No need for name calling

The usual suspects are at it again. When Tucker Carlson said the claims of a violent insurrection were lies, this opened the door to name calling.

If on the other hand, he had merely said that the claims that Sicknick died as a result of non-J6 causes, he'd be on indisputable ground. After all, the New York Times retracted the claim that Sicknik died of head injuries sustained in the riot. It is quite clear that this didn't happen as it was originally reported, and the New York Times has retracted the claim anyway.

The trouble here is this may get turned into a name calling contest. There is no need for that. Just point out the facts that no officers died of any injury sustained during the riots. If the Democrats persist in saying otherwise, then demand that they show proof. In fact, the phrase deadly insurrection did get said again today. But no officers died of any injuries sustained on that day. If they have any such evidence, then let the Democrats show it.

No one disputes that there was a riot. That in itself deserves some further study of the tapes in order to determine how that happened.

The Democrats want to claim that this was an "deadly insurrection", but they have no evidence that it was.

There was an admission today that the members of the J6 panel didn't even look at the tapes. If that is true, then why do they insist that it was a "deadly insurrection" if they didn't even see the evidence?

The more noise and name calling, the easier it is for the Democrats can obfuscate with noise. No need. Just present the facts, and let people see for themselves.