Senate Majority Leader Schumer Demands That FOX Yank Tucker Carlson's Microphone

[Callen]

Yes, he played the video from the hearing with the raised fist.

Well, then I will give him that.

The events of Jan 6th were not the sole focus of the hearings. The hearings covered all the events from the time of the election which culminated in the violent attack on the Capitol. It was NOT a primarily peaceful event. It was a violent and bloody attack. Tucker is trying to whitewash this to discredit the committee. I find it more than interesting that he is only focusing on trying to make the riot look like a Capitol tour and excluding everything about the events leading up to that day including Hawley's support of Trump's plans to overturn the election. The hearings were about Trump and all the actions he took to overturn the election and illegally stay in power. They weren't just about the riots....then again you would have to watch them know that.

 

[BirdinHand]

It was important to the committee to NOT show the other people fleeing because it would have made the entire story or narrative they were trying to make about Hawley, far lessened or moot. I can't imagine they would have even done that segment about Hawley if they didn't have the ability to shorten the video clip enough to deceptively portray a point which was just that - deceptive. That was exactly the problem with that hearing. It was a heavily staged partisan show rather than a fair portrayal of actual events.
Yes, he fist bumped the crowd (and I'm assuming that was before any bad behavior had occurred). He had no way of predicting how the day would ultimately unfold.
Yes, he and, contextually important, many other senators later ran as a group.

What “narrative”?

Did he fist bump towards the crowd outside? Yes or no?

Did he run? Yes or no?


What, specifically, does other people also running change about the Hawley “narrative”?

 

[Perotista]

How would Tucker impact the democrats ability to get votes?

Do you think democrats and/or independents would be influenced in how they vote by Tucker?

I’m confused.

No I don’t. But taking a voice off the air that doesn’t agree with one’s political views certainly can. Tucker may only be the first to be taken off if Schumer has his way. He seems, I use the word seems, to only want political talk show hosts to spout his brand of politics and his political views. I have a problem with that. Schumer seems to think taking Carlson off the air, stymieing the oppositions ability to get their views across will enhance the democrats vote total.The democrats also want an entire network taken off the air.



It boils down to the less or no opposing views heard, the more votes and power the Democrats will have. Regardless, I don’t think it is responsible for an elected official to call for the removal of a voice from the other side, of opposing viewpoints from the air. Getting votes may be a red herring I threw in. But that’s seems to be the bottom line here.

 

[Davin]

In a brazen act of defiance to the U.S. Constitution and Free Speech, Chuck Schumer demanded that Tucker Carlson's show be censored:

"These lies continue tonight, Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight, now that he’s seen how he has perverted and slimed the truth, and from letting him go on again and again and again. Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it.”



LOL.

So Chuckie wants to suspend First Amendment rights to people he doesn't agree with. The message probably resonates with most dems and probably some republicans, too.

Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment protects ALL citizens equally. Congress members cannot pick and choose who gets to speak freely and who doesn't.

Chuck never read the Constitution, it seems. Or maybe he did but doesn't really understand it.

Don't agree with Schumer on this. Instead the families and capitol police should sue Fox News like they did with Alex Jones.

 

[BirdinHand]

No I don’t. But taking a voice off the air that doesn’t agree with one’s political views certainly can. Tucker may only be the first to be taken off if Schumer has his way. He seems, I use the word seems, to only want political talk show hosts to spout his brand of politics and his political views. I have a problem with that. Schumer seems to think taking Carlson off the air, stymieing the oppositions ability to get their views across will enhance the democrats vote total.The democrats also want an entire network taken off the air.



It boils down to the less or no opposing views heard, the more votes and power the Democrats will have. Regardless, I don’t think it is responsible for an elected official to call for the removal of a voice from the other side, of opposing viewpoints from the air. Getting votes may be a red herring I threw in. But that’s seems to be the bottom line here.

Where are you drawing the conclusion that Schumer wanted Tucker removed for the sake of voters and how they will vote?

Based on what, specifically?


You are looking at this based on votes - have you given thought to the public safety or integrity angle?

Do you think Tucker tells the truth? Do you think that the views he shares are based on honesty and integrity?

 

[JRTurner]

No I don’t. But taking a voice off the air that doesn’t agree with one’s political views certainly can. Tucker may only be the first to be taken off if Schumer has his way. He seems, I use the word seems, to only want political talk show hosts to spout his brand of politics and his political views. I have a problem with that. Schumer seems to think taking Carlson off the air, stymieing the oppositions ability to get their views across will enhance the democrats vote total.The democrats also want an entire network taken off the air.



It boils down to the less or no opposing views heard, the more votes and power the Democrats will have. Regardless, I don’t think it is responsible for an elected official to call for the removal of a voice from the other side, of opposing viewpoints from the air. Getting votes may be a red herring I threw in. But that’s seems to be the bottom line here.

