Tag: Tucker

  • Opinion | I Helped Write the Jan. 6 Committee Report. Here’s What Tucker Carlson Left Out.

    Opinion | I Helped Write the Jan. 6 Committee Report. Here’s What Tucker Carlson Left Out.

    [ad_1]

    I served as a senior professional staff member on the January 6th Select Committee and helped write its final report. I got a close look at some of the video evidence that Carlson obtained — and his manipulation of the audience was immediately obvious to me. Here’s why.

    First, the premise of his “investigation,” that the USCP footage was being withheld to cover up the full story, was always false. Working with the Select Committee’s members, the investigative team and staffers reviewed the USCP’s recordings, which provided new angles at some key locations. But it did not change our basic understanding of what transpired. How could it? The riot is one of the most widely covered events in history. There is no dearth of footage from that day.

    In addition to the USCP’s surveillance video, the Select Committee reviewed footage recorded by cameras worn by Metropolitan Police Department officers, the work of documentary filmmakers and countless open-source videos, including clips recorded by the rioters themselves. Many Americans have already seen some of this footage with their own eyes. They know the mob was not at the Capitol primarily for sightseeing, as Carlson claimed.

    On Monday night, the Fox News host showed just several minutes of cherry-picked footage. Cameras inside the Capitol and on its grounds recorded many more scenes that he did not play for viewers. Some of this footage has long been available online. For example, you can watch rioters ramming their way through USCP officers at the Senate Wing door, members of the mob smashing the ornate East Rotunda doors before other rioters open them from the inside, and the melee at the west plaza tunnel (at the two-hour, 14-minute mark). You can also view a timeline of events used by federal prosecutors, who relied on the USCP’s camera footage. Carlson’s team had access to this footage, and more, but chose not to show any of it to Fox News viewers Monday night. It’s easy to see why. The full USCP cache tells a very different story from the one Carlson wants people to see.

    There is another fundamental problem with Carlson’s presentation that may not be so easy for the casual viewer to spot. He has repeatedly whitewashed the key role played by far-right extremists, namely, the Proud Boys. Their story, including how then-President Donald Trump inspired them, is told in Chapters 6 and 8 of the January 6th Select Committee’s final report. The Proud Boys and other extremists led the mob, but Carlson refuses to let his viewers know it.

    Let us compare one of Carlson’s conspiracy theories to the well-established facts. For more than two years, Carlson has chased a bogeyman, arguing that provocateurs working for the federal government (or, alternatively, agitators on the left) somehow tricked Trump’s “patriots” into rioting. He still cannot identify any federal agents working for the so-called “deep state.” Carlson and others have focused on a lone individual who has not been charged, Ray Epps, insinuating that he was a secret FBI plant. This claim is baseless. They’ve produced no evidence connecting Epps, a Trump supporter, to the FBI or any other federal agency.

    Meanwhile, Carlson has ignored nearly all of the evidence collected against the approximately 1,000 January 6th defendants who have been charged. That evidence reveals the real parties responsible for channeling the mob’s anger.

    In fact, one of the most important January 6th trials is currently ongoing in a Washington, D.C., courtroom. Five members of the Proud Boys, including the group’s chair, Enrique Tarrio, have been charged with seditious conspiracy and other serious crimes. The Department of Justice claims the Proud Boys “conspired to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the Electoral College vote, and to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.” Moreover, on Jan. 6, 2021, the Proud Boys “directed, mobilized and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, breaching of the Capitol building, and assaults on law enforcement.”

    The DOJ’s allegations are consistent with the Select Committee’s findings, as well as the investigative work done by real reporters. Law enforcement officials have collected overwhelming evidence, including text messages and videos, showing how the Proud Boys conspired against America’s democracy. They discovered that Tarrio told his men to “storm the Capitol” in the days leading up to the joint session of Congress.

    While the attack was underway, Tarrio also claimed responsibility, messaging his men: “Make no mistake…” and “We did this.” Then, on the night of Jan. 6, Tarrio posted a video on the conservative social media site Parler that he titled, “Premonition.” The video shows a masked man, dressed as a super villain, standing in front of the Capitol. The figure is presumably Tarrio himself and the clip, recorded prior to Jan. 6, implies that he had foreknowledge of that day’s events.

    You can watch “Premonition” here. It’s the type of spooky scene, set to foreboding background music, that makes for good television. Carlson did not show it to his viewers. In fact, he did not mention the Proud Boys at all.

    The Select Committee’s review of video footage from multiple sources, including the U.S. Capitol Police, showed that the Proud Boys were conspicuously present on the front lines and at key breach points throughout the attack. Prosecutors are currently relying on the same type of footage, as well as additional sources of video, to make their case to a jury.

