How Tucker Carlson Duped the People His Producer Called “Dumb … Cousin-Fucking … Terrorists”

In response to Tucker Carlson’s misleading propaganda claiming that Jacob Chansley was just a peaceful tourist escorted at all times by his own dedicated cop, a number of January 6 defendants are demanding mistrials because of claimed Brady violations.

Dominic Pezzola’s attorneys, for example, argued that the video released by Tucker shows that the Senate never had to recess, which (they claim) undermines the government’s obstruction claim against the Proud Boys.

Never during this trial has there been any evidence of any raucous or extremely disruptive or violent demonstration in the Senate chamber. (There have been a few images of demonstrators sitting on chairs or standing in the well of the Senate.)

Then came the Tucker Carlson show on the evening of March 6, 2023.

On March 6, Tucker Carlson released shocking footage from January 6th, 2021 that showed “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol with two Capitol Police officers. At one point, one of the officers appears to try opening a door or elevator, and then turns and leads Chansley in another direction. Later in the video clips, Chansley is seen walking past nine police officers gathered in a hallway intersection. Chansley and his police escorts walk right past the nine officers without any resistance.

And then the Tucker Carlson show presented footage of officers calmly escorting Chansley (and apparently other protestors) into the Senate chamber. The Washington Post wrote that Albert Watkins, Chansley’s attorney through sentencing in November 2021, said he had been provided many hours of video by prosecutors, but not the footage which Carlson aired Monday night. He said he had not seen video of Chansley walking through Capitol hallways with multiple Capitol Police officers.

“What’s deeply troubling,” Watkins said Tuesday, “Is the fact that I have to watch Tucker Carlson to find video footage which the government has, but chose not to disclose, despite the absolute duty to do so. Despite being requested in writing to do so, multiple times.” [emphasis original]

The government’s response lays out that, in fact, both Chansley’s attorneys and Pezzola’s received this video in global discovery (there was a 10-second segment not released until January that was not exculpatory, which likely shows a Senator fleeing even as Pezzola stands just feet away — see below).

Pezzola’s motion describes “shocking footage” of Chansley “walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol” with two police officers who purportedly “escort[] Chansley (and apparently other protestors) into the Senate chamber.” ECF 679, at 4. Pezzola quotes Chansley’s former attorney for the proposition that the government “withheld” this footage from discovery in Chansley’s and Pezzola’s cases. Id. The footage is not shocking, and it was not withheld from Pezzola (or Chansley, in any material respect, for that matter).

The footage in question comes from the Capitol’s video surveillance system, commonly referred to as “CCTV” (for “closed-circuit television”). The Court will be familiar with the numerous CCTV clips that have been introduced as exhibits during this trial. The CCTV footage is core evidence in nearly every January 6 case, and it was produced en masse, labeled by camera number and by time, to all defense counsel in all cases.3 With the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route), all of the footage played on television was disclosed to defendant Pezzola (and defendant Chansley) by September 24, 2021.4 The final 10 seconds of footage was produced in global discovery to all defense counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s Brady claim therefore fails at the threshold, because nothing has been suppressed. United States v. Blackley, 986 F. Supp. 600, 603 (D.D.C. 1997) (“For an item to be Brady, it must be something that is being ‘suppress[ed] by the prosecution.’”) (quoting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)).

While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has provided defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily identify relevant cameras within the CCTV to determine whether footage was produced or not. Accordingly, the volume of discovery does not excuse defense counsel from making reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has been produced before making representations about what was and was not produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and inflammatory allegations of discovery failures.

3 The productions excluded a limited set of footage that the Capitol Police designated as security information, such as X-Ray machine feeds and views of evacuation routes and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (“SCIF”) office lobbies.

4 The remaining CCTV was disclosed in global discovery on January 23, 2023. It similarly – as with other CCTV – depicts defendant Chansley outside of the Senate Chamber with law enforcement, after his initial breach of the Chamber.

It’s hard to overstate how much this exchange vindicates DOJ’s decision to make all the January 6 video available to all defendants, which delayed trials for probably six months, but which ensured that at the moment defendants like Chansley and Pezzola started claiming they didn’t get something, DOJ could point to when they in fact did receive it.

DOJ rebuts Pezzola’s argument that any of this is exculpatory, relying, in part, on former Army Staff Sergeant Joe Biggs’ description of overwhelming the Capitol.

Pezzola’s argument seems to be that the snippets of Chansley’s movements that were televised by Carlson establish that there was no emergency necessitating the suspension of proceedings. The televised footage lacks the context of what occurred before and after the footage. Chansley entered the building as part of a violent crowd that gained access as a result of Pezzola’s destruction of a window and he traveled with Pezzola during the initial breach. And just as Defendant Biggs had recounted in a recorded statement after January 6, 2021, by the time Pezzola forcibly breached the Capitol and Chansley rode his coattails, the mob—through the sheer force of its size and the violence of those within it—had wrested control of portions of the Capitol grounds and the Capitol itself from a vastly outnumbered U.S. Capitol Police force. 5 As a result, for a period that afternoon, those defending the Capitol were in triage mode—trying to deal with the most violent element of those unlawfully present, holding those portions of the Capitol that had not yet been seized by rioters, and protecting those Members and staffers who were still trapped in the Capitol.

5 Biggs stated, in part: “When you’re holding a position, like a fort, and you’re being overrun, if there’s three of you or four of you, and you’re outnumbered a hundred to one, are you gonna sit there and just go, ‘I’m holding the door’? No, you’re just gonna get your ass beat. That’s already gone. if that many people show up to your house, there’s nothing you can do about it.” Gov’t Ex. 611B. Biggs later continued, “You’re gonna stand up to [] tens of thousands of people storming that? No, that’s stupid. You step [] aside. That puts less chance of anyone getting hurt or anything like that, and you allow it to happen.” Id.

DOJ also lays out specifically how Tucker chose to release only video from after the damage — in the form of the violent breach of the Capitol and the decision to flee the Senate — had been done.

Chansley piggybacking on Pezzola’s violent breach of the Capitol provides more than enough evidence of his corrupt intent to interfere with Congress that day. But there is much more evidence of his and others’ conduct. The televised footage shows Chansley’s movements only from approximately 2:56 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Prior to that time, Chansley had, amongst other acts, breached a police line at 2:09 p.m. with the mob, entered the Capitol less than one minute behind Pezzola during the initial breach of the building, and faced off with members of the U.S. Capitol Police for more than thirty minutes in front of the Senate Chamber doors while elected officials, including the Vice President of the United States, were fleeing from the chamber. Chansley then entered the Senate Gallery, where he proceeded to scream obscenities while other rioters rifled through the desks of U.S. Senators on the floor below. All these actions were captured by Senate floor and/or CCTV cameras. In sum, Chansley was not some passive, chaperoned observer of events for the roughly hour that he was unlawfully inside the Capitol. He was part of the initial breach of the building; he confronted law enforcement for roughly 30 minutes just outside the Senate Chamber; he gained access to the gallery of the Senate along with other members of the mob (obviously, precluding any Senate business from occurring); and he gained access to and later left the Senate floor only after law enforcement was able to arrive en masse to remove him. It is true that a sole officer, who was trying to de-escalate the situation, was with Chansley as he made his way to the Senate floor after initially breaching the Chamber, as the televised footage reflects.6 But the televised footage fails to show that Chansley subsequently refused to be escorted out by this lone officer and instead left the Capitol only after additional officers arrived and forcibly escorted him out.

6 Notably, this officer’s statement regarding these events was also disclosed in discovery to Chansley’s attorney on May 19, 2021.

It’s a classic lesson in how propaganda is made, by focusing on the least damning part of a story and suppressing the rest. It happens to have been released in the same period where the Dominion lawsuit revealed that Tucker’s then investigative producer, Alex Pfeiffer, likened Tucker’s own viewers to “dumb,” “cousin-fucking” “terrorists.”

“Might wanna address this, but this stuff is so f—— insane. Vote rigging to the tune of millions? C’mon,” Shah wrote.

Carlson’s producer, Alex Pfeiffer, responded: “It is so insane but our viewers believe it so addressing again how her stupid Venezuela affidavit isn’t proof might insult them.”

Shah advised that Carlson should mention the affidavit noting it was “not new info, not proof” but then quickly “pivot to being deferential.”

Pfeiffer, who has since left the network, answered that the delicate dance was “surreal.”

“Like negotiating with terrorists,” he added, “but especially dumb ones. Cousin f—– types not saudi royalty.”

The kerfuffle also gave journalists an opportunity to go back and ask for the video used in the Chansley case to be released to journalists.

One of the videos newly released to journalists shows the mob closing in on the Senate and — I suspect this may be the 10-second clip that was originally withheld — one or more Senators fleeing as a single cop holds off the mob by yelling “back off” repeatedly.

Kyle Cheney, who first pointed to this segment, suspects the fleeing Senator may be Chuck Grassley.

In other words, what we’ve learned from this incident is that Tucker is the one lying about what happened. DOJ, in fact, had been withholding some of the most damning video from the public but not defense attorneys, and Tucker’s propaganda effort has provided yet another glimpse of how many close calls the police managed to avert on January 6.

image_print
87 replies
  1. flounder says:

    When Tucker lied about the 2020 election being fraudulent, a bunch of the dumbest, most gullible people on the planet believed him, and dumb, gullible people like Ashli Babbitt were killed attacked a police barricade at Tucker’s behest (because if a Federal election was truly fraudulent, the correct thing to do would be to stop it from becoming final).
    Now, maybe this sort of power over life and death so thrilled Tucker that he’s going to fire up the old lying machine again, all so he can experience sending some more cousin fuckers to their death?

    • Sloth Sloman says:

      Tucker Carlson isn’t feeling the slightest amount of responsibility for any of this, he’s just a “journalist” “asking questions.” The lying machine was never turned off. Casual text messages aside, his only concern is how he can parlay these events into more money and influence.

