Tucker Carlson bringing the truth and the fire unlike the DNC media mouthpieces

Must watch - just the intro right now about his upcoming interview with Putin and how Senile Biden's corrupt regime has been caught TWICE spying on Tucker Carlson's emails / phones

https://twitter.com/i/status/1754939251257475555

I had to stop reading after I saw "Tucker Carlson" and "truth" in the same sentence

I had to stop reading after I saw "Tucker Carlson" and "truth" in the same sentence Originally Posted by tommy156

Your loss. If you choose to me less informed than others by ignoring legit journalists like Tucker, that is your choice

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

"You literally can't believe the 'facts' Tucker Carlson tells you", so say Fox's lawyers (Sept. 2020)

Must watch - just the intro right now about his upcoming interview with Putin and how Senile Biden's corrupt regime has been caught TWICE spying on Tucker Carlson's emails / phones

https://twitter.com/i/status/1754939251257475555 Originally Posted by berryberry

"Tucker Carlson" Isn't that the nut that cost Fox News, close to a Billion dollars for making up stories for ratings? Is that who you are referring too?

"Tucker Carlson" Isn't that the nut that cost Fox News, close to a Billion dollars for making up stories for ratings? Is that who you are referring too? Originally Posted by Cody69

Yep, same nut. And before he even cost them $787 million for lying repeatedly to viewers, Fox's own lawyers argued this

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

"You literally can't believe the 'facts' Tucker Carlson tells you", so say Fox's lawyers (Sept. 2020)

Originally Posted by tommy156

Again - Your loss. If you choose to me less informed than others by ignoring legit journalists like Tucker, that is your choice.

Meanwhile those truly interested in knowing what is going on in the world not only watch Tucker a lot, but I suspect even more than his normal huge audience of well informed viewers will be tuning in to watch his interview of Putin

But you do you

Again - Your loss. If you choose to me less informed than others by ignoring legit journalists like Tucker, that is your choice.

Meanwhile those truly interested in knowing what is going on in the world not only watch Tucker a lot, but I suspect even more than his normal huge audience of well informed viewers will be tuning in to watch his interview of Putin

But you do you Originally Posted by berryberry

The guy's own lawyers told the world he was full of shit. So yeah, I'm fine with taking this "loss"

TUCKER: THE MEDIA HAS BEEN RUNNING STATE PROPAGANDA FOR ZELENSKY FOR 2 YEARS

The guy's own lawyers told the world he was full of shit. So yeah, I'm fine with taking this "loss"

Originally Posted by tommy156

WRONG yet again

Not his lawyers. Fox's lawyer. I guess you don't fully understand what lawyer's do in a court case to try to help their clients (in this case FOX - not Tucker) win.

TUCKER: THE MEDIA HAS BEEN RUNNING STATE PROPAGANDA FOR ZELENSKY FOR 2 YEARS Originally Posted by berryberry

LMFAOOOOOO!!!!

WRONG yet again

Not his lawyers. Fox's lawyer. I guess you don't fully understand what lawyer's do in a court case to try to help their clients (in this case FOX - not Tucker) win. Originally Posted by berryberry

He was working for Fox at the time. Those were the lawyers hired to take his case. Play the semantics game all you want, for all intents and purposes, they were HIS lawyers. And they told the world he was full of shit.

And he must have been ok with that, because he stayed on at Fox for another 3 years after that.

LMFAOOOOOO!!!! Originally Posted by tommy156

Tucker has requested to interview Corrupt Zelensky too. Although it would be REAL questions, none of the BS fawning propaganda questions Zelensky has gotten from the DNC media to help rip off American taxpayer money

So far Zelensky has not responded. Hmmm, wonder why

for all intents and purposes, they were HIS lawyers. Originally Posted by tommy156

WRONG YET AGAIN !!!!!!!

in a case like the lawyers represent the entity (Fox) and don't give a damn about anyone else

And he must have been ok with that, because he stayed on at Fox for another 3 years after that. Originally Posted by tommy156

I guess you never heard of contracts and non-compete clauses?

Tucker has requested to interview Corrupt Zelensky too. Although it would be REAL questions, none of the BS fawning propaganda questions Zelensky has gotten from the DNC media to help rip off American taxpayer money

So far Zelensky has not responded. Hmmm, wonder why Originally Posted by berryberry

Because Tucker Carlson has been a proven liar in the court of law at least twice now? Plus, leaders of nations have better things to do than go sit in somebody's mom's basement and do a podcast?

You know, just spitballin'