    For example, Proud Boy leaders Joe Biggs and Ethan Nordean riled up the crowd at the Peace Circle Monument just outside of the U.S. Capitol. The Select Committee showed how the Proud Boys marched from the Washington Monument, around the Capitol, and then instigated the first perimeter breach at this key location. By attacking the police officers stationed between the monument and the Capitol, sweeping away security fences in the process, the Proud Boys and their associates opened a clear path onto the Capitol’s grounds. Thousands of Trump’s supporters marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and through the Peace Circle after leaving the president’s rally at the White House Ellipse.

    Dominic Pezzola, another Proud Boy, was responsible for the first breach of the U.S. Capitol building itself. Pezzola smashed in a Senate Wing window with a stolen riot shield. This allowed the mob to swarm into the Capitol through both the window and a nearby door. Pezzola bragged about his actions in a video he recorded of himself inside the Capitol. While smoking a victory cigar, Pezzola said: “I knew we could take this motherfucker over if we just tried hard enough. Proud of your motherfuckin’ boy.”

    During his presentation Monday night, Carlson focused on Jacob Chansley, a.k.a. the QAnon Shaman, pretending that he is the central figure in the January 6th story. Carlson claimed that we still don’t know how he entered the building. That’s not true — even the footage shown by Carlson makes it clear that Chansley entered through the Senate Wing door next to the window Pezzola bashed in.

    There is much more evidence against the Proud Boys. Some members of the group have already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and other charges, admitting that their comrades planned to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. And the Proud Boys were not the only far right extremists involved. Members of two anti-government groups, the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, attacked the Capitol as well. Some Oath Keepers have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, while juries convicted the group’s leader and other members of the same crime. White nationalists were also among the extremists who stormed the Capitol.

    The Fox News audience did not hear any of this. Nor did they hear how Trump summoned these extremists to Washington, D.C., for Jan. 6 via his tweets and statements. This part of the story is explained at great length in the Select Committee’s final report.

    Tucker Carlson wants people to believe that phantom government agents were responsible. No one who relies on facts and logic will be fooled.



    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Helped #Write #Jan #Committee #Report #Heres #Tucker #Carlson #Left
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | The Tucker Carlson Schtick Melts Away

    Opinion | The Tucker Carlson Schtick Melts Away

    [ad_1]

    voting machines defamation lawsuit 70384

    Carlson continued: “What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” Elsewhere, Carlson said of the Trump presidency, “That’s the last four years. We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”

    In an earlier filing, we learn that Carlson cared more about Fox’s bottom line than he did about journalistic accuracy after Fox’s White House correspondent dispelled notions about voter fraud and Dominion. “Please get her fired,” Carlson texted to Fox hosts Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. “Seriously … What the fuck? I’m actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”

    To accuse the leading attraction on cable news of being so craven is a big claim. Can we really believe that a prime-time nightly cable host would gin up a unique and false persona just to sucker viewers into watching his show? What responsible observer could make such a claim? Well, two decades ago, Tucker Carlson said exactly that. In his 2003 book, Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News, written long before he joined Fox, Carlson had this to say about Bill O’Reilly, then the king of cable news.

    “Like everyone in TV, he has a shtick. O’Reilly is Everyman — the faithful but slightly lapsed Catholic son of the working class who knows slick, eastern Establishment BS when he sees it. A guy who tells the truth and demands that others do the same. A man who won’t be pushed around or take maybe for an answer,” Carlson wrote, completely on target.

    With a little tweaking, this assessment of O’Reilly could be cut and tapered to dress Carlson. But there’s more. Did Carlson know that he was writing his future prospectus when he continued with these insights about cable’s top host?

    “O’Reilly’s success is built on the perception that he really is who he claims to be,” Carlson wrote. “If he ever gets caught out of character, it’s over. If someday he punches out a flight attendant on the Concorde for bringing him a glass of warm champagne, the whole franchise will come tumbling down. He’ll make the whatever-happened-to … ? list quicker than you can say ‘Morton Downey, Jr.’”

    Soon after the book was published, Carlson went on C-SPAN to reiterate his worship and disdain of O’Reilly. “Bill O’Reilly is really talented, he’s more talented than I am, he’s got a lot more viewers, he’s a better communicator than I am, but I think there is a deep phoniness at the center of his schtick, and again as I say the schtick is built on the perception that he is the character he plays,” Carlson said.

    What Carlson wrote and said in 2003 surprised nobody, especially O’Reilly’s friends, his acquaintances in the journalism profession or even some viewers of his nightly Fox News Channel program. O’Reilly was clearly playing a character of his own invention in a multi-episode TV drama called The O’Reilly Factor. The bluster and outrage, the name calling, O’Reilly’s endless demands that his interview subjects “shut up!“ was all a performance.

