Full Tucker Carlson Debate With Senator @tedcruz About The Senator’s Comments About January 6th
Tucker also asks Senator @tedcruz if he has looked into the Ray Epps story. pic.twitter.com/yOi8CwtFhv
— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) January 7, 2022
Stop digging Ted. the besetting sin of too many smart people is that they fall in love with their own voices. Silence may be golden, it is usually smart.
I’ll still take Ted over almost anyone not named Trump or DeSantis. Thomas Massie is a client and I would love to see him run someday. He truly is Mr. Smith goes to Washington. But yes, when you’re so far below ground you have to know you’re in a hole, please stop digging.
The only thing to say now is the Left is dishonestly blowing the largely-peaceful protests [their standards] over a questionable election [which they refuse to audit and investigate] for crass political purposes.
Or, he doesn’t understand the lying media can take a 60 minute video tape and make it say whatever they want . . . .
That being said, he’s only behind Trump, DeSantis, and a few other real Americans in my mind.
Maybe he’s too cerebral.
Keep It Simple Stupid
Called it: yet another “let’s hate this guy” fest.
Sad that Fox News has to be included on the “make sure you get your own tape” list.
T Shaw: “Maybe he’s too cerebral.”
If it’s possible to be too intelligent to serve effectively in the Senate, then Cruz might be the guy. I was hopeful that Trump would put him on the Supreme Court. Maybe someone else will, if Cruz doesn’t win the Presidency. I have no prediction skills so I will leave that one alone.
Ted Cruz may be book smart, but when it comes to political acumen, he’s as dumb as a bag of hammers.
I got 12 seconds in before I ran out of patience. This is the kind of thing that belongs on Twitter, and it’s why I don’t go on Twitter.
Serious question: How many of the January 6th protestors DID “commit violent assaults on police officers”?
I legitimately don’t know the answer to this question.
132 of the 730 defendants have been charged with assault.
Tucker is usually pretty good, but if it is true that Cruz has used the term ‘domestic terrorist’ for years regarding those who attack police (will Tucker’s staff check?), then his mea culpa of not thinking through the ramifications of using the term regarding some of the elements of January 6 has a little bit of merit, but he still should have known better regarding how the Left plays their word games, etc. He’ll have to make a few more definitive statements that reject what he stated, and not slip again in a similar manner to clean up the mess he made for himself.
But regarding Tucker, he has taken too many cheap shots at the Catholic Church over the years, especially regarding Church history. For instance, he accepts the myths about the Inquistion, uses the terms “medievalism” and “medieval church” in a pejorative manner to bash the Church, and he has thanked on-air the likes of Alan Dershowitz when Dershowitz also repeats the myths about the Inquistion, and he also thanked Glenn Beck for bringing up some other bogus myth about the Catholic Church. Beck is of course an apostate of the Church, and Dershowitz has always had a chip on his shoulder regarding the Catholic Church that has seen him bash Pope Pius XII regarding the myth of him not doing enough to save Jews in the WWII era.
Tucker also claims to be the opponent of lies, but he has repeatedly lied regarding FOX News and their allowing of free speech by hosts despite the suspension of Judge Jeanine not too long ago, and the dismissal of Trish Regan from FBN for saying things about how the coronavirus would be exploited for political ends by the Left.
Not a peep from Tucker in defense of his colleagues, and his lying about FOX News, so even though calling out Cruz was fine, his arrogance and holier-than-thou approach also needs to be called out by others, and he needs to do his own mea culpa…but will he? Don’t bet on it.
not slip again in a similar manner to clean up the mess he made for himself
NO.
That is NOT the correct response to finding out that one bought into someone manufactured outrage and bore false witness– you do NOT scold someone who was lied about for saying something that could be taken out of context, just because YOU bought into a lie.
Serious question: How many of the January 6th protestors DID “commit violent assaults on police officers”?
Remember the cop they tried to claim died because of the Capitol riot? (He actually died of a stroke/strokes and some sources conflated having been treated for injuries with the injuries causing his death.)
He was assaulted with a fire extinguisher– that morning, by AntiFa goons who’d been rioting for days.
My father in law occasionally works in DC, and they were all told to stay clear because of the violence that was known to be going on.
THAT is why the big push to declare that absolutely nothing went on, if you won’t agree that Trump tried to overthrow the gov’t. That way, when the conspiracy by AntiFa/BLM/other Progressives comes out in such a way that it cannot be denied, they’ll have a “gotcha”.
It’s a standard tactic.
Not only has Cruz identified those assaulting the police as domestic terrorists in the past, he literally sponsored a bill to legally designate them as such.
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-cruz-cassidy-antifa-is-a-domestic-terrorist-organization
No wonder the Proggies, and those who keep buying into their propaganda, are so desperate to smear the guy.
