ADVERTISEMENT

BREAKING: Speaker McCarthy releases the Jan 6th video tapes

I’m very serious. Giving anything like this to one source is silly. And yes, I understand the liberal media bias. But I don’t trust any news source to shoot it straight.
I suspect that Tucker is getting it first. That's intentional so that his team can find the most egregious evidence of wrongdoing and highlight that.

Which will further intensify the public outcry to see it all.

Then McCarthy announces they have set up a website where you can view all the footage.

That's what I suspect will happen.

EDIT: Or even better, post it all on YouTube. YouTube will immediately pull it. That further demonstrates how corrupt big tech has become.
 
I’m very serious. Giving anything like this to one source is silly. And yes, I understand the liberal media bias. But I don’t trust any news source to shoot it straight.
As stated above...that is EXACTLY what has happened up to this point. Only the stuff got shown that strengthened the witch hunt. Lets let the stuff they refused to show get out.
 
I suspect that Tucker is getting it first. That's intentional so that his team can find the most egregious evidence of wrongdoing and highlight that.

Which will further intensify the public outcry to see it all.

Then McCarthy announces they have set up a website where you can view all the footage.

That's what I suspect will happen.

EDIT: Or even better, post it all on YouTube. YouTube will immediately pull it. That further demonstrates how corrupt big tech has become.
Totally down with what you stated above. I have zero issue with giving someone the jump on the story. It happens all the time….You stated it welll above and that’s basically my point. Put it out there for all to see.
 
I’m very serious. Giving anything like this to one source is silly. And yes, I understand the liberal media bias. But I don’t trust any news source to shoot it straight.

J6 video tapes will also be available for all J6 defendants. All 42,000+ hours.


axios.com
Exclusive: Kevin McCarthy gives Tucker Carlson access to massive trove of Jan. 6 riot tape. Why???
Carlson producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds.


It is now in the public domain, so everyone will have access to the 42,000 hours, not just what the DC Rats wanted to put out there to suit their corrupt biased driven narratives.... 🤓
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capt Ron 1
This is the same goober that once got hoodwinked by a morning radio show into believing they were Russians who had the Trump pee tape.

And @kalimgoodman claims MTG is stupid.
LOL........we need to find that yourtube link (if they haven't scrubbed it) and make a new thread just for @kalimgoodman . 😂 If I'm not mistaken there is a famous meme that was spawned off of that phone call, the narratives just change with the subject matter.......and bunch of DJ's hysterically laughing. 😂


 
Last edited:
Great question. Another great question...why weren't they always available to the defendants???

By not making them available, one certainly wonders what the previous regime didn't want us to see. Maybe nothing but it's a natural question, no?

If they're guilty of crimes then by all means convict them. But convicting people of crimes while hiding potentially exculpatory evidence, that sounds more show-trial-ish.
These is going to be interesting.
 
Why give it to just Tucker? That’s no different than Pelosi giving something of this magnitude only to Don Lemon. What could possible go wrong with letting a news personality who is compensated by ratings cherry pick what they want to - oh I don’t know - drive ratings.

Release it so anyone can see it and we can draw out own conclusions.
You see it. Especially Tucker, who attorney admitted he lies for rating and was caught lying again. It's a known conclusion that he will tailor the videos for his viewers.
 
These is going to be interesting.
Here you go Kal. This ain't it, but it will do until I find it. 😂

7c02uf.jpg
 
THIS is your typical lefty right here...and 100% the reason NO ONE will EVER take ANY of my guns away. This qualifies as trying to take away free speech, somethin g EVERY American is granted in the Constitution of the United States of America. I WILL fight for my freedoms...just like our founding Fathers had to.
 
J6 video tapes will also be available for all J6 defendants. All 42,000+ hours.


axios.com
Exclusive: Kevin McCarthy gives Tucker Carlson access to massive trove of Jan. 6 riot tape. Why???
Carlson producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds.


It is now in the public domain, so everyone will have access to the 42,000 hours, not just what the DC Rats wanted to put out there to suit their corrupt biased driven narratives.... 🤓
I thought hiding evidence from the defense/defendant is illegal in this country. BUT of course, its a House Committee clown show, so I guess they have different rules to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: instaGATOR
The best part of MTG calling for a national divorce is this: Every time there's a story like this where it clearly displays the corruption of the left and NOTHING is done, all we can say is "This is more proof of why we need a national divorce".

