Why The New York Times’s Jan. 6 U-turn is a big deal

[Geee]

The Hill

Is The New York Times going soft on the Jan. 6 rioters? Maybe beginning to doubt its lopsided coverage of the events of that day? Starting to think the Justice Department’s investigation into the protests, deemed “the biggest criminal inquiry in the Justice Department’s 153-year history,” is just a bit over the top?  

Or is the Times worried that newly released footage will reveal a different story than that told by the biased House investigation used to impeach former President Trump? 

Thanks to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Americans have an opportunity to challenge Democrats’ accusation that many hundreds of Trump supporters engaged in a violent “insurrection.” The new Republican Speaker of the House recently released 44,000 hours of video tapes, including security video from the Capitol Hill police, affording us another look at what actually happened that day.   

This we know: 63 days after the election of 2020, supporters of Trump marched to the Capitol. Some were armed and dangerous, intent on disrupting the peaceful transfer of power to newly elected Joe Biden. Others were not, but believed that Democrats stole the election, and followed the throngs who headed toward Congress ready to protest the theft. Some got caught up in the moment, stayed clear of the violence that followed but were later hunted down and imprisoned. :snip:

[SDwaters]

Wonder how many NYT "freelancers" show up in the newly released videos (like CNN's in the HAMAS videos).🤔

[Valin]

6 hours ago, Geee said:

The Hill

 Some were armed and dangerous,

Define Armed.

January 6 Hearings Get Under Way

We Republicans may have our faults, but if we were actually going to stage an insurrection, at least one of us would remember to bring a firearm.