    Bill O’Reilly was a phony, and so now we can all see that Tucker Carlson is, too.

    Having diagnosed O’Reilly’s shortcomings so long ago, how did Carlson eventually become him? As many have written before, Carlson was one of the most talented Washington-based journalists of his generation. He excelled at the Weekly Standard. At Tina Brown’s Talk magazine, he scored a KO on presidential candidate George W. Bush. He distinguished himself as a New York magazine columnist. He wrote for Esquire.

    TV came calling at about the same time, and he answered. As I’ve theorized before, Carlson’s slide into the dark side that is Fox News began with his initial failures in the medium. After several years doing CNN’s Crossfire, his show got blown to bits by Jon Stewart’s October 2004 guest appearance. A few months later, the show was canceled and Carlson’s contract was not renewed. Not counting a short run at PBS with a show titled Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered, his next TV stop was MSNBC, which ran from 2005 to 2008. Carlson was genuine to his journalistic values on all of these shows, but none of them took root.

    Running out of networks to work for, he finally joined Fox in 2009 and served as a sort of utility player on the network’s shows. It was there and then, I surmise, that Carlson vowed he would not fail at TV again, no matter what. In 2016, Fox returned him to prime-time and gave him his own show. It was then that Carlson began to cultivate the deep phoniness that had made O’Reilly so popular. He co-opted O’Reilly’s everyman schtick, his bluster, his truth-teller guise, and his populism, and he soared in the ratings. When Fox dumped O’Reilly in 2017 — not for breaking character, as Carlson had predicted, but following allegations of sexual harassment — Carlson became the network’s face. And, finally, a towering success.

    How much of the Trump agenda did Carlson really buy and how much of it was put on? Absent additional court filings revealing his unguarded thoughts, we may never know. But what we do know now, thanks to the Dominion lawsuit, is that the extremely talented and accomplished Tucker Carlson, hoodwinked by his own ambition, became the very thing the younger and smarter Tucker Carlson scorned in 2003. A transparent phony.

    ******

    Never go on TV. You’ll only say things you don’t really believe. Tell me things you don’t believe with email to [email protected]. No new email alert subscriptions are being honored at this time. My Twitter feed is honest. My Mastodon and Post accounts will remain silent until/if Twitter folds. My RSS feed is all an act.



    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Tucker #Carlson #Schtick #Melts
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • McCarthy’s GOP tries to move on from Tucker Carlson-Jan. 6 drama

    McCarthy’s GOP tries to move on from Tucker Carlson-Jan. 6 drama

    [ad_1]

    20230307 mccarthy 2 francis 2

    Yet, McCarthy’s decision to let Carlson access thousands of hours of Capitol footage from the riot has left a lingering cloud over his own leadership team, which was repeatedly pressed about the move as Carlson continues to downplay the violence of the siege by supporters of former President Donald Trump. Senate Republicans heaped criticism Tuesday on Carlson’s portrayal of the riot, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (though few directly dinged McCarthy).

    “It seems like some in the press want to talk about Jan 6 every day. So do Democrats. They only want to talk about certain parts of it, though,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters during a press conference where every question focused on the Fox News footage.

    Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who represents a battleground district, said that House Republicans see attention to Carlson’s portrayal of Jan. 6 as “more of a media thing.”

    “In the end, everybody should get access,” Bacon added, “but literally, I don’t hear anybody back home talking about it.”

    With many in the GOP eager to change the subject, McCarthy and his leadership team are slated to hold a second press conference later Wednesday, focused squarely on President Joe Biden’s budget release.

    But not everyone in the party is prepared to let it go. In one sign the GOP will continue to go on the offensive: Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) are working to set up a congressional delegation to visit people jailed for alleged crimes on Jan. 6, as POLITICO first reported.

    Greene, who pushed GOP leadership to commit to a probe of Jan. 6-related detention, would lead the trip.

    In addition, Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) told reporters Wednesday that the GOP conference is starting to more closely review the work of the last Congress’ Democrat-run Jan. 6 select panel. Loudermilk recently secured the speaker’s permission to let accused Jan. 6 rioters — and eventually the public at large — access Capitol Police security footage that is in the House GOP’s possession.

    “Part of it is: Why did they not address [Capitol security]?” Loudermilk asked of the select committee, which devoted one of the appendices of its final report to that issue. “And so we have [to] really pick up where they left off. And so we have the documents, we have the videos, we have a lot of information. And we’re going through that.”

    While a handful of House Republicans openly criticized McCarthy’s decision to give the footage to Carlson, none mentioned the speaker by name and all pointed to the clips Fox News showed to argue that the Jan. 6 select committee only presented one side of the riot.

