, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Just a few things the J6 Committee’s 800+ page final report did not address:

*Nancy Pelosi’s utter failure to provide adequate manpower to protect the Capitol, including her refusal to accept President Trump’s repeated offers of National Guard troops.

*Any explanation for the “suicides” of two Capitol Police Officers immediately following J6.

*The numbers and roles of FBI and other federal agents and/or informants in sparking violence.

*Any recommendations for strengthening Capitol security and preventing recurrences.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell demonstrated his membership in the Uniparty, and his disdain for Normal Americans:

‘It was a mistake, in my view, for Fox News to depict this in a way that’s completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official at the Capitol thinks,’ McConnell said to reporters on Tuesday.

NOTE: I have not been able to find the text of Chief Thomas Manger’s internal memo. When I do, I’ll link to it or print it in its entirety.

And one of America’s foremost liars and political opportunists, Chuck Schumer advocated for censoring the media before they mediaed again: 

I and so many others who were here are just furious with Tucker Carson. With disregard of the risks and knowing full well he was lying, lying to his audience, Fox News host Tucker Carlson ran a lengthy segment last night, arguing the January 6 Capitol attack was not a violent insurrection.

And of course, it wasn’t, not by common sense, nor by the language of statute, which is U.S.C. 2383:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

No, merely disagreeing with a policy or decision, or the outcome of an election, or exercising one’s First Amendment right to protest is not rebellion or insurrection.  Were that so, a great many D/S/Cs would be prosecutable.  How do we know there was no insurrection? No one was armed, which makes for an odd insurrection. The “violent insurrectionists” as they’ve been termed, voluntarily left after a few hours, and the Congress completed its business for the day. Most telling, a DOJ absolutely determined to throw every book in existence at anyone present on Jan. 6, has not charged anyone with insurrection, because there is no evidence to support the charge. Schumer continued:

‘To say January 6 was not violent is a lie, a lie pure and simple. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a prime-time cable news anchor manipulate his viewers the way Mr. Carlson did last night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an anchor treat the American people and American democracy with such disdain.

‘And he’s going to come back tonight with another segment,’ Schumer warned. ‘Fox News should tell him not to. Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, tell Carlson not to run a second segment of lies.’

Neither Carlson nor I have ever denied there was violence on Jan. 6. We have both, in our respective venues—as I did in part 12 of the Capital Coverup series (the Capital Coverup archive is here)–repeatedly acknowledged there was violence and what is most accurately termed a riot, and affirmed that anyone committing a crime should be prosecuted, but not persecuted. In fact, on Tuesday’s program, Carlson showed several video clips of the huge, crowds outside the Capitol, where virtually all the violence took place. In making such a claim, Schumer does what he constantly does: lie. Carlson engaged in no manipulation—quite the opposite–as I’ll explain shortly. As one might expect, CNN jumped on a self-destructive, save-the-narrative-at-any-cost, bandwagon:

*CNN is now broadcasting “danger” warnings as Fox News host Tucker Carlson gets exclusive access to January 6th footage showing what really unfolded on Capitol Hill after the 2024 election.

*On ‘CNN This Morning,’ Katilan Collins baselessly suggested that Tucker Carlson is trying to ‘rewrite’ history and ‘sanitize’ it by daring to release segments of important footage of the event showing that not all protestors were engaging in hostile behavior.

I viewed Tucker Carlson Tonight on Tuesday, March 7, 2023. He played little video, but did respond to critics, and commented on the state of our media. My notes:

Carlson observed Schumer called Carlson’s reporting on J6 “the big lie,” which is more D/S/C projection. He also reported Schumer said Carlson’s reporting is “just asking for another January 6 to happen.” Not quite, Chuck. Ignoring the intelligence and political failures that allowed the first one to happen in favor of getting Donald Trump is asking for another J6 to happen, though. Schumer is telling a private company to censor on government’s behalf. It hasn’t worked so far. He probably knows when non-government employees act on behalf of government, they become government agents, governed by the same rules, but it’s certain he doesn’t care and doesn’t believe he’ll ever face consequences for trying to violate the First Amendment, which he swore to uphold. He’s probably right.

Carlson also observed Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, and of course, Schumer, in attacking Carlson, revealed they’re all on the same side. Andrea Widberg also names John Thune, Kevin Cramer, Lindsay Graham and Mike Rounds. It’s not a matter of left or right, but of shared interests. In this, Carlson is surely right. As he put it, the people in power lied to get more power. By their lights, anyone daring to counter the approved Uniparty narrative is a danger to “our democracy.”

Carlson explained the security failure was largely Pelosi’s. “The Capitol Police were not prepared for what happened.” Front line officers weren’t informed and weren’t prepared. Carlson interviewed former 22-year CP Lt. Tarek Johnson, who said he was never called to testify. He proceeded to explain why: his testimony would have obliterated the narrative and placed the blame on the security failure where it belonged. He confirmed that none of his radio calls for assistance that day were answered, and CP brass did not prepare front line officers. He said they knew there was going to be a demonstration, but had no idea that what happened was possible.

Later outside, Johnson heard a radio call for backup from officers inside the building. As he worked to get through the crowd, someone put a red MAGA hat on his head, and he kept it, using it to get through the crowd. When photos of that hat later surfaced, he was suspended and forced to resign without his pension. Punishment for a MAGA hat, but none for Lt. Michael Byrd’s murder of Ashli Babbitt.

Johnson said before J6, the then CP Chief, Steven Sund, called the force together and confirmed they were always to be non-partisan, something Johnson said the front line troops always knew and believed in, but after J6, that all changed. Sund was quickly forced to resign.

That day, when the building was breached, the house and senate chambers were locked down. The legislators were safe. Johnson repeated called by radio for permission to evacuate them, but no one would respond to him, so he ordered the evacuation himself. Carlson played video of Johnson doing just that.

Journalist Julie Kelly, who is among those who have honestly covered these issues, noted at least 100 J6 defendants have been in pre-trial detention without bail for the last two years, most charged with non-violent offenses. She observed the “real villains” are the DC judges who have denied defendants due process and right to a speedy trial. She said there have been, to date, 1000 defendants, about half of which have plead guilty or been convicted. Why would they do that if they were innocent? Because traveling across the nation to answer misdemeanor charges is far too expensive for most people. Also because they know government prosecutors have unlimited resources, they can’t get a fair trial, and likely, their lawyers were able to get at least a little consideration for plea bargains so the DOJ could brag about their J6 conviction rate.

Carlson then got into the meat of Tuesday’s segment: the media’s complicity and hypocrisy. He said to his knowledge, the rest of the media never asked for the J6 footage until he had it. To my knowledge, none have contradicted Carlson. That’s because they’re a part of the D/S/C establishment, and had a monopoly on the narrative. Why would they do anything to damage that narrative?

Carlson pointed out it used to be the job of news organizations to get the news and honestly report it so Americans could decide for themselves. Getting things of intense public interest like the J6 videos would seem to be the sort of thing the media should want. Carlson then played a montage of media talking heads desperately trying to prop up the narrative by attacking Carlson. All were faux-outraged Carlson actually got the video, information that is actually the property of the public. On CNN, film maker Ken Burns played the “Russia!” card, claiming what Carlson is doing is “Soviet tactics.”

As Carlson noted, the media’s reaction is panic, fear of losing power, of losing the narrative they’ve spent two years building and propping up.

I also watched a bit of Hannity. He still drives me crazy by speechifying all over his guests, who have only a few seconds to say anything before being interrupted, but tonight, Hannity was more restrained. He observed the only people allowed on the J6 Committee were those who voted for the impeachment of Donald Trump. He too noted the Committee’s final report made no mention of how to prevent recurrences.

He produced a January 31st report on NBC(?!) of the Committee Chief Investigator, who said J6 was not an intelligence failure on the part of the FBI, DHS and other agencies, but largely contradicted himself by saying they didn’t act on the intel. He said if the Capitol Police were properly informed about the available intel, they could have done a better job. The Committee made no mention of such failures in their final report.

Hannity also interviewed Steven Sund, the chief of the Capitol Police on January 6. It was at best, a mediocre, brief interview, the kind where I found myself yelling at the screen “why don’t you ask him X or Y obvious question?!” Still, there was some substance.

Sund confirmed he repeatedly asked his superiors, such as Paul Irving, the Sergeant of Arms of the House on J. 6, for help. Sund characterized Irving as his superior and Pelosi’s appointee, but did not identify him as the House Sergeant at Arms, though he later explained he answered to three people: the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate and the Architect of the Capitol. He said he asked Irving for additional help on January 3, but Irving said “I don’t like the optics,” which Sund suggested was pretty much the stock answer to every request for manpower.

NOTE: This likely refers to D/S/C’s reluctance to use force to stop “mostly peaceful protests.” J6 came on the heels of the 2020 “summer of love,” and its innumerable arson-laced mostly peaceful protests. Pelosi and others didn’t want to be accused of using lawful force to stop their storm troopers, to their way of thinking the resulting video would be, “bad optics.” Their concerns for public safety, even the safety of the Congress, were decidedly secondary, if they rose to that level.

Sund said as CP Chief, he was prevented by law from calling in federal resources. He had to have the permission of the House Sgt. at Arms, which means, the permission of Nancy Pelosi. He said he asked for National Guard reinforcements that day not because of any specific intelligence he had been given, but because he had a huge perimeter to guard, and knew he didn’t have the manpower to properly cover it without help. That request, and every other request prior to J6 was denied.

On January 6, things were going badly and he again asked for help, but had to wait 71 minutes for a reply. By then, it was far too late. The building was breached at 80 minutes. He didn’t say this, but by the time the Guard could have been mobilized and arrived, the protestors would have been long gone.

Sund said he had never seen intel dissemination handled so poorly before, even for much less threatening events.

Hannity asked about the refusal of Washington’s Mayor and Pelosi to grant his requests for the National Guard. Sund replied: “it really tied our hands.” He ended the all too brief interview by confirming the J6 Committee never had him testify, and they should have had more security measures in place. No mention was made of Donald Trump’s rejected offer of thousands of troops.

Final Thoughts: Carlson promised more video on Wednesday’s program, which I will cover. The evening’s program is yet another example of why Americans no longer trust the Legacy media, and why CNN is fast circling the drain. He’s right: when the media no longer serve the public, but choose to play partisan politics, virtually never admitting when they’re wrong, they throw away their credibility, and their viewership.

I don’t remember the exact date, but if memory serves, Time Magazine, in the 1970s, announced it would no longer objectively report Second Amendment issues. It would, from that point forward, advocate for gun control. That was in the days when Time was a more or less respected news source. I stopped reading Time that day.  When any “news” organization makes the decision to advocate rather than report for one issue, they’ve made it for all, and will inevitably act on that conviction for all.

How far have we fallen, gentle readers, that it is now normal and expected for the media to refuse to do what news organizations should: find the truth, regardless of where it leads, honestly report it, and let Americans make up their minds. I don’t for a moment think Tucker Carlson perfect, just as I don’t think any politician a savior, however, I find him more often than not right, and willing to acknowledge mistakes. I spend considerable time doing research every day. I do not rely on Carlson any more than I rely solely on any source for news, and I always provide links and other attribution for my sources so you can make your own decisions.

Yet here we are. Most of the media is attacking one of the only reporters/analysts in the country that is providing Americans with the whole story, with the raw visual data necessary to understand a significant event. That does not bode well for our national survival.

More as it develops.