      • flounder says:

        I don’t think Tucker is feeling responsibility. I’m saying he’s probably feeling whatever the Night Stalker felt when he got away with killing someone. A few minutes euphoria, then depression, and finally the urge to kill again.

        • Sloth Sloman says:

          If he doesn’t feel responsibility, why would he feel euphoria over Ashli Babbitt’s death?

          While he certainly fanned the flames of grievance that led to this moment, I don’t think he “got away with killing someone.” I think callousness and indifference toward the consequences of his rhetoric is not the same as “sending some more [people] to their deaths.” Perhaps I’m not masochistic enough to be fully aware of everything he says, but I think your accusations are far more credibly directed at Trump, Giuliani, Powell, Eastman, etc. They are the ones who explicitly called for the fight.

        • Norskeflamthrower says:

          Nope. Tucker’s callous indifference toward the consequences of his rhetoric contributed to the deaths and injuries suffered during this act of sedition…period. The awareness of the consequences of speech is something that can be litigated either criminally or civilly.

        • Sloth Sloman says:

          Nope, what?

          “While he certainly fanned the flames of grievance that led to this moment, I don’t think he “got away with killing someone.””

          Are you honestly trying to tell me Tucker Carlson is guilty of murder in Ashli Babbitt’s death? The man is a small, bright green shit in a mountain of it, but let’s try to stick with reality here. He’s not Fox News’ version of Dexter chasing a high/impulse by killing people (particularly his own viewers).

          …I won’t completely rule it out, but I don’t have any evidence to suggest it is true.

        • Barringer says:

          People were eager to trash the Capitol and obstruct the proceedings because of lies peddled on FOX programming. FOX and Tucker bear a lot of responsibility.

      • Spencer Dawkins says:

        I’m becoming more and more aware that there is a HUGE difference between a journalist asking questions of someone who can reasonably answer them, and then reporting on the answers, and a “journalist” who is “just asking questions” by launching them into the ether, aimed at no one in particular, and letting their listeners make poorly informed guesses at the answers.

        I wouldn’t dream of advocating that the second category – “just asking questions” isn’t protected by the first amendment, but I do wish we could require a chyron that says “Biff Journalist just asked this question of $Whoever” at the bottom of the screen, where “$Whoever” might be “no one at all who might be able to answer it, as far as we can tell”.

        • Stephen Calhoun says:

          This reminds me of questioners who refuse to repeat a question as a response to the tiresome varieties of deflection, most related to ‘changing the subject.’

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          On a recent show Sean Hannity referred to the 2020 election, again, with the kind of damning rhetoric Fox’s on-air talent have employed ceaselessly since (and even before) November 2020: The nefarious things “they” did rendered the election process untrustworthy. This time Hannity spoke vaguely enough to evade legal consequences, but the message of solidarity with the election-denying audience blared loud and clear.

          He concluded by declaring, re: that election, “We deserve answers!”

          The Dominion filings show that Hannity himself has arguably known and certainly had access to those “answers” since days after his own network called Biden the winner. I find his (and Fox’s) deliberate withholding of those answers their greatest sin. Fostering mistrust has created fertile ground for voter suppression movements to take hold; these favor GOP politicians supported by/on Fox. For now, maybe, it feeds the company’s bottom line, but this trajectory will eventually bode ill even for those addicted to the illusion.

        • Parker Dooley says:

          “Just asking questions” may be protected by the First Amendment, but I notice that it guarantees a vigorous and appropriate punitive response from Bmaz or Rayne. Too bad Tucker & co. don’t experience the same. Perhaps the Dominion litigation will serve.

        • Rayne says:

          The First Amendment prohibits government from limiting speech. You can start your own blog if you want to exercise free speech, the U.S. government can’t make laws to stop that.

          But this site isn’t the government and we recognize and prohibit different forms of trolling which interferes with others’ speech. “Just asking questions” (a.k.a. JAQing off) is a form of concern trolling and it has a nasty habit of DDoS-ing comment threads, derailing dialogue.

          Dominion’s lawsuit isn’t about free speech. It’s about Fox defaming a corporation’s brand and causing it damage. Will it make Fox News and News Corp stop their defamatory practices? Perhaps if the cost is high enough, and perhaps Smartmatic’s defamation suit will deliver the coup de grâce. We’ll see.

        • Parker Dooley says:

          Thanks, Rayne. I was responding to Spencer Dawkins, who said ‘I wouldn’t dream of advocating that the second category – “just asking questions” isn’t protected by the first amendment’ and agreeing that there can be effective non-governmental responses to “JAQing off”. (I had not seen that term before, but recently was amused to encounter “sealioning” as a synonym for the behavior.)

          I find this blog to be incredibly addictive, and especially appreciate your posts.

    • Bill Crowder says:

      I really don’t think it is a good idea to echo Tucker Carlson’s biases. And, please don’t tell me that this is sarcasm.

      • flounder says:

        Not sarcasm, as I do think that people who would act on things they learn from legally established liar Tucker Carlson are the stupidest and most gullible people on the planet (the fact that Tucker and his producers agree with me doesn’t bode well for their defamation defense). I’ve spent some time the last month now trying to get Tucker fans to show some concern, outrage, anything towards being lied to about the election, especially since at least one person got killed as a result of being incited by those lies. To a person Tucker’s Vatniks basically want the lying to continue, like with the Chansley videos he’s now promoting. Anyone who responds to getting lied to with demands it continue is stupid and gullible. Any other conclusion would be dishonest.

        • Slobobba says:

          It really has nothing to do with what is or isn’t true; It’s a psychological mechanism through which people bond within a group. It seems to me that people cross a threshold after which they willfully disregard facts or truths in order to be a member of the community.

          From Wikipedia:
          “ A blue lie is a form of lying that is told purportedly to benefit a collective or “in the name of the collective good”. The origin of the term “blue lie” is possibly from cases where police officers made false statements to protect the police force, or to ensure the success of a legal case against an accused.[11] This differs from the blue wall of silence in that a blue lie is not an omission but a stated falsehood.”

        • Savage Librarian says:

          I think fitting in is an important aspect of why people are willing to disregard facts. Not only have they been bombarded by lies from Fox and the TV personalities they see there, much of that same kind of misinformation is fed to them in church. It seems especially prevalent in churches that are part of the Southern Baptist Convention.

          Then a feedback loop forms. This impacts memory in a significant way. That, I think, might create or reinforce beliefs and ideology. Here are some excerpts from an article about memory I shared a while back:

          “Hollins named three similar types of memory-related phenomena: “false memory,” which is the creation of a memory that didn’t happen; “source-memory errors,” which is when someone forgets the true source of a memory; and “imagination inflation,” which is the tendency to believe something is real the more often, or the more vividly, it is imagined.”

          “Hollins also pointed to several social elements as examples of how fallible our memories can be, such as the “Asch conformity,” which is when people conform to a view in order to fit in with a group, and the “misinformation effect,” which describes a tendency for people’s memories to alter based on subsequent learnings or experiences.”

          “However, Hollins believes the phenomenon that most closely aligns to the Mandela effect is that of “gist memory,” which is when someone has a general idea of something but can’t necessarily remember the specifics.”

          https://www.livescience.com/what-is-mandela-effect

  2. FiestyBlueBird says:

    And this makes for a huge waste of valuable time and resources having to deal with this nonsense. A recurring theme. It’s so unfortunate.

  3. harpie says:

    This may be a side issue, but I got as far as “Albert Watkins” and wondered…where have I heard that name before.

    ROOTS and METCALF:

    “What’s deeply troubling,” [Albert] Watkins said Tuesday, “Is the fact that I have to watch Tucker Carlson to find video footage which the government has, but chose not to disclose, despite the absolute duty to do so. Despite being requested in writing to do so, multiple times.” [emphasis original]

    1] The Bio of the Lawyer Representing Two Gun-Toting St. Louis Attorneys [MCCLOSKEY] Will Leave You Speechless https[colon]//lawandcrime[dot]com/high-profile/the-bio-of-the-lawyer-representing-two-gun-toting-st-louis-attorneys-will-leave-you-speechless/ Jun 30th, 2020

    And more recently:
    2] Former client sues St. Louis lawyers Watkins, Schwade over ‘media blitz’ against his wishes https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-client-sues-st-louis-lawyers-watkins-schwade-over-media-blitz-against-his-wishes/article_9b8dbfaf-8417-5980-aa81-7f963cf6bcc4.html St. Louis Dispatch Mar 7, 2023

    • harpie says:

      And ROOTS JUST accused the government of trying to get away with lies…
      or maybe the COURT letting the government get away with lies:
      https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1635655151930277889
      10:52 AM · Mar 14, 2023

      Judge [KELLY] chastises Pattis for having taking photos in the courtroom which violates the rules of the court. Pattis says he turned over photos immediately to govt. Atty Roots says the alternative was to let the govt get away with “lies.” … Judge then rebukes Roots & says Pattis is capable of taking care of himself.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      harpie, this is a brilliant connection! The name chimed with me, too. Probably off-track, but I thought also of the father-son Watkins duo who brought the world QAnon, via their forum 4Chan and then 8Chan/8kun.

  4. Ruthie2the says:

    It’s another own goal. Although true believers (and those who pander to them, ie Carlson) can’t shut up about it, establishment Republicans can’t be happy with this illustration yet again that not only was the threat of J6 deadly serious, but that Republicans and their water boys are straight up lying about it. If it weren’t so serious, it would be hilarious.

      • Cheez Whiz says:

        Sure there are, only “establishment” now means not being in favor of the violent overthrow of a duly elected government. They’re fine with vote suppression, selective norm trashing, and old fashioned shameless lying, but personal risk is a bridge too far.

      • FL Resister says:

        Try making “establishment” and “sane” synonymous. That may widen the field to a handful of Republicans in Congress.

  5. Chuffy says:

    For a while now, I’ve been impatient about how long it’s taking to make the case against the obvious insurrectionists…this story shows just how good the DOJ has been at preventing the legal teams from using any technicalities they can find to exonerate their clients. With the support of a political Party and the main source of propaganda against them (constantly poisoning the information stream), the DOJ is laying out a seemingly bullet-proof case…because they HAVE to.

  6. earllofhuntingdon says:

    Tucker’s a divining rod looking for money and power. He turns aside from what doesn’t work faster than McDonald’s tosses an advert that doesn’t sell burgers – with as little remorse.

    • BobBobCon says:

      I agree that Carlson is out for power, but I think the divining rod analogy undersells what Carlson (and Fox in general) are doing.

      He’s got a much more specific agenda than simply selling a general brand, and I think there are a lot of specific agenda items he pushes even when they don’t get a lot of traction.

      Ukraine is a glaring example — I think there are a lot of Fox viewers who simply don’t fall into line, despite all of the propaganda, but Carlson and Fox are still banging that drum.

      This piece by MW captures a lot of what’s going on at Fox, which is that the key players are trying to play the role of kingmaker and push specific policies well in advance of knowing anything about whether it helps them gain an audience.

      https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/02/28/release-the-kraken-fox-news-revolving-sidney-powell-conspiracy-theory-door/

      I think it’s absolutely true that they have no interest in a lot of things they push to their audience to gin up ratings — ebola, crime, immigration all get pumped up and dropped at their convenience. But there are also a lot of specific ugly policies that Carlson wants, and he’ll happily burn a lot of the capital he’s built up to get them.

      • Ruthie2the says:

        They purposely wind the spring tighter and tighter (gin up ratings) so when they do want to implement a specific goal the spring is preloaded. When the spring is released, the outcome is a foregone conclusion; resistance isn’t possible.

  7. harpie says:

    My favorite part of the 3/12/23 DOJ response:

    [p6/10] Counsel for Pezzola [ROOTS /METCALF] assert that the government has “steadfastly refused to identify in what way any of these defendants directly caused the recess of the Joint Session[.]”; [3/9/23] ECF 679 at *3. It is hard to conceive of a defendant better suited to assess his personal contribution to the obstruction of the joint session than Dominic Pezzola. […]

    Here’s PEZZOLA’s [ROOTS only] 3/12/23 request that the indictment “be thrown out all together.”
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23705638-pezzola-motion-to-dismiss-and-evidentiary-hearing

    Filed 3/12/23
    Defendant Pezzola’s Renewed Demand for Dismissal and Evidentiary Hearing
    And Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Numerous Offenses and Violations of Due Process and The Sixth Amendment,
    And the Scope of Cross-Examination of Special Agent Miller
    *Request for Appointment of a Special Master and/or Special Counsel.1

    • harpie says:

      And ROOTS JUST accused the government of trying to get away with lies…
      or maybe the COURT of letting the government get away with lies:
      https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1635655151930277889
      10:52 AM · Mar 14, 2023

      Judge [KELLY] chastises Pattis for having taking photos in the courtroom which violates the rules of the court. Pattis says he turned over photos immediately to govt. Atty Roots says the alternative was to let the govt get away with “lies.” … Judge then rebukes Roots & says Pattis is capable of taking care of himself.

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      Bio is jaw-dropping, and that’s apart from the clumsy misuse of big, important words.

      Self-centered, egotistical, and a self-proclaimed expert in all matters

      The bio also said that “witnesses subjected to [Watkins’] cross examination” have been rendered “incapable of speaking.” It further said that one of those witnesses went on to die by suicide.

    • harpie says:

      3/3/23 CARLSON’s PROPAGANDA SHOW
      [shows 4 min. of the “roughly HOUR” CHANSLEY was in the CAPITOL [Gvnmt italics]]

      3/7/23 WaPo quotes WATKINS in
      Capitol Police chief blasts Tucker Carlson over ‘misleading’ January 6 footage

      3/9/23 ROOTS and METCALF quote WaPo quoting WATKINS in

      “Defendant Pezzola’s Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice;
      Or, In the Alternative, Mistrial Regarding Recent Revalations on Tucker Carlson and Associated Testimony and the Discovery of Massive Brady and Jencks Violations and Violations of Due Process and the Sixth Amendment.
      With Included Memorandum of Law.”

      3/10/23 Washington Examiner quotes WaPo quoting WATKINS in
      Tucker Carlson’s Jan. 6 footage creates legal headache for DOJ prosecutions

      3/12/23 ROOTS [ALONE] files [See LONG title ABOVE]

      3/14/23 ROOTS accuses the government of trying to get away with lies…
      or maybe the COURT of letting the government get away with lies

      • Alan Charbonneau says:

        Harpie, I really appreciate you posting timelines and links to relevant information (not just in this post, but in MANY posts!)

        I learn a lot from the comments section and your contributions are especially good. Thanks again.