Terrorists generally belong to an organized group and use weapons, against civilians, to spread terror in order to achieve political ends. The January 6th crowd was an angry mob, but not a group of violent terrorists … and Cruz knows that. He uses the words because, to him, they are preferable to the term “insurrectionist” which, if adopted, would have very bad political ramifications to him personally. He was still wrong for saying it and it doesn’t matter how many years he’s been wrong to say it. He was wrong the first time, and every time since.
People who assault police officers are very seldom ‘domestic terrorists’. They’re usually just hotheads. (Some of those at the Capitol were just defending themselves). Cruz ought to know how to use terminology properly, especially in light of the agitprop which has surrounded this event.
In fairness to Cruz, he is one of the few prominent Republicans who has shown some concern for the victims of our awful DC judiciary colluding with the awful US Attorney’s office in DC.
Ted Cruz may be book smart, but when it comes to political acumen, he’s as dumb as a bag of hammers.
He landed a partnership at Jones, Day. He understands certain political environments. In regard to the voting public, if he were as dumb as a bag of hammers, he wouldn’t be in Congress and he would not have been the runner up in 2016.
This is why I am asking about the number. The media is hardly honest about this, but the statistics we can get are not quite what we need to reach a conclusion. 132 assault charges probably puts a maximum of 132 (since it’s inconceivable that a cop would have been assaulted and they wouldn’t have pursued charges) but the true number is certainly lower than that, since:
-Many of the charges could be baseless.
-The assaults may not have been against cops.
-The assaults may have reached the legal definition of “assault” but not what the average person would consider “violent.”
How many are left over? All I can say is some number between 0 and 132, with my gut leaning me far toward the lower side.
But this raises another question: does Ted Cruz know the number? And if he doesn’t, why would he use an unknown number of assaults to not only talk about limited numbers of “terrorists” but to speak of an “anniversary of a violent terrorist assault?”
I did listen to the full clip to see if Ted Cruz gave any indication of the number. He gave an estimate on the number of peaceful Trump supporters, but never gave any info on the number who attacked cops.
I’m also criticizing Tucker, by the way. Asking “who violently assaulted police” or “how much of the crowd violently assaulted police” is such an obvious question in response to Cruz repeatedly saying that his statements were only mean to talk about those who assaulted police.
Guys like this are why they are desperate to either declare that all of January 6th was Trump supporters, or that nothing there was in any way objectionable:
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01/06/whatever-happened-to-alleged-capitol-rioter-john-sullivan-n502773
This guy was there, inciting violence, breaking stuff, and uploading the video.
He’s a known, quite public, Antifa/BLM organizer.
Anybody crazy enough to think he was the only one?
132 assault charges probably puts a maximum of 132 (since it’s inconceivable that a cop would have been assaulted and they wouldn’t have pursued charges)
How many of the BLM rioters were charged, rather than having them dropped?
If you want to make it about BLM, then Ted Cruz’s remarks are even more foolish. He could have easily talked about BLM terrorists rather than framing January 6th as the day of a terrorist assault, in a context of people using the day to cast Trump supporters as terrorists.
By and large the prosecution, or rather the non-prosecution, of BLM rioters in blue urban centers was a sick farce:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/17/george-floyd-protesters-charges-citations-analysis
Rudolph…. I literally linked to a BLM guy who WAS IN THE CAPITOL, TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO BE VIOLENT.
And, we should note, failing. He did manage to get that young veteran lady killed, and given the other preparation stuff it’s pretty reasonable to expect that some of those in congress were expecting to get crazy right wing violence, just like that exact same guy managed to incite in their side.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out that there WERE violent assaults on police on the 6th– starting well before Trump spoke, and in keeping with what the BLM/Antifa protesters had been doing for quite some time.
Why on earth would I join in with the people who want to frame January 6th as a right-wing attack on the republic and pretend that there wasn’t left-wing violence going on before, during and after?!
I’m not disputing that BLM has been violent.
I’m saying that no reasonable person would hear Ted Cruz’s original words and think that he was talking about BLM, since in that context no one else talking about January 6th was talking about BLM (and if Ted Cruz wanted to talk about them he could have easily named them.)
Furthermore even in his defense on Tucker Carlson he doesn’t mention BLM even once. In fact the person who brings up the possibility of the violence being created/encouraged by non-conservative provocateurs is Tucker, not Cruz.
I don’t know why you’re making this personal when I’ve been clear that I’ve been talking about Ted Cruz’s words and motivations the whole time.
Donald- you’re probably already watching it, but did you hear about DC trying to bill the Proud Boys for damage done/money spent preparing for their protests?
When DC blanket dismissed charges against how many groups of protesters that were burning cars, throwing bricks at the police, etc?
Rudolph-
Cruz is not a complete moron, so why on earth would he paint a nice big bullseye on himself like that?
By calling out the behavior– which is, after all, what is objectionable– he avoids the actual stupid tactic of having to list off all the groups that the guys openly threatening those who disagree with them and burning down buildings are members of, and then having the same SOBs use the defense of “that guy isn’t a member.”
