[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

I'm sure we're all impressed by your wide range of expertises, though.

Earlier we were dazzled by what seemed to be a claim from you of superior medical expertise to a medical examiner. You seemed to be suggesting it was superior to the medical examiner's on Brian Sicknick's stroke.

Now you seem to be telling us your legal expertise on this Loudermilk matter is superior to the FBI's.

Again, from the full quote:

" the committee knew the FBI had already cleared him before the Democrats accused him"

 

 

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Picture taking guy was THERE WITH HIS KID on the tour led by Loudermilk.

No more freebies Evidence Boy. You want to demand evidence from everybody else. Produce some.

Quote

The FACT is, picture taking guy was among the invaders of the Capitol the next day Jan 6th

Down the road from where the tour was, you mean?

You forgot to quote something. Here I'll help you.

From the full quote:

"Mr. Loudermilk giving a tour to his Georgia constituents of a congressional building down the street from the Capitol."

 

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

Glad you are calling it Tucker footage, it has the same relationship to facts as everything else he spews. 

See, I read that and all I hear is you don't like Tucker Carlson. The easy response to that is, so what?

It's nothing like a point that's relevant to the video proof Tucker presented we were told lies during the Democrat subcommittee television mini-series event they tried to manipulate.

 

The fact you and yours don't like Tucker means nothing in the face of that. You want to believe the lies you were told and Tucker made that difficult. So what?

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

Here ya go, R&R. You did this so I thought I'd do it back at you. An article from a newspaper you'd consider partisan:

Scalise calls on Democrats to apologize to Loudermilk for Jan. 6 scrutiny

"

 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise called on Democratic lawmakers to publicly apologize to Rep. Barry Loudermilk for falsely accusing him of helping plan the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Transparency is an important thing, and so the public is going to be able to see a lot more information. But ultimately, and for my colleague Barry Loudermilk, I think he’s owed an apology by every Democrat who questioned him on the events prior to Jan. 6,” Mr. Scalise, Louisiana Republican, told reporters. “They implied things about him that weren’t true that those tapes revealed. And I’m waiting for those apologies to come because they owe it to him.”

 

The Jan. 6 select committee accused Mr. Loudermilk, Georgia Republican, of leading a reconnaissance mission through the Capitol the day before the protest, implying he helped the insurrectionists attack the building.

“The behavior of these individuals during the Jan. 5, 2021, tour raises concerns about their activity and intent while inside the Capitol complex,” stated committee Chairman Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat, wrote in a letter to Mr. Loudermilk, requesting his testimony.

Mr. Thompson denied to The Washington Times that the committee deceptively edited any footage the panel released.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, told Politico last June she was “sickened” when she saw the initial video clip of Mr. Loudermilk.

The Times contacted Ms. Jackson Lee’s office for comment but did not hear back.

Among the new Jan. 6 Capitol security footage released by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, to Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson was that of Mr. Loudermilk giving a tour to his Georgia constituents of a congressional building down the street from the Capitol.

“The surveillance tape that we reviewed shows this story is a lie. And the Democrats on the committee knew it was a lie when they told it,” Mr. Carlson said of the footage.

According to Mr. Loudermilk, the committee knew the FBI had already cleared him before the Democrats accused him, but wanted to create a story that would fit their narrative.

Mr. Thompson refused to apologize. "

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/8/steve-scalise-calls-democrats-apologize-barry-loud/

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

So they just happened to show the video AGAIN this morning.

Originally AIRED June 15, 2022; just like I SAID "MONTHS AGO."

Laudermilk tour video starts 1:45. Released by the Jan 6th committee which you would know, too, if you actually paid attention to what was happening.

 

For the third time, watch the Tucker video. Stop embarrassing yourself. The Tucker footage reveals the tour as a family event. 

Your MSNBC video shows a mouthy guy who previously made some loudmouthed threats according to the MSNBC host.

Loudmouth somehow attached himself to the family tour and was taking pictures of hallways and staircases. 

So what did lone wolf, selected, picture-taking guy actually do then? Supposedly he wanted to target Pelosi and Nadler according MSNBC host guy.

They look fine to me. Well as good as one could expect from a stomach stabled clown and an old crone alcoholic anyway.

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Unfortunate you DON'T UNDERSTAND that strokes are INDUCED BY OVERWHELMING STRESS.

Fortunately the Chief of the Capitol Police understands that.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3888363-mcconnell-says-fox-news-made-a-mistake-by-underplaying-violence-of-jan-6/

 

Oh yeah, the police chief. There's a superior medical authority to the chief medical examiner. 

They didn't charge the pepper sprayers with murder so we know that wouldn't fly.

So now Chief Manger and you tell us Officer Sicknick was overly stressed by a hard day on the job.

Apparently you and Chief Manger are what you called "everyone" now are you? You and Police chief manger want to believe something so it becomes true, does it? Is that the way it works?

Maybe if Chief Manger was so worried about stressing his officers he should have made sure there was an adequate number of police on the job that day.

