Metropolitan Police Officer on January 6th: "They Set Us Up, They Set Us the F*** Up"
Update: The Left Freaks Out That The Public Will Get to See the Videos They've Hid From Them For Two Years

I think he means something like, "They set us up to fail, they put us out here with inadequate troops and hung us out to dry."

Which advances both "conspiracy theories" about January 6th:

1, that Nancy Pelosi and other "responsible" officials are responsible for any unruliness on January 6th by not having adequate police presence to control it and preferably to deter it, as well as

2, the strong-form conspiracy theory that The Regime instigated and organized this whole operation as a pretext for going Weapons Hot against their political enemies.

I favor theory 1 but The Regime has acted so corruptly and viciously that I'm not willing to rule out theory 2. Trust is earned.

Fuller version:

It's video evidence like this which the Democrats have previously blocked the public and the media from seeing. Not that the media will report on it.

And this is why the Democrats are screaming that it must be embargoed forever, like the Kennedy assassination files, and how dare Kevin McCarthy give access to Tucker Carlson, the one guy who's willing to report on the videos?

(Yes I know, that's an overstatement, there are more than a hundred people willing to report on the videos. But he's the one very prominent with a big staff and huge ratings who's willing to report on the videos.)

House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Tuesday slammed his Republican colleagues for what he called their "egregious security breach" by providing Fox News host Tucker Carlson with security footage of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol Building.

In a letter to his Democratic House colleagues, Jeffries argued that the transfer of some 44,000 hours of video footage from the day of the riot to Carlson and his producers "endangers" Capitol Police, members of Congress, and staff at the Capitol Building.

"I write with respect to public reports that extreme MAGA Republicans in the House have provided tens of thousands of hours of sensitive Capitol security footage to a FOX News personality who regularly peddles conspiracy theories and Pro-Putin rhetoric," Jeffries states in the letter.

"The apparent transfer of video footage represents an egregious security breach that endangers the hardworking women and men of the United States Capitol Police, who valiantly defended our democracy with their lives at risk on that fateful day," the New York Democrat added.

I defy anyone to find a single instance in which this race-hustling race-baiting Defund the Police motherf***er has ever objected to the release of video of cops before, ever.

But now he's all, "We must not risk the 'security' of showing video of what cops did more than two years ago." (Whoops, I forgot what year it was and said "more than a year ago" originally.)

What security breach can this nasty imbecile possibly mean? Has anyone in the corrupt propaganda press asked him to specify?

Nah.

Bennie Thompson, the former head of the January 6th monkey circus, also warned of deliberately vague "security risks" that will flow from anyone seeing what really happened on January 6th.

"It's hard to overstate the potential security risks if this material were to be used irresponsibly," Thompson said in a statement Monday.

"If Speaker McCarthy has indeed granted Tucker Carlson -- a Fox host who routinely spreads misinformation and Putin's poisonous propaganda -- and his producers access to this sensitive footage, he owes the American people an explanation of why he has done so and what steps he has taken to address the significant security concerns at stake," Thompson added.

I think it is possible to "overstate the potential security risks," and you did just that right there. If you want to rebut me, can you sketch out to me what the "potential security risks" actually are, exactly? Can you give a us a few fer-instances?

It can't be that "Oh My God we're worried that our poor police will be known to the public and might get dragged on Twitter (which is like a death threat!)" because 1, police are all known to the public, they don't wear masks like in that awful Watchmen sequel, and further 2, most of them have testified so their names are all public, and 3, half of them have taken jobs as commentators with CNN and have lined up semi-nude photoshoots with Playgirl Magazine.*

So they don't seem that afraid.

* Okay they didn't do that last one, but I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

Update: Jazz Shaw reports that MSNBC, allegedly a "news" organization, opposes the release of government video to another news organization.

As I keep saying, the main mission of "journalists" now is to block the public from receiving relevant information.

MSNBC's leftwing freak Steve Benen shrieks:

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.

Shaw responds:

You can immediately see two aspects of Benen's argument that are laughable at best. The first is the idea that the footage represents "official government material" that belongs "to all of us." If that footage belongs to all of us, where were MSNBC's complaints for the more than two years that the Democrats in the House (and particularly on the J6 committee) sat on the footage, only releasing select pieces that painted the rioters in the worst possible light? Benen is also clearly upset that his network wasn't chosen to receive the video first. But the government grants exclusive first access to material on a daily basis.

Benen also asserts that Tucker Carlson "lacks credibility" on this issue, because, you see, he "questions" the government narrative on January 6th -- or to be specific, he questions the weaponized partisan January 6th Commission/Biden Administration narrative.

Benen apparently doesn't think Republicans can question the findings of a Democrat government. I betcha any number of donuts he doesn't object to Democrats questioning a Republican government.

He also babbles about "security risks." Like me, Jazz Shaw is perplexed about what these risks could possibly be.

I wonder why these people never specify these risks.

Would revealing the nature of the security risks itself be a security risk? Yes, that must be it.

Update: Via Anonysaurus Wrecks, The Beefy Gals of The View also freak out. They say that letting Tucker Carlson see these videos will lead to "another 9/11."

LOL.

"Nefarious intentions!" "Terrorists!"

Update: The Left Freaks Out That The Public Will Get to See the Videos They've Hid From Them For Two Years&bodytext=I think he means something like, "They set us up to fail, they put us out here with inadequate troops and hung us out to dry." Which advances both "conspiracy theories" about January 6th: 1, that Nancy Pelosi and other...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 01:04 PM

| Access Comments