  8. Doctor My Eyes says:

    I always feel it’s a waste of time to imagine people like Carlson, Trump, and MTG as behaving out of any kind of intact psyche, which is to say ascribing normal human motives to their behavior. What makes them tick? That is a quite complex question without one answer. Imo, people like that have shattered personalities, which is to say no internal integrity or consistent sense of self. Such people are battered about by circumstance, spewing words with little orientation to external reality. They are saying things that at the moment seem like something that would further their current needs, operating out of a desperation to control what others think of them. This is very different than operating out of a consistent sense of self. With Trump, it has annoyed me no end to read reporting describing him as weighing options, pondering decisions, calculating costs and benefits. We should concern ourselves with how they behave and leave analysis of motives to mental health professionals who specialize in sociopathology and damaged psyches. In fact, I believe it is harmful to describe them as normal humans acting out of normal, understandable human motives. These are damaged individuals whose behavior does not make sense even in terms of their own self-interest except on the most basic survival-instinct level.

    • Alan_OrbitalMechanic says:

      > What makes them tick? That is a quite complex question without one answer.

      I agree that there is not one answer but I don’t see it as very complex. First and foremost there is money and power. Being a conservative icon pays really really well and all you have to do is get it is get media attention and then say things that “conservative” viewers like to hear. Woke woke woke woke. Facts don’t matter and you don’t even need to spell things in tweets according to woke rules.

      For the males primarily (some women as well) the money and power gives them access to sex. So there’s that.

      Finally there is a tribal need for acceptance. Be a cable news firebrand conservative and you are lauded and welcome in venues that you feel comfortable in. Any person of color in those scenes will be docile.

      Not complex.

    • Rayne says:

      LOL No. These folks you want us to understand and rehabilitate also want people like me dead. They want BIPOC, women, LGBTQ+, non-white immigrants dead.

      I will spare not one bit of my energy on rehabbing people who have been told throughout their lives in many different ways that racism, misogyny, xenophobia are wrong. They’re not damaged, they’re adults fully conscious of the choices they’ve made just as I am.

      I will spend my time trying to protect the marginalized instead.

      • David B Pittard says:

        I don’t read Doctor My Eyes as advocating therapy for these threats to society, but instead, that we defend against what evil they do, eschewing the attempt to explain or understand their behavior. They may need or benefit from therapy, but that’s their problem, not ours, and not within our expertise (in general) to determine. But we are all entitled to self-defense.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        Who said anything about understanding and rehab???? My point is pretty much the opposite: don’t waste your time trying to understand these people–they are not like normal people. All we should care about is their behavior. I don’t know how you got the opposite out of that.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Rayne, I’m almost always aligned with you, as with your conclusion here about where you focus your time. I do think bullies and tyrants come in the damaged variety, just that being “damaged” doesn’t give you an excuse to bully and torment. Your damage is the work you either do or don’t do as an adult. Trump chose to keep taking his damage out on others. The tyrant may be driven by a profound wound (like Donald’s being essentially unparented in early childhood and then raised by a narcissist and a brute), but no one gets a redo; you have to confront yourself and build from where you are. As Mary Trump articulated clearly, he’s chosen the road paved over other people’s misery.

        • Sue 'em Queequeg says:

          I’d agree therapy is a non-starter with respect to most of these folks, whether leaders or followers. But I think it’s well worth it — for ourselves if no one else — to try to understand the psychology, especially with people who are so deeply in the grip of psychological damage or imbalance that they have no awareness of it.

      • GlennDexter says:

        I think at one time these people were referred to as Deplorables.
        I may be mistaken but an estimate I heard put them around 29% of Republican voters.
        I think I heard this once.

  9. Tech Support says:

    If there’s one thing that reading EW has done for me that I wasn’t expecting is that it’s gotten me occasionally wishing I’d gone into law. The DOJ response here is one of many excerpts shared over the years that demonstrates somebody getting paid to tell somebody else that they are an idiot, and to break down in meticulous detail why they are an idiot, and are wrong, and should be rightfully ignored. That just seems incredibly liberating. I’m sure that there is a lot to being an attorney that can be frustrating and tedious like any career, but I imagine those moments are very satisfying.

    Love what I do but we don’t ever get to choose violence in this business.

    • hester says:

      “but I imagine those moments are very satisfying.”

      yes, Rightly so. And the way it’s expressed with barely veiled contempt….lol

  10. Mart7890 says:

    After signing an Executive Order to harden penalties for vandalizing Federal monuments after BLM protesters tore down Confederate statues and related; the former President said and texted stuff like this: “We are looking at long-term jail sentences for these vandals and these hoodlums and these anarchists and agitators and call them whatever you want. Some people don’t like that language, but that’s what they are. They’re bad people, they don’t love our country, and they’re not taking down our monuments,” Trump said. Funny how that does not apply to white tourists at the Capitol. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-signs-executive-order-punish-vandalism-against-federal-monuments-n1232322

    • Sloth Sloman says:

      The biggest mistake the media and people who tend to lean left politically have made is to assume that any of these people care about the hypocritical nature of their words and actions. They do not hold themselves to the confines of truth and reality, they are simply trying to accrue power. They believe in magical people in the sky who love them unconditionally and hate the other – as defined by them.