Eventually it is going to happen. I don't think we will have civil war, but we will at least strengthen states rights so blue states are the ones that have to suffer the absurdity of their policies, and not the rest of us.

Sorry dems. Elections have consequences, especially stolen ones.
 
Totally down with what you stated above. I have zero issue with giving someone the jump on the story. It happens all the time….You stated it welll above and that’s basically my point. Put it out there for all to see.
I think that is going to happen. I think McCarthy wants the brain dead zombies to be forced to see it first on FOX before the spinsters get ahold of it. Poor Kalim, Ghost of Lil Dickey and BScuck will be forced to tune into FOX news. 😂

a-clock-work-a-clockwork-orange.gif
 
This man is outside of his freaking head.

I'm not a fan of Fox News myself but talks of deplatforming a News agency...holy crap man.

I think MSNBC is absolute trash and at times dangerous...but would I deplatform it? No, because I'm not a certifiable nut.
I agree with this. Yes, you've been consistent about not liking/watching Fox.

I do think Fox should lose it's credentials as a news organization. This is like the 3rd time I can recall them being sued and either being caught or admitting that they lie for rating. You have to admit that's dangerous?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: instaGATOR
I agree with this. Yes, you've been consistent about not liking/watching Fox.

I do think Fox should lose it's credentials as a news organization. This is like the 3rd time I can recall them being sued and either being caught or admitting that they lie for rating. You have to admit that's dangerous?
Proud Hiden voter is talking about other people being dangerous.
 
I agree with this. Yes, you've been consistent about not liking/watching Fox.

I do think Fox should lose it's credentials as a news organization. This is like the 3rd time I can recall them being sued and either being caught or admitting that they lie for rating. You have to admit that's dangerous?

You cannot toy with the 1st Amendment. Period. Journalists can be sued for things like libel or slander but when the government starts making choices on things like who gets to report the news, all is lost.

That's not an overstatement...it would fundamentally change who and what we are as a nation. So strongly disagree...even if we're talking about MSNBC instead of Fox.
 
You cannot toy with the 1st Amendment. Period. Journalists can be sued for things like libel or slander but when the government starts making choices on things like who gets to report the news, all is lost.

That's not an overstatement...it would fundamentally change who and what we are as a nation. So strongly disagree...even if we're talking about MSNBC instead of Fox.
This is why we need a national divorce. The left is fine with throwing the Constitution out the window if it helps them today.
 
I agree with this. Yes, you've been consistent about not liking/watching Fox.
I do think Fox should lose it's credentials as a news organization. This is like the 3rd time I can recall them being sued and either being caught or admitting that they lie for rating. You have to admit that's dangerous?
Are you talking about the Steal and their denial of it? I've already explained that in another thread. Someone with critical thinking skills would understand their denial of it as entertainers is an iron clad legal defense against a defamation suit. :rolleyes:
 
Are you talking about the Steal and their denial of it? I've already explained that in another thread. Someone with critical thinking skills would understand their denial of it as entertainers is an iron clad legal defense against a defamation suit. :rolleyes:
That is your way of making yourself feel better about watching a documented liar.

That's why I am glad that dominion wanted to release their (Fox) text messages because they didn't want them to trick people like you again.

Tucker knows that no matter what, his viewers will always side with him because people can't admit that they were wronged, just see Trump.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: instaGATOR
You cannot toy with the 1st Amendment. Period. Journalists can be sued for things like libel or slander but when the government starts making choices on things like who gets to report the news, all is lost.

That's not an overstatement...it would fundamentally change who and what we are as a nation. So strongly disagree...even if we're talking about MSNBC instead of Fox.
Man, what are you talking about? This has zero to do with the constitution or saying who can report the news.

I'm talking about the special exception that news organizations get to cover the WhiteHouse. Not every paper, channel or internet organization can get the credentials to cover the WhiteHouse. Like Bama couldn't just start an internet blog than request credentials to the WhiteHouse. There are ethics required with those credentials. You can write any "news" you want but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to travel with the WhiteHouse correspondents or have WhiteHouse access. That my friend isn't about the 1st amendment.
 
Man, what are you talking about? This has zero to do with the constitution or saying who can report the news.

I'm talking about the special exception that news organizations get to cover the WhiteHouse. Not every paper, channel or internet organization can get the credentials to cover the WhiteHouse. Like Bama couldn't just start an internet blog than request credentials to the WhiteHouse. There are ethics required with those credentials. You can write any "news" you want but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to travel with the WhiteHouse correspondents or have WhiteHouse access. That my friend isn't about the 1st amendment.
So you support fascism.

A hallmark of fascism is the forcible suppression of media that criticizes the government.

You don't like Fox cause they criticize the left. So you want them shut down.

That's fascism. @sadgator remember when I told you that Hitler and Moussilini were fascists? Remember when I told you that fascism is a construct of the LEFT?

@kalimgoodman just helped me prove that.
 
So you support fascism.

A hallmark of fascism is the forcible suppression of media that criticizes the government.

You don't like Fox cause they criticize the left. So you want them shut down.

That's fascism. @sadgator remember when I told you that Hitler and Moussilini were fascists? Remember when I told you that fascism is a construct of the LEFT?

@kalimgoodman just helped me prove that.
Hitler was not a fascist.
 
Your ignorance is astounding. The only thing that would preclude Bama from presidential access as a journalist would be failure to pass Yankee White clearance requirements. Ethics don't enter into it, otherwise no journalist would have white house access, because there isn't one with any concept of ethics.
You have to be labeled a "news" organization. That is clearly written in the requirements. Go read that yourself.
 
And in the internet age, nothing precludes you from declaring yourself one. A blog or a self published newsletter would pass constitutional muster. Go read that yourself.
The WhiteHouse always had the discretion to determine if an organization is a news organization. Since print was a thing.
 
The WhiteHouse always had the discretion to determine if an organization is a news organization. Since print was a thing.
Because no one ever took them to court over it.

And it's not that hard to pass YW. I know a 19 year old redneck from Ocala that just did to get his sweet communication post at the White House for the next two years.
 
Man, what are you talking about? This has zero to do with the constitution or saying who can report the news.

I'm talking about the special exception that news organizations get to cover the WhiteHouse. Not every paper, channel or internet organization can get the credentials to cover the WhiteHouse. Like Bama couldn't just start an internet blog than request credentials to the WhiteHouse.
You have to be labeled a "news" organization. That is clearly written in the requirements. Go read that yourself.
The WhiteHouse always had the discretion to determine if an organization is a news organization. Since print was a thing.
@kalimgoodman you're doing it again. You are trying to speak on a topic that you are ignorant of.

Anyone here can apply for press credentials to cover White House press briefings. Doesn't mean the White House will accept, but that doesn't mean they can't apply.

The White House has no discretion to determine if a media outlet is a 'news' outlet or not. You are talking out of your hat again.
 
Man, what are you talking about? This has zero to do with the constitution or saying who can report the news.

I'm talking about the special exception that news organizations get to cover the WhiteHouse. Not every paper, channel or internet organization can get the credentials to cover the WhiteHouse. Like Bama couldn't just start an internet blog than request credentials to the WhiteHouse. There are ethics required with those credentials. You can write any "news" you want but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to travel with the WhiteHouse correspondents or have WhiteHouse access. That my friend isn't about the 1st amendment.
Killing-a-good-man, now explain Brandon's treatment of OANN's WH reporters being banned, not only from the WH briefing room, but from the entire WH grounds.... 🤓 ---- https://www.oann.com/

PS - Fox News is the weak little brother to OANN imoho.
It was a truly sad day when those in power, both WH
and the Corrupt Lame Stream Media (including Fox), went after OANN in an attempt to shut-down a solid NEWS organization, that clearly differentiated their NEWS programming, from their EDITORIAL opinion sections.
(the same way that most of them would like to see Project Veritas shut down)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dezyDeco and blubo
Killing-a-good-man, now explain Brandon's treatment of OANN's WH reporters being banned, not only from the WH briefing room, but from the entire WH grounds.... 🤓 ---- https://www.oann.com/

PS - Fox News is the weak little brother to OANN imoho.
It was a truly sad day when those in power, both WH and the Corrupt Lame Stream Media (including Fox), went after OANN in an attempt to shut-down a solid NEWS organization, that clearly differentiated their NEWS programming, from their EDITORIAL opinion sections.
(the same way that most of them would like to see Project Veritas shut down)
Everyone knows OANN is not news.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: instaGATOR
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT