Two Jan 6th riot narratives...

Perhaps both are right depending on your perspective and neither seems to allow for the other...

So can an event like this be both a violent riot and a mostly peaceful protest? I guess I see no reason not to believe as much?

Obviously there was a violent aspect to the riot. All in all there were just over 300 people charged with some form of violent action. Certainly any event where 300 people turn violent can be described as... well... violent. It is not unfair to suggest it was a violent riot.

On the flip side there were as many as 40,000 people at the rally. About 39,000 were not involved enough to even be arrested. Of the nearly 1000 or so who were arrested more than two thirds were arrested for non-violent misdemeanors. That means that less than 1% of those protesters were violent. I believe 99% is "mostly peaceful" and it would be fair to describe it as such.

The problem here is that the media and Jan 6th committee would have you believe that everyone there was violent and have literally "hidden" from public view any video, pictures, or other evidence of the "peaceful" side of things. All we have seen for two years plus are the same three or four clips played on a continuous loop as if that was the entire riot. We never saw police officers letting people in, people just taking pictures like tourists, the police casually walking with protesters, or any of the other portions of the event that appear completely non-violent.

More unfortunate has been the blatant lies told about the day. The "deadly insurrection" claim that was pushed non-stop is a blatant lie. No way to argue differently. The only person murdered that day was an unarmed protester and by all accounts there were only a few dozen people there with any real intentions others than protesting. Police officers were not killed on Jan 6th and there was not thousands of people storming the capital to take over the Government. No police officers died on Jan 6th and 99% of those thousands were just peacefully protesting.

Also troubling is the double standards. As in acting as if those protesters who entered the capital still knew it was a crime which makes them "criminals". Most every protest gone bad is a violation of some law. Even a largely peaceful protest without a permit is criminal. Moreover, most of the protesters did not (in fact) understand that it was a crime to walk through an open door being held open by Capital police. If you want to play the semantics game of what is a "technical" crime, then lets play it for every protest everywhere for every reason under the sun. See how many of those people are "technically" breaking some law. We just don't see the need to charge hundreds of people in most protests because it makes no political statement. Riot control is largely about controlling a riot and many times even the most violent of the rioters walk away without being arrested.

In the case of the Jan 6th riot, the Feds spent nearly two years trying to track people down to go arrest them. Many for misdemeanor non-violent offenses. Why? Obviously so they could pad the stats and bolster the claims that the event was worse than it was based on huge "arrest numbers" and "charges" and "pleas". Sure, when you take the Q-Anon Shamon and lock him in solitary confinement for months without a trial. He eventually will cut a deal to get out.

So let's be clear. To the degree that what the Jan 6th committee tells you is true, everything Tucker Carlson states is also true. The difference is that the committee wanted exclusive rights to the storyline and hid what they didn't want us to see. Carlson has no ability to "hide" from us what we have already been shown. He is simply adding the second perspective. Of the two situations, the committee is far more dishonest and manipulative. Tucker may be a master propagandist, but he never had the full control of the narrative as the committee did for so long.