I could agree with you--if Schumer is asking Fox News be taken off the air. But he's not. He's not saying Hannity or any of the others be taken off the air. Only the one who has been proven to lie to the point it has damaged our democracy and sown distrust of our very secure, very accurate, and very legitimate elections processes. Tucker also incites people to hate anyone not MAGA--which divides this country horribly.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

No I don’t. But taking a voice off the air that doesn’t agree with one’s political views certainly can. Tucker may only be the first to be taken off if Schumer has his way. He seems, I use the word seems, to only want political talk show hosts to spout his brand of politics and his political views. I have a problem with that. Schumer seems to think taking Carlson off the air, stymieing the oppositions ability to get their views across will enhance the democrats vote total.The democrats also want an entire network taken off the air.

Views? You mean outright lies designed to brainwash MAGA terrorists into attacking the government?

It boils down to the less or no opposing views heard, the more votes and power the Democrats will have. Regardless, I don’t think it is responsible for an elected official to call for the removal of a voice from the other side, of opposing viewpoints from the air. Getting votes may be a red herring I threw in. But that’s seems to be the bottom line here.

What Tucky does is not an opposing viewpoint. It's baseless lies and propaganda being fed to the MAGA loons. It has already caused one insurrection.

Are you looking to help him start another one?

 

[gbg3]

No I don’t. But taking a voice off the air that doesn’t agree with one’s political views certainly can. Tucker may only be the first to be taken off if Schumer has his way. He seems, I use the word seems, to only want political talk show hosts to spout his brand of politics and his political views. I have a problem with that. Schumer seems to think taking Carlson off the air, stymieing the oppositions ability to get their views across will enhance the democrats vote total.The democrats also want an entire network taken off the air.



It boils down to the less or no opposing views heard, the more votes and power the Democrats will have. Regardless, I don’t think it is responsible for an elected official to call for the removal of a voice from the other side, of opposing viewpoints from the air. Getting votes may be a red herring I threw in. But that’s seems to be the bottom line here.

I think Schumer will back away from that hysteria he demonstrated by just shutting up about it. IMO, the Dems will doom themselves as a party if they keep up the speech censorship mission and even double down on it. The picture that is painting is super extreme and weird.
Schumer's reaction and words are garnering unwanted and unfavorable attention, I think.
I think the J6 committee was seen as very partisan by many more than just Republicans. I'd have to look back at those polls to verify that. But I think that entire hearing ended up being quite a flop and they had a hard time even getting viewers. The Dems are better off just letting fuller context come out because it's not worth defending what was already a flop - and then ending up with an even worse black eye about censorship.
Dems certainly won't succeed at getting Fox News removed. This will likely just increase Fox News (and Tucker specifically) viewership even more - and Fox's numbers are already high and always growing.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I think Schumer will back away from that hysteria he demonstrated by just shutting up about it. IMO, the Dems will doom themselves as a party if they keep up the speech censorship mission and even double down on it. The picture that is painting is super extreme and weird.
Schumer's reaction and words are garnering unwanted and unfavorable attention, I think.
I think the J6 committee was seen as very partisan by many more than just Republicans. I'd have to look back at those polls to verify that. But I think that entire hearing ended up being quite a flop and they had a hard time even getting viewers. The Dems are better off just letting fuller context come out because it's not worth defending what was already a flop - and then ending up with an even worse black eye about censorship.
Dems certainly won't succeed at getting Fox New removed. This will likely just increase Fox News viewership even more - and Fox's numbers are already high and always growing.

No censorship has occurred. That's reich-wing bullshit.

The dems are simply trying to prevent another insurrection based on lies and Faux bullshit.

 

[Perotista]

Where are you drawing the conclusion that Schumer wanted Tucker removed for the sake of voters and how they will vote?

Based on what, specifically?


You are looking at this based on votes - have you given thought to the public safety or integrity angle?

Do you think Tucker tells the truth? Do you think that the views he shares are based on honesty and integrity?

The simple fact Schumer is trying to deny the opposing party a voice on the air to hear the opposing party's point of view.

 

[BirdinHand]

The simple fact Schumer is trying to deny the opposing party a voice on the air to hear the opposing party's point of view.

Are you saying that Tucker speaks for the GOP? Is acting as an agent of the party?

 

[JRTurner]

I think Schumer will back away from that hysteria he demonstrated by just shutting up about it. IMO, the Dems will doom themselves as a party if they keep up the speech censorship mission and even double down on it. The picture that is painting is super extreme and weird.
Schumer's reaction and words are garnering unwanted and unfavorable attention, I think.
I think the J6 committee was seen as very partisan by many more than just Republicans. I'd have to look back at those polls to verify that. But I think that entire hearing ended up being quite a flop and they had a hard time even getting viewers. The Dems are better off just letting fuller context come out because it's not worth defending what was already a flop - and then ending up with an even worse black eye about censorship.
Dems certainly won't succeed at getting Fox News removed. This will likely just increase Fox News (and Tucker specifically) viewership even more - and Fox's numbers are already high and always growing.

First, Schumer isn't trying to shut down Fox News.

Second, here's an article I found about polling on Jan. 6 hearings:

Monmouth University polling from June showed 65% of Americans considered the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol a riot, 50% said it was an insurrection and 34% said it was legitimate protest. By the end of July, after eight hearings, those numbers were practically the same: 64% said Jan. 6 was a riot, 52% said it was an insurrection, and 35% said it was legitimate protest.

How the Jan. 6 hearings changed public opinion ahead of the midterms

Despite the made-for-television hearings, polling shows overall public opinion on the U.S. Capitol attack has remained largely unchanged.

abcnews.go.com

 

[gbg3]

Are you saying that Tucker speaks for the GOP? Is acting as an agent of the party?

Lol, do you have any opinions of your own to share this morning or just endless questions for no apparent reason.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The simple fact Schumer is trying to deny the opposing party a voice on the air to hear the opposing party's point of view.

Not true.

Stop spewing bullshit, please.

 

[Perotista]

I could agree with you--if Schumer is asking Fox News be taken off the air. But he's not. He's not saying Hannity or any of the others be taken off the air. Only the one who has been proven to lie to the point it has damaged our democracy and sown distrust of our very secure, very accurate, and very legitimate elections processes. Tucker also incites people to hate anyone not MAGA--which divides this country horribly.

Regardless, Schumer want to silence a person with a differing point of view. When it comes to politics, should a leader in one party decide what a person should say of the other party? I never watch late night political talk shows as I consider everyone of them propaganda spiels who are trying to enhance their viewership to vote the way they want.

I think for whatever reason, valid or purely political, having an elected leader of one party espousing to take off the air a commentator, a political talk show host who presents the opposing views of that elected leader is treading in dangerous waters. Are we headed toward another passage of the alien and sedition acts? Where those in power of government try to regulate, control speech that goes against them or their political viewpoints?

 

[Perotista]

Views? You mean outright lies designed to brainwash MAGA terrorists into attacking the government?



What Tucky does is not an opposing viewpoint. It's baseless lies and propaganda being fed to the MAGA loons. It has already caused one insurrection.

Are you looking to help him start another one?

I’m not looking to start anything. I’m trying to provide the free expression of political viewpoints be they what I believe or the 100% opposite. This is your viewpoint, freely expressed. Should the opposing side viewpoint be totally stymied as you state? Who determines what is a lie and what isn’t. Those in power in government? The leaders of the opposing party? This is one slippery slope.

 

[gbg3]

First, Schumer isn't trying to shut down Fox News.

Second, here's an article I found about polling on Jan. 6 hearings:

Monmouth University polling from June showed 65% of Americans considered the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol a riot, 50% said it was an insurrection and 34% said it was legitimate protest. By the end of July, after eight hearings, those numbers were practically the same: 64% said Jan. 6 was a riot, 52% said it was an insurrection, and 35% said it was legitimate protest.

How the Jan. 6 hearings changed public opinion ahead of the midterms

Despite the made-for-television hearings, polling shows overall public opinion on the U.S. Capitol attack has remained largely unchanged.

abcnews.go.com

Here is the biggest problem the committee had - the first sentence from your article.

"Just 9% of Americans said they watched the hearings "very closely.""

IMO, had it been a properly balanced hearing, there might have been more interest. But maybe not. Maybe people had just moved on despite how hard the left wanted to keep that issue current.

 

[gbg3]

Who determines what is a lie and what isn’t.

Yep, therein lies the core of that very slippery slope!!!!!!

 

[Perotista]

I think Schumer will back away from that hysteria he demonstrated by just shutting up about it. IMO, the Dems will doom themselves as a party if they keep up the speech censorship mission and even double down on it. The picture that is painting is super extreme and weird.
Schumer's reaction and words are garnering unwanted and unfavorable attention, I think.
I think the J6 committee was seen as very partisan by many more than just Republicans. I'd have to look back at those polls to verify that. But I think that entire hearing ended up being quite a flop and they had a hard time even getting viewers. The Dems are better off just letting fuller context come out because it's not worth defending what was already a flop - and then ending up with an even worse black eye about censorship.
Dems certainly won't succeed at getting Fox News removed. This will likely just increase Fox News (and Tucker specifically) viewership even more - and Fox's numbers are already high and always growing.

