I wrote two posts on Tucker Carlson’s four January 6 segments featuring suppressed video of the Capitol and focused on the case of Jacob Chamsley. I found Tucker’s presentation of the case deficient and misleading. I sought to provide relevant facts that might inform the views of readers who would otherwise take Tucker at face value. All in all, I thought that Tucker’s four segments were a dud.
That is one view I share in common with John Dale Dunn. I have no taste for masochism and haven’t caught up with the 1,600 comments on my two posts. I have a few other things to do. However, I have a sense that John Dale Dunn’s negative assessment of Tucker’s four segments will be more to the liking of Power Line commenters: “What was so hard about demonstrating to the public that the J6 was a Reichstag Fire scam?”
Let us not leave that rhetorical question hanging: “Tucker has had 4 nights to put this stuff up and he pussyfoots around the video trove like he doesn’t want to offend the Democrats or the FBI/DOJ/Capitol Police by showing the Reichstag Fire scenario that was created. He is on a short Murdoch leash.” Frankly, I don’t think so, but if that kind of thing rings your chimes, you won’t want to miss Dunn’s American Thinker post “Tucker pulled his punches.”
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.