    Since the first Jan. 6 segment aired on Monday night, several House Republicans have parried questions by claiming they did not see Carlson’s show or by otherwise avoiding the media. Others privately argued that McCarthy had made a strategic choice to engage with Carlson, one designed to appeal to the party base as he leads the GOP conference with a razor-thin majority.

    Carlson, who has blasted McCarthy on-air in the past, stated on his show that he got no interference from the speaker’s office or his own higher-ups at Fox before broadcasting his segments. And McCarthy, for his part, has fiercely defended his decision to share material with Carlson in the face of criticism from the Senate GOP as well as Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger.

    Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #McCarthys #GOP #move #Tucker #CarlsonJan #drama
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • White House goes after Tucker Carlson by name over Jan. 6 coverage

    White House goes after Tucker Carlson by name over Jan. 6 coverage

    [ad_1]

    “We also agree with what Fox News’s own attorneys and executives have now repeatedly stressed in multiple courts of law: that Tucker Carlson is not credible,” Bates added.

    The statement was a rare rebuke of Carlson by name, suggesting an escalation of tensions between the White House and the conservative-leaning, beleaguered cable giant.

    Among the legal filings, Bates cited were remarks made by Fox News lawyers and a federal judge in the Southern District of New York in defending Carlson against allegations of slander in an earlier lawsuit brought by Karen McDougal. The former Playboy model has accused Fox of defamation over a Carlson episode on her in December 2018.

    In the separate $1.6 billion defamation case filed against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems, Bates also noted that David Clark, a senior vice president at Fox News, testified in his deposition that while viewers of Carlson’s show consider it a credible source of news, Clark himself does not.

    POLITICO reported that Democrats in recent days have called on the White House and others to boycott Fox News, including refraining from appearing on its airwaves and not spending advertising dollars there. The White House previously questioned whether viewers should trust Fox News’ reporting on Biden, citing executives’ reported kid-glove treatment of Trump. Fox then accused Biden officials of resorting to “junior varsity campaign style stunts.”

    A Fox News representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the White House statement. Carlson did not respond to a text message seeking comment.

    Carlson has taken fire from all sides since House Speaker Kevin McCarthy opted to give the Fox host exclusive access to more than 40,000 hours of video captured on Jan. 6 by Capitol Police cameras. McCarthy has defended his granting of the footage to Carlson. But both he and the Fox host have been widely criticized for presenting slanted and sanitized coverage of the insurrection.

    “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 here in the Capitol thinks,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday.

    “I was there on Jan. 6,” added Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who, like several colleagues, said he would have preferred the tapes to be distributed widely with other media outlets. “I saw what happened. It clearly was violent. It was an insurrection.”

    Sen. Tom Tillis (R-N.C.) was more blunt in his assessment of Carlson’s Jan. 6 portrayal: “I think it’s bullshit,” he said.

    Carlson responded to McConnell and other Republicans on his program Tuesday night, contending that they “outed themselves” as siding with Democrats against him in a state of “panic” and “hysteria.”

    “If you want to know who’s actually aligned, despite the illusion of partisanship, we found out today,” Carlson said on his show.

    While it’s uncommon for the White House to call out Carlson by name, officials have done it in fact-checking of his Fox program.

    Recently, White House officials privately responded to an inquiry from Carlson’s show with a statement that included a reference to his attempt to have a Fox News reporter fired for saying there was no evidence for voting systems being compromised in the 2020 election, according to a person familiar with the exchange. Carlson did not include the White House critique in his broadcast.

    In the latest batch of revelations stemming from the defamation lawsuit filed by the voting company Dominion against Fox, were text messages Carlson wrote that are sharply critical of former President Donald Trump.

    “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait,” Carlson said in a Jan. 4, 2021 message, two days before the Capitol was attacked.

    He added of Trump, “I hate him passionately.”

    [ad_2]
    #White #House #Tucker #Carlson #Jan #coverage
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • DOJ takes on the Jan. 6 Tucker Carlson tapes

    DOJ takes on the Jan. 6 Tucker Carlson tapes

    [ad_1]

    The filings are the first effort by the Justice Department to place limits on any potential efforts by Jan. 6 defendants to use the newly disclosed footage to prolong their criminal proceedings. Nichols’ attorney, Joseph McBride, urged U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth to delay his late-March trial in order to give Nichols’ defense team time to review the footage, which McBride said he’s been granted access to by the House.

    Prosecutors emphasized that defendants and their lawyers have had access to an enormous trove of evidence for nearly two years — more then 4.9 million files totaling nearly 7.4 terabytes of information. Those files include “over 30,000 files that include body-worn and hand-held camera footage from five law enforcement agencies and surveillance-camera footage from three law enforcement agencies.”

    Prosecutors contended that the existence of the additional footage reviewed by Carlson does not necessarily entitle defendants to receive it — particularly without a basis for believing it includes exculpatory content.

    “The Government’s discovery obligations in a criminal case are properly limited to materials that are potentially relevant to a defendant’s case in the government’s possession or control, and the government is not obliged to acquire materials possessed or controlled by others,” McCauley wrote, saying a trial should not be delayed “based on speculation about whether and when any such additional, likely irrelevant, information may become available.”

    Defense teams have complained that the overwhelming amount of material has been impossible to comb through — even as they demand access to the extensive new trove. It’s become a recurring theme in Jan. 6 cases: Prosecutors have dumped enormous caches of evidence on defense teams, who continuously claim they don’t have the means or capacity to meaningfully review it. The Justice Department noted that it has built tools intended to help defendants and their lawyers pinpoint relevant footage by camera angle and time of day.

    The Justice Department also rejected as “premature” the notion that Carlson’s decision to air some of the security footage Monday should lead to the Justice Department making the full cache of security film public. Prosecutors noted that “limited” clips aired by Carlson were nearly all included in the initial troves of footage provided to defense attorneys, which includes nearly all of the footage inside and outside the Capitol from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Jan. 6.

    “Nearly all the footage displayed on the program has long been in the government’s production to defense counsel and, in some cases, has also been admitted in public hearings and/or trials and has been available to, released to, and/or published by news media,” the department noted.

    Prosecutors also argued that there’s still good reason not to widely release all security footage; “Disclosure of all CCV footage could not only reveal the U.S. Capitol’s internal surveillance system to third parties but could also jeopardize the privacy and security of certain persons depicted on such CCV footage.”

    [ad_2]
    #DOJ #takes #Jan #Tucker #Carlson #tapes
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • House GOP faces a new Jan. 6 headache, courtesy of Tucker Carlson

    House GOP faces a new Jan. 6 headache, courtesy of Tucker Carlson

    [ad_1]

    Inside McCarthy’s conference, few if any members would say outright on Tuesday night that their speaker made a mistake by sharing the footage with Carlson — in fact, only a handful admitted to watching the segment at all. One of those is McCarthy himself, who defended the move in the name of transparency when pressed by reporters Tuesday night.

    But some House Republicans aired their displeasure with being forced to revisit the attack on their workplace.

    “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.”

    While GOP senators — and their leader, Mitch McConnell — more vocally criticized Carlson for falsely portraying the attack as peaceful, House Republicans danced around the issue. (McCarthy responded to McConnell’s jabs by alleging that CNN published information about party leaders’ whereabouts on Jan. 6, saying he hoped the Senate leader would also be concerned by that.)

    And many in the House GOP, as well as McCarthy himself, touted his goal of more transparency surrounding the attack or criticized what they argued was a one-sided narrative put forward by the last Congress’ Democratic-run Jan. 6 committee.

    Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said he has “a hard time with all of it,” contending that Jan. 6 “was not a peaceful protest. It was not an insurrection. It was a riot that should have never happened. And a lot of people share blame for that. The truth is always messier than any narrative.”

    Asked if he disagreed with McCarthy’s decision to share footage with Carlson, Armstrong replied: “I don’t disagree with it any more than I disagree with the 1/6 committee narrative. It’s a red lens, blue lens. They are flip sides to the same coin. The truth is just a lot messier.”

    Earlier on Tuesday, Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger wrote in an internal message to officers that Carlson’s Monday night primetime program “conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video” to incorrectly portray the violent assault as more akin to a peaceful protest. He added that Carlson’s “commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments.”

    It’s an unusually blunt statement from Manger, who has labored keep his department away from political conflagrations. And the pushback could easily put the chief at odds with McCarthy, who had granted Carlson unfettered access to internal footage related to the riot.

    But Manger wasn’t alone — a number of Republican senators said they were, at the very least, troubled by Carlson’s depiction.

    “Anybody that trespassed into the United States Capitol, you know, whether they did peacefully … did it illegally,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. “I think that it’s unfortunate that [Carlson] is the exclusive holder of the tape recording. I just think it’s the kind of thing that should be made available to everybody at the same time, so as to not have a political angle to it.”

    Asked about the portrayal of Jan. 6 on Carlson’s show, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) described the day as a violent attack and said any effort to “normalize that behavior is dangerous and disgusting.“

    “I was here. It was not peaceful. It was an abomination,” added Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) “You’re entitled to believe what you want in America, but you can’t resort to violence to try to convince others of your point of view.”

    McConnell held up Manger’s letter during his weekly briefing with reporters, saying that he would “associate myself entirely with the opinion of the chief of the Capitol Police about what happened on January 6th.”