You have this:

58 percent say Jan. 6 House committee is biased: poll

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/565981-58-percent-say-jan-6-commission-is-biased-poll/

Few outside of Democrats and other anti-Trumpers paid any attention to it. I considered it biased as Pelosi didn’t allow the minority leader his choices. I’m very much anti-Trump, I wouldn’t never vote for him or any of his chosen candidates. But Trump and his chosen candidates deserve to be heard. Disagree with him all one wants, dislike him all one wants, but not allowing a political voice to be heard is wrong.

 

[Perotista]

Are you saying that Tucker speaks for the GOP? Is acting as an agent of the party?

A propagandist for the GOP. Just like other late-night talk show host on the other networks are propagandist for the Democrats. I don’t watch any of them, I don’t need propagandist to decide how I’ll vote. I’ll decide that on my own, thank you very much.

 

[Captain America]

You have to hand it to him. Tucker's a complete an utter tool, and an anti-American one. But he knows how to fleece the rubes - even after admitting he's a liar, they still can't get enough.

And the beat goes on.............

 

[JRTurner]

Regardless, Schumer want to silence a person with a differing point of view. When it comes to politics, should a leader in one party decide what a person should say of the other party? I never watch late night political talk shows as I consider everyone of them propaganda spiels who are trying to enhance their viewership to vote the way they want.

I think for whatever reason, valid or purely political, having an elected leader of one party espousing to take off the air a commentator, a political talk show host who presents the opposing views of that elected leader is treading in dangerous waters. Are we headed toward another passage of the alien and sedition acts? Where those in power of government try to regulate, control speech that goes against them or their political viewpoints?

Not at all. But those who are supposedly offering the news have a duty to ensure their positions are bolstered by facts and evidence--Tucker lies on television for profit--he said so himself. Tucker hates Trump and knows the election wasn't stolen, has known it from the beginning. I would hope that anyone on the left who would do so much to disinform the public for cash would also be held accountable. Fortunately, most talking heads aren't that extreme--on the right and on the left.

This really isn't a partisan issue. Republicans should also be very upset that they were led to believe Tucker's lies. I don't know why they aren't--other than tribalism--and that's not good for our country either.

 

[JRTurner]

You have this:

58 percent say Jan. 6 House committee is biased: poll

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/565981-58-percent-say-jan-6-commission-is-biased-poll/

Few outside of Democrats and other anti-Trumpers paid any attention to it. I considered it biased as Pelosi didn’t allow the minority leader his choices. I’m very much anti-Trump, I wouldn’t never vote for him or any of his chosen candidates. But Trump and his chosen candidates deserve to be heard. Disagree with him all one wants, dislike him all one wants, but not allowing a political voice to be heard is wrong.

Pelosi disallowed those who were under investigation from participating in the investigation. That makes sense to me.

 

[Callen]

Here is the biggest problem the committee had - the first sentence from your article.

"Just 9% of Americans said they watched the hearings "very closely.""

IMO, had it been a properly balanced hearing, there might have been more interest. But maybe not. Maybe people had just moved on despite how hard the left wanted to keep that issue current.

How do you know that the nine hearings weren't balanced if you watched nothing but clips aired by Fox ? Facts are most thinking people didn't need to watch the hearings "very closely" to know what transpired. By far the majority of people knew what happened as a result of Trump's lies and Fox's support of those lies and the midterms showed that with the rejection of Trump and most of his preferred State level choices.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Lol, do you have any opinions of your own to share this morning or just endless questions for no app

I’m not looking to start anything. I’m trying to provide the free expression of political viewpoints be they what I believe or the 100% opposite. This is your viewpoint, freely expressed. Should the opposing side viewpoint be totally stymied as you state? Who determines what is a lie and what isn’t. Those in power in government? The leaders of the opposing party? This is one slippery slope.

Yeah, that is true. The issue I have is that Tucker is a self-admitted lying sack of shit who works for a network of admitted liars who spread bullshit that fed an insurrection attempt.

Carlson is a national security threat.

Every single time he lies or manipulates data it needs to cost Murdoch billions.

There is a distinct difference between free speech and shouting "fire" in a crowded

You have this:

58 percent say Jan. 6 House committee is biased: poll

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/565981-58-percent-say-jan-6-commission-is-biased-poll/

Few outside of Democrats and other anti-Trumpers paid any attention to it. I considered it biased as Pelosi didn’t allow the minority leader his choices. I’m very much anti-Trump, I wouldn’t never vote for him or any of his chosen candidates. But Trump and his chosen candidates deserve to be heard. Disagree with him all one wants, dislike him all one wants, but not allowing a political voice to be heard is wrong.

58% of who? The five conservatives who participated in the poll?