6 people were tourists or visitors. None of them were authorized to be on the Capitol Grounds or in the building.   

The physical damage done to the building was in the neighborhood of $2.73 million.  I'll leave others to try and determine the amount of damage done to democracy.   

[candide]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Do you approve of accused people not being allowed a defense? Is it fair to force an accused person to have people that harbor irrational hatred(Liz and Adam) for the accused to pretend to act as their defense? Would you like it if you were accused of a crime and only your worst enemy could defend you?

This is the Jan6th achilles heel. By not allowing Trump a defense - who would have showed the clips TC showed to give proper perspective - they are a sham, something you would find in a fascist country.

 

 Think of it like this. If Nancy P was accused of some ridiculous nonsense, and only David DePape and Donald Trump could defend her in a trial. Would you consider such a crazy court to be "biased"?

1. It was not a trial

2. Trump and some of his aids refused to testify.

3. I don't see how a video of the 'Shaman' followed by officers may provide a defense to Trump. The Shaman is a completely neglectible element and has never been in the focus of the Jan.6 committee. Another storm in a teacup....