    A Fox News spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment on Carlson’s use of the footage from Jan. 6, when Donald Trump supporters overran the building in an attempt to disrupt lawmakers’ certification of Trump’s loss.

    Capitol Police had previously turned over about 14,000 hours of footage — capturing events between noon and 8 p.m. on that day — to the FBI, which shared it with Jan. 6 defendants as part of criminal proceedings.

    While dozens of hours of footage have emerged in public court filings, the bulk of it has remained under seal, and the Hill’s police force has warned that wide release of the footage could expose security vulnerabilities in the Capitol complex. McCarthy has indicated he hopes to publicly release large amounts of the video files, with some exceptions to protect the security of the campus.

    Several Senate Republicans, including Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Kennedy, said Tuesday that most of the footage should simply be made public.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to comment directly on Carlson’s report during a Tuesday press conference at Justice Department headquarters, but said the facts about the Capitol riot are well-established.

    “Over 100 officers were assaulted on that day, five officers died. We have charged more than 1,000 people with their crimes on that day and more than 500 have already been convicted,” the attorney general added. “I think it’s very clear what happened on Jan. 6.”

    McCarthy’s decision to share the footage with Carlson has already roiled some of the ongoing prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants, several of whom have demanded delays in their criminal proceedings to review the voluminous materials. An attorney for a member of the Proud Boys, currently on trial for alleged seditious conspiracy on Jan. 6, said he intends to move for a mistrial as a result of the new footage.

    A McCarthy spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

    On his Monday show, Carlson focused particularly on video of Capitol Police officers calmly accompanying Jacob Chansley — known as the “QAnon Shaman” for the garb and mannerisms he adopted on the day of the attack — through the halls.

    Carlson inaccurately stated on-air that Chansley’s entrance to the Capitol remained mysterious, omitting footage showing Chansley inside the Senate chamber scrawling a menacing note to then-Vice President Mike Pence, who had declined then-President Trump’s calls for Pence to single-handedly overturn the election results. Chansley pleaded guilty in September 2021 to obstructing Congress’ proceedings and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

    Manger, in his note to officers, emphasized that Carlson never reached out for context about the officers’ actions.

    “One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as ‘tour guides.’ This is outrageous and false,” Manger wrote.

    Manger also took particular issue with what he said was a “disturbing” suggestion by Carlson that the late Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick — who died of strokes on Jan. 7, 2021 — did not die because of anything that occurred the day before. Sicknick had been involved in some intense clashes with rioters and was assaulted with chemical spray in the early afternoon of the siege.

    A medical examiner later concluded that Sicknick died of natural causes but suggested the stress caused by the riot could have been a contributor.

    “The Department maintains, as anyone with common sense would, that had Officer Sicknick not fought valiantly for hours on the day he was violently assaulted, Officer Sicknick would not have died the next day,” Manger wrote.

    Daniella Diaz, Nancy Vu, Josh Gerstein and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #House #GOP #faces #Jan #headache #courtesy #Tucker #Carlson
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Kevin McCarthy’s apparent deal with Tucker Carlson to share Jan. 6 footage surprised some top Capitol security officials.

    Kevin McCarthy’s apparent deal with Tucker Carlson to share Jan. 6 footage surprised some top Capitol security officials.

    [ad_1]

    200410 tucker carlson gty 773
    On Monday, the Fox News host described his producers’ access as “unfettered.”

    [ad_2]
    #Kevin #McCarthys #apparent #deal #Tucker #Carlson #share #Jan #footage #surprised #top #Capitol #security #officials
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden’s Top Covid Adviser Wishes He Had Tangled With Tucker Carlson

    Biden’s Top Covid Adviser Wishes He Had Tangled With Tucker Carlson

    [ad_1]

    ledeoverride kessler

    Kessler: A lot of things contributed to people’s feelings about the virus and the vaccines. I don’t think we should underestimate the effect that the last several years has had on all of us. It was a major upheaval for society and there’s not a family that’s not been affected. Anything that is that traumatic, it’s going to produce very strong feelings.

    The fact is that 226 million people received their primary series, and 94 percent of people over 65 got vaccinated. When’s the last time 226 million people agreed on anything, did anything?

    We have to be realistic on what people are going to do. There are a lot of things in public health we wish people would do that they don’t. Taken as a piece, we did pretty well, considering the extent of the upheaval caused by this pandemic.

    Cancryn: What about these politicians, lawmakers and pundits who have made it their brand to question that progress, to question the vaccines and the need for there to be a continued response?

    Kessler: Here’s the hard part. Questioning is an inherent part of science. Questioning is always important to learn and improve what we do.

