2nd night on Jan 6 video

Not that much new, mostly more of the same, except that it turns out that the Jan 6th committee falsified evidence, adding screams and other sound effects to CCTV video that had no sound track.

The truth is just not in them.

In other news, from the Dominion suit, it turns out that Carlson hates Trump “passionately” and looks forward to the day we never have to discuss him again. The issue isn’t Trump, it’s the dishonesty of the Jan 6 Committee.

61 thoughts on “2nd night on Jan 6 video

  1. Falsified evidence? Was there a trial? I must have missed it.

    There is plenty of evidence that the Capitol was filled with screams, chants, shouting, cries, etc. Combining those sounds with the video of people making them is falsifying nothing. But thanks for the example of the silly pettiness of someone who could not be bothered to watch the most significant Congression hearings in decades.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Actually, this confirms my judgment.

      I pretty much assumed that the Jan 6 Committee would produce nothing but lies and deception, and it turns out I was correct.


          1. They added appropriate sound to a silent video. That is not falsifying anything. That you only come back with this confirms you got nothing except empty name-calling. No lies. No deception. Just your usual hollow bullshit.


          2. If there had been a banner across the bottom saying “imagined soundtrack added” it might have been honest, but absent notification that the sound was added, it is falsifying the record.

            Until all media with the resources to sort through the 44,000 hours have had their chance, we won’t have the full picture.

            But there is clearly cherry picking from both points of view.


          3. “But there is clearly cherry picking from both points of view.”

            Yeah, pulling evidence of a crime out of countless hours of essentially nothing is “cherry-picking.” Damn those cops pulling the moment the robber takes out his gun and kills the clerk out of hours of video showing nothing. Cherry-pickers!

            Well, as you say, Tucker is cherry-picking too and STILL comes up with nothing of any import.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “Until all media”…

            What ALL THE MEDIA? The only “media” that has all of the footage is Tucker, “I hate him passionately” Carlson. Until ALL media outlets have the same tapes, then there is no “full picture”.

            But the videos that were presented by the 1/6 Committee told enough of the story that there was a violent attempt to overthrow the election and change the will of the MAJORITY of voters AND the Electoral College. Showing quiet moments during the several hours of the attack is akin to showing videos of soldiers on R&R during a war.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. All media?

            Some of those videos reveal escape routes and security measures,

            One of the tasks entrusted to Carlson’s staff is to protect that information.

            I agree it is important that the safe videos be widely shared but there are some media outlets that cannot be trusted with security information.


          6. You said “all media”. Now you are saying the only one that can be trusted to not reveal security related info and has the resources is a lying, pandering, talking head from the least trustworthy “news” company going today?

            That is RICH.

            Newsmax, CNN, and several other trust worthy news organizations could do as good a job, if not better, than Tucker’s Team of Trump Love/Hate producers. They ALL have the same kind of resources.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. I didn’t say anything about only FOX,

            I said some media cannot be trusted with sensitive video.,

            For example, some media have a history of publishing known stolen or leaked material.


          8. Sneaky jab at Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers?

            You said “all Media”. ONLY Fix has it. Now you are attempting to backtrack by saying some media can’t be trusted. Faux News, through the words of its own people, have made it clear that they cannot be trusted. Unless it is to do the bidding of their GOP masters and telling their audience ONLY what they wan to hear.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. You probably should read what I write before responding.

            I suggested the responsible media create a clearinghouse to screen what must be withheld from those who are not trsutworty.


          10. That should have happened before McCarthy handed everything asked for by Faux News’ Carlson. It should have gone out to all responsible media at the same time.

            This is similar to Barr’s handling of the Mueller Report. He had it and could spin how ever he wanted and people ended up ignoring half of what was said, simply because Barr said nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

            The pertinent video, which showed the violence of that day, was seen 1) live and 2) with the 1/6 Committee’s presentation. Are are you denying that what happened is what happened on 1/6?

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “I suggested the responsible media create a clearinghouse to screen what must be withheld from those who are not trsutworty.”

            Going for laughs? If such a clearinghouse were operating Fox News would not be allowed anywhere near any such material. Do you no follow the news? A lot of very interesting information is coming out as a result of their defamation of Dominion.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “What stolen or leaked national security information has FOX published?”

            What part of the proven fact that they lie all the time do you think is not important. And if you really are worried about “Deep State” excesses then you would chide Fox News for keeping things hidden that other organizations refused to hide. A check on the government is the primary purpose of a Free Press, is it not?

            Liked by 1 person

          13. Read that back and tells me it in any way answers the question.

            The only reason to deny access to a news organization in the long term would be to protect security information.

            Your editorial judgment of what they do with it is irrelevant. That’s what freedom of the press is.


          14. “Read that back and tells me it in any way answers the question.”

            The real answer is I do not know. And it is not worth researching. It is not a sensible test of who should have gotten this dump of security videos.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. “All media?”

            The Speaker of the House, having reached his long time goal, ought to grow a pair. This outrageous dump of sensitive material exclusively to Tucker Carlson was forced on him by the crazies in his caucus that he must now constantly mollify to keep his post. They own him. This was a chance to set himself free but he is too timid and unimaginative.

            I promise you that the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, and any other major news organizations are fully as capable as Tucker Carlson to handle senstitive materials according to terms agreed.

            But, giving it ONLY to Tucker basically destroys whatever phony point Tucker might want to make because we have no way of knowing what is on his cutting room floor.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. McCarthy has said the videos will be available to the rest of the media within a few weeks,

            Instead of whining because Carlson got it first, the MSM should be preparing to screen the video and protect the sensitive security information.

            I agree the major media can handle the video as well, but there are some outlets that cannot be trusted so there needs to be some clearinghouse to dispense the sensitive video only to trusted media.


          17. “McCarthy has said the videos will be available to the rest of the media within a few weeks. . .”

            Well, alrighty then.

            With all due respect, your usually silly opinions are getting even sillier. In this case you opine that some media outlets are not trustworthy and need to go through some sort of vetting process. But Fox News is Okay even though we know from sworn testimony that their management cares for ratings and not for the truth and that their principle on-air personalities – including Tucker Carlson – are constantly lying to their viewers to achieve those ratings. In this case those viewers want to hear that nothing much happened on January 6th so that is what Tucker will tell them. And you gobble it up. Silly.

            If Speaker Pelosi had turned over these 44,000 hours of sensitive video exclusively to Rachel Maddow to do with what she might, you would be having conniptions. Don’t try to deny it. But McCarthy giving it to Tucker, just peachy. Like I said, silly and sillier.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Why would the committee need to turn the video over to Maddow? They hired producers from ABC to compile and doctor videos for the committee’s propaganda use.

            The Committee chair has admitted the committee members never viewed the raw footage and relied entirely on what the producers put together.

            So, the leftwing media has had control for a year before anyone got to look for the other points of view.


          19. “Why would the committee need to turn the video over to Maddow? ”

            Nice try at dodging the point. But just a little bit obvious.

            Rachel Maddow does not work for ABC and your labeling ABC as “left wing media” is just more of you silliness. Any organization that eschews spreading “alternative facts” is left wing to you people.

            I really doubt that many members of Congress have the time or the skills needed to edit 44,000 hours of video into a watchable synopsis. So of course they hired professional help. And your baseless assumption of some sort of left wing bias is totally demolished by the fact that Tucker found nothing of import that was left out. Nothing.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. Yes, they hired professionals to pick through 44,000 hours of video to produce the impression they wanted from the start,

            The final product was determined before they started.

            But that final product did not include Trump supporters trying to stop antifa infiltrators from breaching the Capitol, did it?

            Nope, from the ABC version prepared at the Committee’s direction, Antifa wasn’t even there.


          21. Antifa infiltrators?

            I watched this supposedly censored video a number of times. I suggest you do the same and see with your own eyes that the way it is described does not match what is in it. Don’t let some internet troll tell you what is in the video. When I watch it I see one individual beating on a window ineffectively and some other individual stop him. That individual beating on the window is wearing a motorcycle helmet with a Trump bumper sticker on it. We know nothing more than that.

            This “censored” video was first released by Rudi Giuliani two weeks after January 6th according to one of the comments. At any rate, it is obviously not part of the security camera footage that was released to Tucker. Just some troll recycling old news.

            But, for the sake of argument let’s say that the Trump crowd of many thousands contained some Antifa types and some of them got into a scuffle with Trump insurrectionists. So what? That does not change what happened that day.

            Here it is two years later and you are still grasping at straws to prove that Janaury 6th wasn’t what it obviously was – an attempt to hold power through terrorism and violence.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. “The final product was determined before they started.”

            Pretty easy to do when the LIVE coverage of the even showed exactly what was happening. All the 1/6 Committee did was provide further evidence of the violence that DID occur.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. “ The Justice Department this week released a three-hour video of a battle between rioters and the police at the US Capitol Building on January 6 where rioters brandished weapons, officers were viciously beaten, and a member of the mob died on Capitol steps.”

    “The assault on the Lower West Terrace was one of the most violent confrontations between Capitol Police and the crowd. Officers held the line until the building was cleared without letting rioters inside. Some officers have since said they did not know the Capitol had already been breached in other areas.”

    “The video, taken from a Capitol security camera, does not have sound. It starts as officers retreat, helping each other as they stumble inside and washing their eyes out with water from chemical spray. Rioters crowd in behind them, coordinate efforts to attack and push through in infamous moments that have haunted the public, and officers, ever since.”

    This was a CNN story and lost the link. Quotes are verbatim.

    No sound was known a year ago. This CCTV is the battle in the tunnel in case you missed it. Looks damned violent to me, sound or no sound.

    Tourists? Must’ve been pissed off because they bought tickets.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Mitch McConnell and several other Republican Senators do not buy Carlson’s bullshit. They were there. Tucker wasn’t. But you believe him?

    Tucker is merely an entertainer who – according to his lawyers – no reasonable person would believe. But you believe him?

    The Dominion depositions demonstrate unequivocally that Fox News is about feeding its audience what it wants to hear instead of the truth. Tucker is obviously doing that now. But you believe him?


    Liked by 2 people

  4. RE: “The issue isn’t Trump, it’s the dishonesty of the Jan 6 Committee.”

    The issue isn’t Tucker Carlson or Fox News, either. It is no great revelation that one should be skeptical of anything they have to say.

    On Jan. 7, 2021, or thereabouts, I commented in this very Forum that the videos of the capitol riot then being broadcast on TV didn’t look anything like a deadly insurrection to me. I called the crowd behavior a “big bungle,” and nothing has emerged since then to change my initial impression.

    What has emerged, however, is that the big bungle could have been prevented had the Capitol Police been prepared, and that the riot has been shamelessly and falsely promoted as a threat to our democracy.


    1. You were dead wrong then and you are dead wrong now. But, of course your beliefs have not changed. What you people believe is immune to evidence. A violent attempt to stop the peaceful and lawful transfer of power after an election could not be more of a threat to our democracy.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. “ “It’s definitely stupid to keep talking about this … So what is the purpose of continuing to bring it up unless you’re trying to feed Democrat narratives even further?” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview, noting the videos didn’t show “anything we don’t already know.”
            “I don’t really have a problem with making it all public. But if your message is then to try and convince people that nothing bad happened, then it’s just gonna make us look silly.”


            If you don’t believe me, try a conservative member of Congress. He has to face the actual heat from Carlson’s magic show. And, he was there on 1/6.

            BTW, Crenshaw misspoke:

            He said: “…then it’s just gonna make us look silly.”

            He should have used the word “sillier”. IMO

            Liked by 2 people

  5. “The issue isn’t Trump…

    If he had conceded, did not call on a wild rally or not been president we wouldn’t be discussing this at all.

    Trump and MAGA along with his minions created this attack. Whether sound was on or not does not change the evidence. What about the other 39,990hours. Why not show them?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Sure, and if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

      The anti-Trumpers are the beggars in this analogy. Instead of seeing what the new videos reveal, they insist their truth is contained in video they haven’t seen.


      1. The videos are not new, and they reveal that there was SOME quite times during the insurrection and riot. Ignoring the destruction, violence and “shit posting” is a problem.

        You can try to say that nothing really bad happened that day. You would be lying. Along with your new hero, Carlson.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “The videos are not new…”

          Please tell us where we could have seen them before Carlson published his clips.


          1. The news after the attack I recall seeing the people milling around, the later escorted out.

            If a trial takes place when Jack Smith gathers his information, the tapes will come out in discovery. Not some much show anything earthshaking, but to stall the trial for months if not years.

            The attack was very violent. Denying that would be a fool’s errand. No matter of surveillance tapes showing empty areas or no fighting means very little. Except of course that there were empty areas and no fighting in certain places.

            But, as I said we are in a post truth era, so soon I suppose we’ll see “actors” being interviewed. I wonder who got the role of Fanone as he was dragged down the granite steps and pounded over and over. Maybe Alex has some contacts among the school shootings. 😇

            Liked by 2 people

      2. Anti-Trumpers?

        Like the Minority Leader of the Senate?