      The idea that anything will be solved by confronting their hypocrisy is missing the point. The hypocrisy is the point. They are going to tell you what to do, right or wrong, logical or not. This is why it’s such a huge damn problem when the NYT or WaPo or whoever uses the “critics of X say Y” in every article. The simple act of saying something now qualifies as a counter argument treated equally to a quote or action of substance.

      See the recent viral clip of Jon Stewart – as satisfying as it is to watch him completely dismantle Dahm’s argument on guns and walk him into the obvious rhetorical trap, it serves no tangible purpose other than elevating an otherwise unknown state politician who will be seen as a patriotic defender of the 2nd Amendment. They aren’t going to be won over by rational, logical arguments.

      They are modern barbarians who have nothing to offer the world except force. This is why they are suddenly pro-Russia (beyond just trolling Democratic party members and voters). Russia is taking what it wants. These people believe that is how the world works – America is only great when it has its boots on the throat of its enemies. Schools, technology, culture… none of that matters because they don’t understand it. And they don’t want to.

      • Just Some Guy says:

        Agreed. Another recent example is the NYT’s terrible Opinion article from the past weekend essentially legitimizing Thomas Massie, which mentions his speaking at a John Birch Society function just as an aside. While the NYT reporter obviously isn’t going to take the Jon Stewart approach (which won’t really do anything anyway except just retrench the win in Dahm’s next election), treating these cranks and their ideas as legitimate is not good, and not good journalism.

        • hester says:

          What do you mean? Imho, often the so called articles I read in msm by alleged reporters drip with not-so-thinly veiled opinion. Even though they are supposed to be reporting. It’s probably difficult not to insert one’s bias when reporting….

          And Just Some Guy’s take on that particular article, which I also read, is kind of right. They legitimize nut cases.

        • Sloth Sloman says:

          An opinion article is not written by a reporter. A report is not written by a columnist/guest.

        • hester says:

          “An opinion article is not written by a reporter. A report is not written by a columnist/guest.”

          That’s obviously the goal. But they often overlap and one seems like the other.

        • Tech Support says:

          There is lots of bad journalism to crack on.

          There are also news organizations that willingly blur the lines between editorial content and reporting, that also deserve to be cracked on.

          I think though it’s good to avoid giving editorial wags undeserved credibility by conflating them with journalists and it’s bad to give line-blurrers cover by participating in line-blurring.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Journalist and oped writer are professions. They are also roles a writer can assume for any given work.

        • Just Some Guy says:

          Agreed. Currently reading “Shrovetide in Old New Orleans” by Ishmael Reed, a writer who is a novelist, poet, essayist, playwright, and journalist. The title essay, about visiting New Orleans during a Mardi Gras in the mid-1970s, features both original reporting and opinion.

        • DoctorDoom says:

          The place where the distinction gets very blurry is in the
          “analysis” pieces. They are billed as being on the news side rather than the opinion side, but often include big doses of opinion mixed in.

        • Just Some Guy says:

          The byline on the Massie NYT piece:

          “James Pogue (@jhensonpogue) is a reporter who covers politics and land issues. He is working on a book about the State of Jefferson, a rural region spanning Northern California and Southern Oregon.”

        • bmaz says:

          And your point is??

          That is clearly an opinion piece, and you are fibbing if you are portraying it as anything else. Let’s endeavor to get things right here, mkay?

        • Just Some Guy says:

          The piece is an opinion piece, in the Opinion section, and listed as a “guest essay,” but what I am saying is that the ideas that opinion pieces, and guest essays, are somehow not supposed to have original reporting in them, or that they somehow cannot be written by reporters, are ideas that are not true to any journalistic tradition or practice that I know of. That is, to “get things right,” there is no journalistic proscription against reporting in opinion pieces. In fact, many opinion pieces have original reporting in them, nor is a journalist known for being an opinion writer barred from reporting, nor is a reporter barred from writing an opinion piece (nor barred from reporting in one).

        • Just Some Guy says:

          The point was, originally, to point out that some in the journalistic profession in the prospect of “reporting” have a tendency to legitimize not only awful ideas but the awful people who espouse those ideas. Which is not so different a point from Dr. Wheeler’s well-founded, well-grounded, well-researched, and yes, well-reported (!!!) criticism of the journalist Maggie Haberman. Whether that journalistic laundering occurs in “news articles,” guest essays, opinion pieces doesn’t really matter — what matters is that astute people point it out!

          However, another thing that does matter, in journalism, life, internet message boards (maybe), is accuracy. This is what you claimed I was doing:

          ‘You move between “Opinion” and “Reporter” awful easy. They are not the same thing.’

          The comments I wrote clearly show that I was not doing anything of the sort. The Massie piece is an opinion piece and I said so in my very first post about it. It is also written by a reporter, and the piece — the “guest essay,” to use the NYT’s terms — contains original reporting. Nor did I claim that they are “the same thing,” though I’m not even sure what that means, either. Opinion is in the realm of journalism, just as reportage is.

          So no, I am not “blowing bunk,” whatever that also means. I am decrying the very same problems in the profession of journalism that are a concern of this site, its writers (who may even consider themselves “reporters” or “journalists” despite publishing their opinions!), and its readers (of which I am one).

        • bmaz says:

          Uh huh, sure, keep telling yourself that. Do try to distinguish the sides in major papers and not try to falsely cloak yourself in what we do here.

      • Ben Soares says:

        Great points. It seems narcassism, and all its spectrums. Might be worth just as much, as learning to read or write. I’ve known many versions of this particular Trimpian flavor of folks including this particular spice in me. The Bill of Rights ends up being a huge empass for folks with little or no empathy.

        A conservative or closed mind might be ripe for such a look. Imho.

      • Jim Luther says:

        I have long said that the defining characteristic of the conservative movement is the rejection of logic and evidence based reasoning. Attempting to criticize them using logic, evidence, or reason is futile. It is like spraying ducks with a hose. It is one of the reasons that they hold education in contempt.

        [I previously used a masked email that I no longer have access to]

        • John Paul Jones says:

          Many conservatives, but especially the religious sort, regard reason as too weak a reed to guide human action, and so they recommend what they call “tradition,” that is, doing what has always been done; and they recommend faith, but faith defined very narrowly (often as a form of scriptural inerrancy), and faith deliberately uncontaminated with reason. In a society that’s essentially static (ancien regime types) this is a somewhat defensible approach, meaning the last time it was defensible was probably sometime round the year 1500. Using the same approach today is absurd, and my personal belief is that most conservatives know this, and are bullshitting themselves and trying to bullshit the rest of us. Jest my two cents.

  11. Alzero53 says:

    Carlson’s ambition is truly without limits, IMHO he is carefully positioning himself for a run at the Presidency and everything he does has to be viewed through that prism.

  12. John Lehman says:

    “Dumb cousin fucking terrorists”

    “…some of the people all of the time…” -A. Lincoln

    …just got off the boat…

    Same people who believe professional wrestling is real

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe

    Apologies to those who are entertained by the unique theatrics and gymnastics involved in professional wrestling.

  13. Savage Librarian says:

    Junk Edit

    Junk, junk, junk, junk,
    Fox junkies long to get it,
    Ask Matt Schlapp if he might help
    come aid & abet it.

    Burlesque Man to Burlesque Man,
    Who is best to spread it?
    Lowbrow cousin puckers
    of the bogus shaman edit.

    Junk, junk, junk, junk,
    Who’ll tucker out to let it
    show that they know that
    it’s all to their discredit?

    Junk fees, junk calls, junk news,
    They can’t seem to shed it,
    Suits to suits, wrinkles seem
    increased to the indebted.

  14. wa_rickf says:

    How is it that Fox News and other Rwing media can knowingly and willingly deceive with impunity?

  15. Steve in Manhattan says:

    I would venture that some Saudi royals are indeed “cousin-fucking types,” but I understand his sentiment.

  16. morganism says:

    Just a point to remember, that Chansley was a regular in the Capitol buildings. He actually has a permit signed by Prez , and i believe issued by SS, ziptied to his spear. It’s in nearly every pic of him.

    • Midtowngirl says:

      As a member of Twitter’s Sedition Hunter community, I’ve watched countless hours of Jan. 6 videos and stills, including of Chanley. I’ve never seen any permit. The only thing he had zip-tied to his spear on Jan 6 was an American flag. Outside of that, he has been recorded with various handmade signs attached when protesting at the AZ state capitol (most notably “Q sent me”). But never a permit. Nor was any permit mentioned in court docs. What is your source for your info?

  17. harpie says:

    From VoteVets:
    https://twitter.com/votevets/status/1636397709505490945
    12:03 PM · Mar 16, 2023

    Disinformation divides our military and makes us less safe.
    Tonight, VoteVets is running this ad calling for Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham to be removed from military installation TVs. The ad will run during those shows, on cable systems serving those very TVs. [VIDEO]

    • harpie says:

      Also, from Bill Pascrell, D-NJ9:
      [83 year old Pascrell has one of the best Twitter feeds in Congress, imo.]

      https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/status/1633141580428193792
      11:24 AM · Mar 7, 2023

      Today I’m calling on Kevin McCarthy to end republicans’ mandate that all publicly displayed TVs in our Capitol be tuned into Fox “news.” Fox’s owner admits fox deliberately lies to its viewers. A station that helped spark Jan 6 should not be forced on visitors to our Capitol. [screenshot]

      Since republicans took power in the House the publicly displayed TV sets around the Capitol complex now show fox “news.” Visitors shouldn’t be forced to watch a station that deliberately lies to its viewers. [PHOTO]

Comments are closed.