    But there’s a difference between questioning and undermining the basic facts. Creating enough doubt so people go, well, maybe I don’t need to do this.

    I’ve lived this before. In 1952, with the first data that smoking caused cancer. The mantra of the industry was, “not proven, not proven, not proven.” It created enough doubt that it gave people a crutch who didn’t want to quit. It gave them a reason to continue to smoke.

    These vaccines are not perfect. But certainly, if you’re over 50, if you have any risk factors, the benefit/risk [ratio] is just overwhelming. So yes, ask questions. But please make sure that people who need this, whose lives are really at risk, take advantage of a very important potentially lifesaving tool.

    Cancryn: That’s interesting that you’re seeing parallels to the playbook from tobacco.

    Kessler: I don’t think that’s intentional. I just think that one has to be careful when one injects doubt in people’s minds. If you inject that doubt, it just makes the job that much harder to get people to do stuff when it’s already hard to get people to do things that are in their health interest.

    Cancryn: The difference this time around is that a lot of those injecting that doubt are now the leaders of one of the two main political parties.

    Kessler: There are certainly those who are using it for whatever rhetoric, but I think a majority of the country will push that aside. The fact is, 226 million people got the primary series. Push comes to shove, many of those who are being critical of vaccines, I think quietly they’ve gotten the vaccine.

    Cancryn: So you feel some level of optimism that when it comes to public health and science, most of us are still operating with the same set of shared facts.

    Kessler: The last three years have been so intense, the stakes have been so high, we’ve learned so much. We made mistakes. I just think, give it time. But no doubt we have to do a better job on disinformation, because this virus is not done with us yet.

    Cancryn: Do you feel like there’s an identifiable solution to that disinformation? Take Tucker Carlson, for example, who has a big audience and has proven willing to question and inject doubt into just about anything. It doesn’t worry you that he has a platform to take things that should be scientifically settled, bring them up and question them again?

    Kessler: I saw my job as making sure if you wanted a vaccine, if you wanted an antiviral, it was there, it worked, you didn’t have to live in fear that you were going to die from this disease. I did very few public appearances; others did that.

    But very early on I said to someone I’m close with that I really wished I could go on Tucker Carlson and have that conversation.

    [ad_2]
    #Bidens #Top #Covid #Adviser #Wishes #Tangled #Tucker #Carlson
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Why whale deaths are dividing environmentalists — and firing up Tucker Carlson

    Why whale deaths are dividing environmentalists — and firing up Tucker Carlson

    [ad_1]

    There is no evidence the wind work and whale deaths are linked. But Clean Ocean Action, a 40-year-old nonprofit, believes the two things happening at once may be more than just a fluke.

    Real or rhetorical, the claim is stirring a new political debate.

    The group, which has been one of the few environmental organizations to criticize offshore wind, is using the whale deaths to push for a halt of offshore wind development until officials can figure out what is going on. Its message is spreading.

    Clean Ocean Action is now a strange bedfellow with conservative media figure Tucker Carlson, six Republican lawmakers in the New Jersey Legislature who represent coastal districts and Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), who co-chairs the congressional offshore wind caucus and is its only Republican member.

    Carlson is running a series of segments called “The Biden Whale Extinction.” In mid-January, he called wind energy “the DDT of our time” and a guest on the show said, without offering specific evidence, that wind developers’ survey ships were “carpet bombing the ocean floor with intense sound” that would confuse whales.

    Van Drew has called on Gov. Phil Murphy to pause offshore wind activity in New Jersey.

    “Since offshore wind projects were being proposed by Governor Murphy to be built off the coast of New Jersey, I have been adamantly opposed to any activity moving forward until research disclosed the impacts these projects would have on our environment and the impacts on the fishing industry,” Van Drew, whose South Jersey district includes several coastal counties, said in a statement.

    Murphy, like the president, has made offshore wind a key component of his clean energy plans.

    At least one moderate Democrat is expressing hesitation, too. New Jersey state Sen. Vin Gopal, who represents part of coastal Monmouth County, said he’s “very concerned” about any ties between wind and the whales.

    The political headache couldn’t come at a worse time for the offshore wind industry, which is already struggling to finance wind farms, including Ocean Wind 1, which would be New Jersey’s first.

    Biden has set a national goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, enough energy to power 10 million homes, and Murphy set a state level goal of 11 gigawatts by 2040. To achieve these goals, developers in New Jersey and other states will need to quickly install hundreds of giant wind turbines miles off the coast. So far, just one major project in the region, the South Fork wind farm in New York, has broken ground.

    Clean Ocean Action Executive Director Cindy Zipf said she has no evidence to tie the whale deaths to offshore wind, beyond that there is an unprecedented number of whales dying on beaches and an unprecedented amount of offshore wind work getting underway. But there’s also no evidence to prove there isn’t a connection.