And maybe if they thought Brian's health was such he couldn't handle the stress of dealing with a protest that day Chief Manger should have had him behind a desk that day.

Being the superior expert on Officer Sicknick's medical condition and all, I mean. 

Added stress from that afternoon could maybe have tipped the scale on Officer Sicknick's heart condition. But you and Chief Manger are saying you both know for a fact that was the deciding factor. Where did you two study?

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

EVERYONE KNOWS that Sicknick would not have DIED on Jan 7th if he had NOT had to fight Capitol invaders all day on Jan 6th. You're fortunate you don't know how stressful getting face full of pepper spray is. Men with a glass jaw can be killed by a punch to the face.

Strange use of the word, "Everyone."

Any reasonable person watching the newly released video of Sicknick in perfect health running around doing his job in the rotunda after any confrontations he may have had in the courtyard doesn't know what you suggest. Not if they possess reason and common sense.

As to your "death by pepper spray" hypothesis, do you know who doesn't believe that? The medical examiner who examined Sicknick's body and anybody who actually believes in following the science:

Quote

A US police officer who died after January's Capitol riot had two strokes and died from natural causes, the chief medical examiner for Washington DC has ruled.

 

Two men are accused of using a type of pepper spray on Officer Brian Sicknick.

However, the ruling means they are now unlikely to be charged with homicide.

The autopsy found no evidence of an allergic reaction to chemicals, nor of internal or external injuries, Dr Francisco Diaz said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56810371

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Sorry, my memory will have to suffice. Don't really care to correct your cluelessness.

Sorry back at you. I might have accepted your apology at one time. But as I recall you're the guy who's always demanding evidence. So produce some or admit you're full of BS.

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

I saw that video footage with the kids in the Capitol on MSNBC MONTHS AGO.

Link it or stop lying.

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

ALL of the footage was available to ANYONE indicted by the DoJ. Your problem is that it DID NOT exonerate those who were CONVICTED.

Or you could prove it, Evidence Boy. Show us how the footage of the Qanon shaman being escorted around by friendly officers was shown to the court. Show me in a court document where they quote the footage where he was speechifying, unironically thanking the capitol police for being so helpful.

He's doing 4 years for simply being in the capitol building that day. He had access to none of that footage that may have helped his case.

 

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

Robo: this bit from your far left rag The Guardian is a lie:

"

That person’s activity was captured on security cameras and turned over to the House select committee investigating the insurrection at the Capitol. The panel made the footage publicly available on Wednesday in a letter demanding cooperation in its inquiry from Loudermilk."

It's the kind of like you acolytes of Prog swallow up and try to replicate. It tells part of the truth without telling all of it. Once you see it all though you know it's a lie.

They make all of the footage public. They made an edited clip public. Tucker showed us the other bit where it was just families milling about with their children. These were your supposed spies.

As to the rest, Tucker contradicts those details. So who do we believe? Well since my 2 eyes showed me The Guardian is willing to lie about this I'm going to believe Tucker until you or your British rag can give us better details.

And again watch the video. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

55 minutes ago, Rebound said:

So you somehow never saw footage of the rioters smashing windows and beating police officers, or the testimony of the police officer who said Sicknick became completely white after being hit with bear spray? Are you literally denying all of that? 

Sure, I saw it. I even saw it on Tucker's coverage. But I also saw what you didn't see. People walking through doors opened by police. Walking in orderly fashion in lines or milling about a rotunda peacefully. These were your "deadly insurgents" and there were many of them. Peaceful rally goers labelled "deadly insurgents" by lying psychopaths.

One had to see the fake news coverage of rioting at the one entrance where the instigators were waiting for the rally goers to arrive from the Trump speech.

They played that selected footage on a loop on all your fake news networks for 2 years. What we're seeing right now is the video evidence they hid from us and from the political prisoners who weren't unable to mount a proper defense because Pelosi wouldn't allow them access to the full footage. That was criminal if you ask me.

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Prove that Capitol Police officers were not Trump supporters,

Brian Sicknick was. He was also frisky and in perfect health, filmed in the building after he was supposed to be getting murdered outside in the riot. The "deadly insurrection" label was a lie and the subcommittee knew about it.

Quote

just like the Republican Congressmen who were giving tours to Capitol invaders the day before Jan 6th when the Capitol was CLOSED to visitors.

He was giving tours, but to his constituents. The tours weren't in the building and you can see families milling around holding the hands of their children. 

"Tours to invaders" was another lie the subcommittee knew about.

Watch the video, Dummy. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[TUCKER CARLSON AND THE JAN. 6 VIDEO]

  

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Certain Capitol Police officers being members of the Trump cult does not make ANYTHING "horse shit" except YOUR INTERPRETATION of what happened. 

 

Sorry, denier. Your only excuse for not recognizing the Horseshit that should be burning in your nostrils now is refusing to recognize the evidence.

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

Like I said, I'm not even saying affirmative action hiring is a big problem. I'm saying there's a good possibility of varied problems and not just in America. Pretty sure our cops have unions here too, if that's what you're worried about. 

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

56 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Let us look at Derek Chauvin's thugery:

Complaints of misconduct: Chauvin had received at least 18 complaints filed with the Minneapolis Police Department's Internal Affairs division throughout his career, though he was only disciplined for two of them.

so what if the other cop was black? Union politics is not about race, that is political. Union is protecting their own, regardless.

Maybe an AI police will do. Better than emotional cops.  

Separate incident. Proves nor disproves nothing.

That guy who shot Ashli Babbit had a record of carelessness. I wonder if he was a diversity hire. He didn't appear to be a very good cop. Again, proves nor disproves nothing. Just another thing to think about.

The cops with Chauvin were black, oriental and 2 whites. Chauvin was hired pre-affirmative action push in 2001.

These were the guys that beat Tyre Nichols to death:

I don't want to harp on the affirmative action thing. I'm just saying a lot of things can go wrong in the cop business. If you want to focus on one and make it look like the only one you can do that. You shouldn't, but you can.

BTW, Cops aren't all saints here in Canada either. I'm pretty sure police unions aren't just a problem in America.

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

Fair enough. In fact, it almost sounds like you're agreeing with me.

I can think of another one. Speaking of specific ones do you remember the one where the Somalian cop shot that Australian woman in her pajamas? Apparently he'd done stupid things before.

On my side of the aisle they were pointing at affirmative action hires.

I'm not saying that's the only problem with policing in America. I'm saying in Minneapolis that may have been one problem at one time.

But yeah, the union did it's best to protect the guy in that case, as I recall.

 

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

I see. So it's no longer a general issue with policing in America then.

You've seen incidents in America where you see America specific problems with some policing and you would like "politicians and activists" to fix those.

You're just talking about what you call "flaws." Specifically then, what flaws?

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

42 minutes ago, robosmith said:

NO ONE said "all cops are bad." That is YOUR STRAWMAN.

Well, actually that would be a misunderstanding not a strawman.

So you're not saying "all cops are bad then?"

Very well, answer the poll question again then, "What is the issue with policing in America?"

 The premise there appears to be there is a general issue specifically with policing in America. In America as opposed to any place else.

It also appeared to me that you were falling in line with that premise and telling me that the fact you could find videos online of bad policing proved it.

But now you say, 'no, that wasn't what you meant." I assume you're saying now you were only talking about the incidents of bad policing caught on video and those are the specific ones you want to fix.

That's good. Because I've also seen many examples of good policing on video. Also police who were accused of bad policing but the police cam disproved any malfeasance.

I'm hopeful you and the OP aren't wanting to fix those as well.

There is an option in the poll for "There is no issue" But that would be disingenuous from your perspective because according to you now, you're just talking about the incidents of bad policing you saw on YouTube.

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

Why are you compromising your higher intellect with neo nazi and disgruntled men that activate this forum, from the right?

Listen, I might have personal issues but went to school to read people, I know someone that can think for himself when I read one. 

You are better than this, young man, time to give everyone the middle finger and achieve. 

https://ca.coursera.org/specializations/intro-cyber-security

It starts March 6th.

Lose the patronizing tone, Bud. You're better than nobody.

If you have a better argument than mine, produce it. Justify it. Otherwise don't waste my time.

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

A LOT of cops' misconduct is ON VIDEO these days, so "MSM BS" is NOT a FACTOR in those cases.

There are some videos of bad cops so all cops are bad. Is that your prog logic, hasty generalization of the day?

But hey, off topic for a bit. I've been sick lately, getting up at strange hours. I notice that seems to be your MO. Prowling around late at night, early into the morning. How do you deal with it? Get back to sleep, I mean. Warm milk?

[What is the issue with policing in the USA?]

6. Candy-assed Progs  and the dim-witted who fall for MSM BS won't let the police do their jobs.

[ESG Takes A Hit]

One can almost see it as a Pyramid scheme.

[ESG Takes A Hit]

The thing about ESG is it's not a money making enterprise.

Don't misunderstand me. There are companies on the ESG checklist that are making out like bandits. (Mostly because that's what they are - bandits) But ultimately that's government and union money. Sooner or later the bubble has to burst. 

[ESG Takes A Hit]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

So, again, per your cite. "noted that the Labor Department rule was voluntary, so it didn’t require fund managers to actually do anything."

So it's 100% disingenuous to say that Biden is forcing anyone to invest in ESG. Individual investors have NEVER had a voice in how fund managers assess value.

Drop the lies and get real.

 

 

OK, I'll just keep saying it until you hear me then. The trump rule disallowed ideological based investments over profit.

Then the Biden regime came in with what you're calling the labor department rule. It allowed ideology based investments over profit prioritized ones.

But, and I've said this at least 3 times now there are ways to either drip, drip, drip new government restrictions in or to allow an inevitable ESG monopoly to take over so there is no other place to go.

And on the way there the working guys whose pension managers are on board with the globalist ideology over profit approach are screwed. Their only choice is to wait and see what's going to happen with their money.