        The Carlson video dump does not reveal a damn thing that was not already known. We have all seen videos of people quietly milling around inside the Capitol. What has he added to that? Zilch.

        Tucker is an entertainer [not to be believed per his lawyers] who thinks his viewers are morons unable to think for themselves and who are waiting to be told what to think. That is the one thing he gets right.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “The Carlson video dump does not reveal a damn thing that was not already known.”

          Really? Have you seen video of Officer Sicknick after his altercation before? Of the Qanon Shaman being escorted around the building by police officers?

          I see no reason to measure truth and reality based on your inferences and interpretations.


          1. “Have you seen video of Officer Sicknick after his altercation before?”

            We already knew he died the next day. A video of him walking around adds nothing of importance to that information.

            As for the Shaman being escorted, we also already knew that Capitol Police went very far – I would say too far – to defuse the situation by accomodating the criminals. In this case, the Shaman was being politely asked to leave. He didn’t.

            “I see no reason to measure truth . . .”
            Your loss. I am grounded in reality. You very obviously are not.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Well how about the clip Carson showed that had folks milling around. Ok, but what is the with the full length riot shield. It is either his or he stole it from the police in the attack.

            Either way, a bit odd for tourists.

            Really, that image alone says a lot more than Tucker thinks he showed.

            Again, actors with a script from those that do not like our country much: FOX and “friends”. The US subsidiary of Russia propaganda.

            Liked by 2 people

  6. This sort of loyalty is very impressive. I want all the fanatics to stick with their anti-Trump scenario. Meanwhile, the rest of the country will little by little realize that there was no insurrection, the National Guard was not called because there was a hoax in the making. Etc. This unraveling will be good for America. Purifying, you might say.


    1. I am sure you have a mountain of verifiable evidence to support your theory.

      Perhaps you could share some of it. It must be compelling.

      “The president of the United States is the commander-in-chief for the District of Columbia National Guard. Command is exercised through the secretary of defense and the commanding general, Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), District of Columbia National Guard. The Secretary of Defense has delegated his command authority to the secretary of the Army for the District of Columbia Army National Guard and the secretary of the Air Force for the District of Columbia Air National Guard. The District of Columbia National Guard is commanded by a major general with a brigadier general as his or her adjutant general. The mayor of the District of Columbia, the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, or the National Capital Service director may request the commander-in-chief to aid them in suppressing insurrection and enforcement of the law; however, there is no chain of authority from the District of Columbia to the D.C. National Guard.


      Now, considering the CIC, the president, is in charge, the lack of deployment is up to him. It makes no difference if anyone objects. So yes, there was a hoax. The hoax that Trump couldn’t have called on the guard well before the rally, and certainly during the violence.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. …”it’s the dishonesty of the Jan 6 Committee.”

    Right. The dishonesty of the “most trusted source in news” is not an issue. And how can YOU call the committee proceedings dishonest? You didn’t even watch.

    There was NO dishonesty from the 1/6 Committee. Unless you don’t believe what we all watched on the actual day. It was not a sightseeing trip run amok. It was not a bunch of tourists who had too much to drink and got out of hand. It was an attack on the seat of our government, planned and executed by those loyal to a man over loyalty to the country.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Pretty much spot on. “Hang Mike Pence” was just the icing on the turd pile.

      It has come to light that those who say it a little scuffle never bothered to check 1/6. Like Mafiosa killings “I never saw nuttin’”.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Weak-minded. You think this helps your phony narrative?

        (a) You do not get out of the consequences of your actions with a statement that you are now going to stop committing the crime and go home.

        (b) It confirms that these violent thugs were acting on orders from Donald Trump. It is over when HE says its over and he did not say that for MANY hours into the mayhem and violence.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. That video was widely viewed on MSM after the attack. You cannot call it withheld if it was in the public domain. Saw others doing the same thing.

        But I also recall Trump saying “fight like hell”, THAT DAY, but you have a tendency to say that he didn’t mean “physically”. But that would be a large pile of fertilizer.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. So, when lawyers advertise that they’re going to fight the insurance company for you, it means the case will be settled by trial by combat?

          That might be fun.


      3. You would have more authority behind your opinions if you cut down on the lying. This video of the Shaman saying the insurrection was over was not withheld from the defense lawyers. It was broadcast widely at the time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s