    For years, Zipf’s group has argued the federal government has skimped on monitoring new wind infrastructure planned for the ocean and isn’t certain of the effect sonic mapping of the ocean floor and an increase in ship traffic will have.

    Wind supporters from the New Jersey chapters of the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters say talk of a connection with whales is baseless and no reason to stop the development of clean energy. They say an already-warming ocean is a known threat to whales and clean power from wind energy could help stop climate change.

    Federal regulators from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management gave offshore wind supporters a hand by telling reporters last week that there is no evidence construction would exacerbate or compound whale deaths. The kind of sound surveys being done by offshore wind companies has not been linked to stranded whales, they said.

    BOEM has been monitoring an unusual number of whale deaths since 2016 and found that about 40 percent of the animals they examined were struck by some ship or entangled in fishing gear. Those sorts of threats are old but may become more common because whales are following their prey closer to shore — something that may be a result of climate change.

    There are no wind farms off the New Jersey coast yet, though surveys of the seafloor using sound have been conducted.

    Worries that sonic mapping might be affecting whales’ navigation are overblown, said Erica Staaterman, an expert at the federal government’s Center for Marine Acoustics. Staaterman said during the call with reporters that there’s a “pretty big difference” between the relatively brief and targeted sound mapping used by offshore wind and the very loud sounds used by oil and gas companies to take measurements deep beneath the seafloor.

    She didn’t make it explicit, but there is a political point there: if conservative media is so concerned about the whales, why are they opposed to offshore wind but pushing offshore drilling?

    Because it isn’t clear why the whales are dying, the absence of evidence is being used as evidence of regulatory absence.

    “It doesn’t seem to me that they have conducted very much review of anything, which is what we’re calling for,” Zipf said in an interview after the media briefing by federal regulators.

    Other environmental groups like the Sierra Club have been scrambling to tamp down the speculation and undo the notion that offshore wind is killing whales. At the same time, they’re trying to point out hypocrisy among offshore wind’s foes.

    “I wouldn’t call for commercial shipping to stop because I know it’s unreasonable. It’s trade. I know it’s not going to stop,” New Jersey Sierra Club Director Anjuli Ramos-Busot said in an interview. “So I find it unreasonable to call for the pause or moratorium on offshore wind — which is going to save us all.”

    Last year, the East Coast’s largest port, the Port of New York and New Jersey, saw nearly 3,000 ships come and go, a figure that vastly undercounts all the ocean traffic in the region and dwarfs the number of vessels that have anything to do with offshore wind.

    In New Jersey, Murphy’s offshore wind hopes are already meeting headwinds because of basic economics.

    Orsted, the Danish developer behind what would be New Jersey’s first offshore wind farm, said late last year it’s worried about making money on the project and other large projects approved in other states.

    The state Board of Public Utilities, which controls Orsted’s return on the project, has received well over 100 public comments since December opposing offshore wind and citing whale deaths.

    Wind supporters point out that some of the opposition to offshore wind is coordinated and involves misinformation supported by fossil fuel interests.

    At a press conference organized by the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, Jody Stewart of the New Jersey Organization Project, a group formed after Hurricane Sandy to help with recovery and to protect shores from extreme weather, said if there is any investigation it should be of the coordinated industry campaign to “stir up opposition among locals.”

    “They’re the ones taking this narrative of whales dying because of offshore wind and running with it — not regular people, not people who live here,” she said.

    That’s a harder criticism to pin on Clean Ocean Action, which was founded to fight ocean dumping and does beach cleanups, opposes offshore drilling and helped block liquefied natural gas facilities along the New Jersey coast.

    There is some evidence, from inland waterways, that the federal government has advanced wind-related projects without fully exploring the threat new shipping routes pose to wildlife.

    Last summer, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network alleged federal fisheries officials ignored how construction and operation of a New Jersey port being created to help the wind industry could harm fish, especially a rare type of Atlantic sturgeon in the river. In an email later obtained by the group, federal officials appeared to acknowledge they hadn’t used the best available information about how boats might kill river sturgeon. But that didn’t halt construction at the wind port.

    Privately, offshore wind supporters wonder if Clean Ocean Action’s argument is more about NIMBYism than environmentalists.

    Zipf rejects this.

    “Clean Ocean Action’s mission is solely to protect the ocean, that is our mission, and, you know, being a voice for the ocean oftentimes makes us a lone voice for a period of time until others understand the scope and the threat to the ocean is a threat to us all,” she said.

    [ad_2]
    #whale #deaths #dividing #environmentalists #firing #Tucker #Carlson
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )