Well said, Mr. Moran! It's time to start giving J6 its real name: The Insurrection Myth.
It's interesting how the ones who so desperately want the "shaman" to have been a violent terrorist ππππ'π‘ addressing the video. What, precisely, is their reaction to that video?
MY first reaction was simple: It was as Tucker said: the police politely, cheerfully -- πππ‘βπ’π πππ π‘ππππππ¦ ππ£ππ! -- escorting Mr. Chansley around the Capitol, opening doors for him, chatting, laughing, stepping aside so he can pass and all that.
The entire time, Chansley was entirely unarmed as well! Unless you want to suggest that Chansley was going to seize power in America... with two buffalo horns. π
Sorry, but none of this is how one behaves in the face of a dangerous, or violent, insurrectionist. This is how one behaves in the face of what one knows πππ to be an insurrection or a violent incident. That much is not in doubt.
This is how one behaves when faced with... a tour group. An unusual, but obviously non-threatening one. And I'm figuring, they've seen a heckuva lot more unusual in their time! After all, they allowed "Code Pink" to invade and take over the Senate (I think it was the Senate), to the acclaim of all the Dems.
So, finally, how DOES the Left react to the recording? At this point, they're all shouting as loudly as they can, "Tucker is wrong!!!" But, they're not saying why.
And, what is the answer to the rest of the questions as well? For example: Why did Mr. Chansley's defense not have access to this recording? Tucker had access to the entire 41,000 hours of recording, and his team found it overnight.
I'm NOT a legal expert, but can anyone tell me how this recording is πππ grounds for tossing out the entire conviction, and AT LEAST granting a new trial? The ball is in the Left's and the Dems' court. They need to provide something other than feigned indignation.
Well said, Mr. Moran! It's time to start giving J6 its real name: The Insurrection Myth.
It's interesting how the ones who so desperately want the "shaman" to have been a violent terrorist ππππ'π‘ addressing the video. What, precisely, is their reaction to that video?
MY first reaction was simple: It was as Tucker said: the police politely, cheerfully -- πππ‘βπ’π πππ π‘ππππππ¦ ππ£ππ! -- escorting Mr. Chansley around the Capitol, opening doors for him, chatting, laughing, stepping aside so he can pass and all that.
The entire time, Chansley was entirely unarmed as well! Unless you want to suggest that Chansley was going to seize power in America... with two buffalo horns. π
Sorry, but none of this is how one behaves in the face of a dangerous, or violent, insurrectionist. This is how one behaves in the face of what one knows πππ to be an insurrection or a violent incident. That much is not in doubt.
This is how one behaves when faced with... a tour group. An unusual, but obviously non-threatening one. And I'm figuring, they've seen a heckuva lot more unusual in their time! After all, they allowed "Code Pink" to invade and take over the Senate (I think it was the Senate), to the acclaim of all the Dems.
So, finally, how DOES the Left react to the recording? At this point, they're all shouting as loudly as they can, "Tucker is wrong!!!" But, they're not saying why.
And, what is the answer to the rest of the questions as well? For example: Why did Mr. Chansley's defense not have access to this recording? Tucker had access to the entire 41,000 hours of recording, and his team found it overnight.
I'm NOT a legal expert, but can anyone tell me how this recording is πππ grounds for tossing out the entire conviction, and AT LEAST granting a new trial? The ball is in the Left's and the Dems' court. They need to provide something other than feigned indignation.
I'm going to have to look up your Code Pink reference. I was unaware of it.