Exclusive: McCarthy gives Tucker Carlson access to trove of Jan. 6 riot tape

[ZiprHead]

Exclusive: Kevin McCarthy gives Tucker Carlson access to massive trove of Jan. 6 riot tape

Exclusive: Carlson producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds.

www.axios.com

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given Fox News' Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 41,000 hours of Capitol surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 riot, McCarthy sources tell me.

• Carlson TV producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks.

Why it matters: Carlson has repeatedly questioned official accounts of 1/6, downplaying the insurrection as "vandalism."

• Now his shows — "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Fox News, and "Tucker Carlson Today" and "Tucker Carlson Originals" on the streaming service Fox Nation — have a massive trove of raw material.

Carlson told me: "[T]here was never any legitimate reason for this footage to remain secret."

• "If there was ever a question that's in the public's interest to know, it's what actually happened on January 6. By definition, this video will reveal it. It's impossible for me to understand why any honest person would be bothered by that."

Reality check: The Jan. 6 committee played numerous excerpts of the footage at last year's captivating hearings. (See the committee's archive.)

Between the lines: The process with Carlson started in early February, according to a communication between the show and a McCarthy representative that I was shown.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is that legal? I suppose he can share the docs, but if he shares with one, does he need to give to those that ask?

 

[marc]

Results of this that I can see

1. The phrase "The videos do not show X", which will be a lie. Whatever it is, they will claim it never happened no matter how clear it is in the videos, and his audience will believe it because they won't watch the videos

2. The phrase "The videos DO show Y", which will be a lie, but people and media won't be able to push back because they don't have access to the videos.

3. Some edited clips shown to misrepresent events. Very likely showing police not doing anything as protesters pass them at one of the entrances

4. Any videos that shows sensitive information, (building layout, emergency protocols, etc) will get leaked, either to the public, certain political groups, or even other governments.

 

[Oleg]

Is that legal? I suppose he can share the docs, but if he shares with one, does he need to give to those that ask?

Why were they not previously released?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is that legal? I suppose he can share the docs, but if he shares with one, does he need to give to those that ask?

Why were they not previously released?

Can't say. I can say that the video evidence has gotten a lot of people prison time. And there isn't much suspicion that the riot didn't happen. We saw what was happening when the woman was shot for trying to cross a firewall. We saw a Republican GOP Senator coward fleeing. We saw guns of Secret Service (?) or upper level Capitol security out as they were postured to end the lives of people trying to break into the Chambers with Representatives in it.

What are you expecting these thousands of videos to show? Are these going to be like the documents the W Admin released that the Right-Wing alt-media claimed would prove Syria had Iraq's WMDs, even when the W Admin admitted the documents didn't show as such?

 

[Oleg]

What are you expecting these thousands of videos to show? Are these going to be like the documents the W Admin released that the Right-Wing alt-media claimed would prove Syria had Iraq's WMDs, even when the W Admin admitted the documents didn't show as such?

Why are you afraid of government transparency?

 

[Gospel]

Is that legal? I suppose he can share the docs, but if he shares with one, does he need to give to those that ask?

Why were they not previously released?

Great question. I'd also like to ask why only to Tucker Carlson?

 

[Elixir]

Why are you afraid of government transparency?

Uh, because it is being granted only to the propaganda arm of the GQP, not to the public?

 

[Oleg]

Is that legal? I suppose he can share the docs, but if he shares with one, does he need to give to those that ask?

Why were they not previously released?

Great question. I'd also like to ask why only to Tucker Carlson?

And why isn't the media establishment demanding similar access? Weird.

 

[Oleg]

Why are you afraid of government transparency?

Uh, because it is being granted only to the propaganda arm of the GQP, not to the public?

Good point. NPR, MSNBC, CBS, NYT, and the rest are raising a storm that they haven't been given access. Oh, wait.

 

[Elixir]

Oh, wait.

I'm waiting.
Why haven't the alphabet soup of mainstream media, and - more important - THE PUBLIC - been given access to the material that the corrupt and compromised Speaker gave to the propaganda channel?
Oh, wait - he is the corrupt and compromised Speaker.
Never mind.

 

[Oleg]

Oh, wait.

I'm waiting.
Why haven't the alphabet soup of mainstream media, and - more important - THE PUBLIC - been given access to the material that the corrupt and compromised Speaker gave to the propaganda channel?
Oh, wait - he is the corrupt and compromised Speaker.
Never mind.

Why is it that only the right-leaning media and pundits have been demanding full release of the videos these last couple years? Why is the establishment media so disinterested in evidence of the InSURecTIoN. Nothing precluded Pelosi from letting the media look at it. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What are you expecting these thousands of videos to show? Are these going to be like the documents the W Admin released that the Right-Wing alt-media claimed would prove Syria had Iraq's WMDs, even when the W Admin admitted the documents didn't show as such?

Why are you afraid of government transparency?

Did I say I opposed the release the documents? I said the opposite. I was asking whether providing them to that lump of shit who didn't think the election was stolen but pushed that narrative made it necessary for McCarthy to send the videos to any other media firm that requested it.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, wait.

I'm waiting.
Why haven't the alphabet soup of mainstream media, and - more important - THE PUBLIC - been given access to the material that the corrupt and compromised Speaker gave to the propaganda channel?
Oh, wait - he is the corrupt and compromised Speaker.
Never mind.

Why is it that only the right-leaning media and pundits have been demanding full release of the videos these last couple years? Why is the establishment media so disinterested in evidence of the InSURecTIoN. Nothing precluded Pelosi from letting the media look at it. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The only reason I can think why access might be denied if there tapes are still part of an ongoing criminal investigation which is what was occurring while Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Otherwise, I think anyone who asks for access should have them.

