Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will Tucker’s Access to J6 Video Make a Difference?
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has granted exclusive access to producers from Tucker Carlson Tonight to review “all” of the January 6 video stored by the House. This is being touted as a bombshell event that will finally get at the truth of the January 6 event as a set-up by Progressive actors in Congress and the Deep State. But will it?
I don’t think so. And there are four reasons:
- It is not clear whether the producers will see all of the video, and even if they do there will be limits on broadcasting portions of the video if it is determined by Speaker McCarthy as revealing security measures that are deemed too sensitive for disclosure.
- Of necessity, the public will see video clips when and if they are broadcast, therefore, there can always be claims that the editing misrepresents what happened.
- Portions of the country will automatically believe that whatever Tucker says or claims is a lie; many of us who agree with Tucker directionally are aware that sometimes Tucker overclaims.
- Progressives (including their media allies) famously “project” that conservatives will do or are doing exactly what Progressives have done or would do. That is, if the Democrat January 6 Committee Report was a put-up job (and it was), so, too, it will be claimed, is Tucker’s report.
If video shows (and it does) that Capitol police officers held the door for the “paraders” was that because there was a plan to entrap the “paraders” or was it a reasonable response to the threat of a mob? Video will not resolve that question. Only testimony from individuals, recordings of communications traffic, and information that proves or refutes a government plan to foment and entrap, will change the Progressives preferred narrative. And enough Republicans bought into at least part of the narrative that there is personal political peril from having the narrative completely debunked. Speaker McCarthy is amongst them. This is a recipe for strategic ambiguity.
In other words, when Tucker’s series is through — whenever that is — we will all be pretty much where we were before Tucker’s producers got access. Even if or when other media get access, it will simply be “wash, rinse, repeat.”
I wish it were not so. But there it is.
Published in General
Gary will have an uncomfortable time explaining this away. Or he may not even show.
Why wouldn’t other news channels make a big deal out of it?
No big deal, apparently, because everyone’s got $500 just lying around.
Thank you for accepting my challenge. Six defendants who entered the Capitol building during a violent riot, which caused the House and Senate to scatter while they were doing one of the most sacred moments in public life, literally declaring the name of the new President and Vice President.
By analogy, invading a church is a bad thing. Invading a church while people are worshiping is an even worse thing. But invading a church during a wedding or funeral is a travesty. Probation and a modest 120 hours of community service is a very slight sentence given the gravity of the proceeding that they interrupted. Some suggest that a $500 restitution is excessive. I don’t think so. It likely cost far more than that to miss a couple of days of work to fly or drive to DC, get lodging and so forth. In state courts, such a financial sanction can be paid over time. Also, a defendant who literally cannot afford $500.00 can ask for that amount to be decreased.
Only one of these six defendants, Donna Bissey, received any period of incarceration, namely 14 days. But let’s see what she did to merit that?
Here is the Statement of Facts. https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1356556/download.
Here is the Information. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1378451/download
Here is the Criminal Complaint. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1378456/download
Here is the Plea Agreement that the Defendant signed. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1415956/download
Here is the Statement of Offense. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1415956/download
Is my conscience shocked? No. I don’t have a problem with this one of the six listed defendants receiving a modest 2 weeks in jail. She was not merely a person who happened to be in the area who entered the capitol unknowing that she was disrupting Congress and the declaration of Biden as the winner. Her social media posts conclusively show that she knowingly and deliberately invaded the capitol with the intention of disrupting Congress and the electoral vote count.
You worship the wrong things.
Oh. So much for freedom of speech.
Your social media posts show that you wanted Trump executed, his children exiled from the United States, and executed should they try to return.
What if that were used against you?
FIFY
Was she held under arrest at the time? No. The FBI sleuths arrested her in Indiana months later and made her come back to DC to be arraigned which was a totally proportional use of law enforcement resources to get someone who spent exactly 10 minutes in the Capitol. W0nder what did this top drawer high-priority investigation cost the taxpayers?
The DOJ recommended probation but the (Obama appointee) judge said that it would be a burden of probation services and so jail would be better. Isn’t that the reverse of the usual sentencing logic– don’t they have probation officers in Indiana? If there were to be a national Nevertrump HQ it could easily be the DC Superior Courthouse.
The spectacular lack of proportion in this case is kinda the whole point, Gary.
It would be perfectly fine, constitutionally, to use that against Gary if he’s subsequently charged with trespassing at the White House or menacing or threatening, or something like that. A person’s statements, political or otherwise, that tend to help prove criminal intent or, for sentencing purposes, are relevant to the likelihood of further offenses, are routinely used and always have been. Freedom of speech, as understood at common law, and as written into the 1st Amendment is not so broad as to protect people from those kinds of consequences when they are accused of some other crime.
You support thoughtcrimes. Cool cool.
i don’t recall any of these. Please PM me or withdraw this.
Dear Drew,
We are both adults and Ricochet is a civil discussion site.
Best,
Gary
You probably don’t remember spending four years proclaiming the glories of Robert Mueller, either.
You are using one single case to try to prove your point about the over 1,000 other cases that have been filed, and the accusation was only that some people were prosecuted for just walking into the Capital Building, not that there are no exceptions. Is this the logic you argue in Court? And the case you cited wasn’t even bad. As far as I can tell from the affidavit, the worst thing she did was to be in the crush of a crowd that was pushing against a police officer. All the other allegations involve only things she shouted to the crowds like “…we need Americans. Come on guys. We need patriots! You guys, it’s the way in. We need some people, we need some people.” The affidavit cited all sorts of worse stuff done by others in the crowd, as if that somehow taints her own guilt. But it seems like just a “padding” of the report to make things seem worse. And for this she gets two weeks in jail?
Just because you don’t recall them doesn’t mean I don’t recall them. And who’s to say you didn’t go back and redact them just now?
That was the second of your two challenges.
Several cases have been pointed out where the facts alleged in the charging documents are consistent with that.
Other of the cases have charging documents with specific factual allegations of acts such as the defendant pulling down a barrier and embedded support such as stills from video recordings showing such acts.
The absence of such facts is the dog that did not bark.
It’s just the law. If you don’t like it, I understand, even if I think you’re overreacting, and off the mark with the thoughtcrime characterization.
This has been the law for centuries, i.e. the right of free speech does not protect one’s speech from use as relevant evidence in a criminal case, and does not seem to have any significant impact on the free exchange of ideas, so I’m good with it.
I feel for the Russia Hoax and admitted that some time ago after reading AG Barr’s book.
However I never said that I wanted Trump to be executed. I never said that I wanted his children be exiled from the United States. I never said that Trump’s children should be executed.
Great. Show your cards. Or withdraw your statement.
Excuse me. One person was pointed out. I did a deep dive. See Comment #63. She was not a tourist who had no idea of what was happening. She deliberately entered the Capitol, which stopped the electoral count and bragged about it. 14 days incarceration was proportionate.
You are changing the rules you set forth. First you had “If you know of a single defendant who is still being held, or charged, who only walked through an open door, please name him or her, and let’s both look that defendant up. ” Then that changed. Your “entered the Capitol peacefully” has apparently become “entered the Capitol unknowingly”.
But even then, where charging documents do not allege anything more than unlawful entry/presence (and the disorderly conduct charge is not backed by any factual allegation beyond entry/presence) your test fails. How does your new rule not apply to someone who walked through an open door and did no other act not inherent in that?
Or are you requiring your opponents to disprove unspecified facts that are not even alleged in the charging documents?
See #56.
This is 1984-type memory holing. The BBC would have us believe that no one had ever heard of Brian Sicknick until Tucker Carlson brought him up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64883668