They’ve been doing THAT for years, at this point. No evidence is sufficient to “prove” someone is a member of a progressive group when they have done wrong, while having once shared a Boog meme is enough to prove a person is a right-winger when they’ve done something objectionable.
I don’t know why you’re making this personal when I’ve been clear that I’ve been talking about Ted Cruz’s words and motivations the whole time.
If I were making it personal I’d be calling you, at the very least, a fool. I wouldn’t keep dragging it back to evidence and records.
You made a comment about me “wanting to make it about BLM,” in direct response to it being pointed out that one of the January 6th protesters arrested for breaking into the capitol is literally a well known, multiple group, progressive riot promoter.
I’d be frankly shocked if Cruz wasn’t paying attention to that guy being a golden chunk of evidence of domestic terrorist activity aimed at creating a Reichstag fire event. ESPECIALLY since, as I provided proof of, he’s been looking at that for years now. (No wonder they want him gone.)
As you have now chosen to ignore the evidence offered, ignore what is actually said, and attempt to shift the discussion on to me as a person, there is clearly nothing to be gained by attempting to continue the discussion.
You’re making a defense of Ted Cruz’s words well beyond what he himself did.
For your explanation to work it must be true that Ted Cruz intentionally not only refused to mention BLM in congress, but also on the friendly venue of Tucker Carlson.
Furthermore, you are literally the only person I have seen interpret his words as referring to BLM. The vast majority of people on both sides of the aisle took his words to refer to Donald Trump supporters, and even in his Tucker Carlson interview he would more obviously seem to be referring to a small minority of violent Trump Supporters. So if he was carefully choosing his words to convey some sort of message secretly, it wasn’t conveyed successfully.
And why should he care about “getting a bullseye” on him? The left already hated him and still hates him, and the right was more offended by his words than they would have been if he had simply talked about BLM.
Ted Cruz’s own defense of him simply being sloppy with his words makes him look smarter than your defense of him does.
When DC blanket dismissed charges against how many groups of protesters that were burning cars, throwing bricks at the police, etc?
Further evidence, if any were needed, why DC should never be a state.
What is amazing is how peaceful the public demonstration of disgust over the election. So much more violence could have happened. One would have thought that an angry group of peasants armed with pitchforks and clubs had assaulted the politicians as they were voting for who should be president or not. One would think the politicians were being attacked by the people they represented. Isn’t that the real fear here? The politicians have been afraid of the people they don’t serve?
If/when the Republicans take control of Congress in NOV there will be multiple, legit investigations. It will be an eye opener how complicit Pelosi, FBI HQ and others like Clintons were with the Left and un-named anarchists. That is, of course, if video, emails, texts are still available by then.
Cruz pulled what I would call a Pence comment. Trying to sound like a statesman, a centrist, a unifier. Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer do not want a united country. Their statements are Bravo Sierra.
Add OBama to that list.
CAM, your faith that the GOP actually would investigate the actions of their dinner party cohorts across the aisle is greater than mine, but it would be marvelous if that faith turned out to be well placed. I keep remembering how that same GOP sat on its collective hands throughout the months of obvious election rule manipulation by Democrats leading up to the stolen election (as apparently Trump himself did as well, for reasons that are beyond me), and then put on their “nothing to see here” face after election day. The same GOP that has neither said nor done ANYTHING for the people being held unlawfully in the DC city jail, not one of whom has been charged with anything more serious than misdemeanors, AFAIK. And, of course, it’s the same GOP that sat by silently (or making noise but taking no real action, see e.g. Durham) for four years while the entire machinery of the Swamp was engaged in attempting to overthrow a lawfully elected President whom they did not like. Perhaps enough new Republican faces would come to Congress a year from now to change that, but I’ll have to see it to believe it. Newly elected Members and to a lesser extent Senators are all but powerless unless and until they start getting prime committee seats, which are dealt out by the party hierarchy. It will take enough new faces to throw out the current leadership to get anything done, I fear.
Further evidence, if any were needed, why DC should never be a state.
There are two sensible options for DC: one is retrocession and one is for Congress to amputate the discretion of the DC government over education and law enforcement. It’s actually an affluent piece of territory and even with the spike in recent years the homicide rate is still well below Baltimore City’s. The concerns which induced the constitutional convention to remove the capital from the purview of state governments are anachronistic and 85% of the metropolis is already under the authority of the Virginia and Maryland state governments as we speak. Retrocede it and forget about it. It’s up to the State of Maryland to clean up local law enforcement (which they’ve assiduously refused to do).
there will be multiple, legit investigations. It will be an eye opener how complicit Pelosi, FBI HQ and others like Clintons were with the Left and un-named anarchists. That is, of course, if video, emails, texts are still available by then.
Yeah. Maybe they can call Trey Gowdy out of retirement to be staff counsel.