I would guess that the disinterested observers believe there is nothing new on those tapes. After all, there is lots of footage available of the riot.

I would guess that the rightwing media and pundits want access to footage for partisan reasons.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why it matters that Kevin McCarthy gave Jan. 6 tapes to Fox News

Kevin McCarthy gave 41,000 hours of sensitive Jan. 6 footage to a controversial television personality. What could possibly go wrong?

www.msnbc.com

Just so we’re all clear about the nature of the process, the video tapes in question are official government materials. They don’t belong to one member, one party, or one cable channel; they belong to all of us. And yet, there’s the new House speaker, who apparently made a unilateral decision to give one controversial Fox News host exclusive access to 41,000 hours of surveillance footage.

What could possibly go wrong?


Part of the problem with McCarthy’s move is that Carlson lacks credibility on the issue. As Axios’ report noted, Carlson has “repeatedly questioned official accounts of 1/6, downplaying the insurrection as ‘vandalism.’” CNN’s report added, “[H]e has devoted significant airtime to the false claim that liberal ‘deep state’ partisans within the FBI orchestrated the insurrection as a way to undermine former President Donald Trump. He has conducted sympathetic interviews with some of the rioters who were subsequently charged by the Justice Department.”

 

[Elixir]

Oh, wait.

I'm waiting.
Why haven't the alphabet soup of mainstream media, and - more important - THE PUBLIC - been given access to the material that the corrupt and compromised Speaker gave to the propaganda channel?
Oh, wait - he is the corrupt and compromised Speaker.
Never mind.

Why is it that only the right-leaning media and pundits have been demanding full release of the videos these last couple years? Why is the establishment media so disinterested in evidence of the InSURecTIoN.

Uh, you obviously weren't paying attention when the left leaning media aired full evidence of the traitors' "InSURecTIoN".
They held hearings for months, with witnesses, video tape, voice recordings and first hand testimony. Why was the right wing propaganda channel so disinterested? Why would you expect them to air 42,000 hours of security camera footage instead of investigating the treasonous attempt to overthrow a free and fair election?

Nothing precluded Pelosi from letting the media look at it. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Except common sense. Was there any compelling reason to dilute the hearings with 42,000 hours of mostly irrelevant sec-cam video?
WHY DIDN'T YOU PAY ATTENTION TO THE HEARINGS, OLLIE?
Afraid of the truth, is my guess.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh, wait.

I'm waiting.
Why haven't the alphabet soup of mainstream media, and - more important - THE PUBLIC - been given access to the material that the corrupt and compromised Speaker gave to the propaganda channel?
Oh, wait - he is the corrupt and compromised Speaker.
Never mind.

Why is it that only the right-leaning media and pundits have been demanding full release of the videos these last couple years? Why is the establishment media so disinterested in evidence of the InSURecTIoN.

The hundreds and hundreds of convictions and pleadings in Federal Court? Also, you seem to be speaking a bit too much for the "establishment".

 

[southernhybrid]

WaPo recently came out with an analysis about this, which I'm gifting to anyone who wants to read it. One has to wonder what made McCarthy think it was okay to give this to Carlson instead of sending it to all news organizations or simply making it public, as if we didn't know.

https://wapo.st/41hf0NF

There’s an app that allows you to take a photo of a large pile of Legos and it will show you different things you can construct. I admittedly haven’t tried it, but the concept is fascinating; the more you give it, the more you can construct. Theoretically, given a big enough pile of Legos, including pieces of hundreds of different sets, you could cobble together pretty much anything.


This is how it works with information, too. The explosion of data and facts and comments and rhetoric has allowed people to cobble together all sorts of things, from intricate explanations of the human condition to the QAnon conspiracy theory. After all, what is QAnon besides the selective interpretation of various pieces of real-world information? It’s mostly pieces of real things assembled into a deranged narrative. A big pile of facts with plenty of available guides for conspiratorial assembly.
What matters here is the instruction set. If the Lego app only showed you how to make functioning weapons (somehow), our assessment of it would probably be quite different. Who is picking out the pieces controls what is being made.

Which, in a nutshell, is why it’s an extremely bad idea to grant Fox News’s Tucker Carlson the power to construct whatever narrative he wants out of the footage captured at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

 

[Elixir]

WaPo recently came out with an analysis about this, which I'm gifting to anyone who wants to read it. One has to wonder what made McCarthy think it was okay to give this to Carlson instead of sending it to all news organizations or simply making it public, as if we didn't know.

https://wapo.st/41hf0NF

There’s an app that allows you to take a photo of a large pile of Legos and it will show you different things you can construct. I admittedly haven’t tried it, but the concept is fascinating; the more you give it, the more you can construct. Theoretically, given a big enough pile of Legos, including pieces of hundreds of different sets, you could cobble together pretty much anything.


This is how it works with information, too. The explosion of data and facts and comments and rhetoric has allowed people to cobble together all sorts of things, from intricate explanations of the human condition to the QAnon conspiracy theory. After all, what is QAnon besides the selective interpretation of various pieces of real-world information? It’s mostly pieces of real things assembled into a deranged narrative. A big pile of facts with plenty of available guides for conspiratorial assembly.
What matters here is the instruction set. If the Lego app only showed you how to make functioning weapons (somehow), our assessment of it would probably be quite different. Who is picking out the pieces controls what is being made.

Which, in a nutshell, is why it’s an extremely bad idea to grant Fox News’s Tucker Carlson the power to construct whatever narrative he wants out of the footage captured at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

I think you have ventured into territory here that lies beyond Oleg’s ken. But the “mountain of legos” analogy is pretty good.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is that legal? I suppose he can share the docs, but if he shares with one, does he need to give to those that ask?

Why were they not previously released?

Maybe Tucker demanded dinner and a movie first.