Tucker Carlson

[716er]

Very weird that people come here to post they are watching Tucker.. every day. 

[BillStime]

Tucker, too - they're all vaccinated.

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

I DVR Tucker’s show 5 days a week. In today’s toxic propaganda lamestream media environment, it’s an oasis of sensibility. It’s a top rated show for a reason. Anti American activists posing as journalists on the LSM are an embarrassment and a huge threat to our country. Feeble minded sheep believe what they say on CNN, MSDNC, and the big 3 et al, not to mention the lib controlled social media. Thank goodness for Fox News and Tucker Carlson. 

[B-Man]

 

 

TUCKER CARLSON TORCHES BIDEN’S MASK ‘ULTIMATUM.’

“‘Well, it’s not a request, it’s a demand, and the president of the United States does not get to tell me or any other American citizen what to wear.,’ Carlson said. ‘He’s not offering a choice. He’s laying down an ultimatum. He’s saying if you don’t get vaccinated, you must wear a mask. Again, that’s not within his powers to demand.’”

 

[716er]

Tucker loves torches - true

 

 

[gobilz]

He’s the man 

[T&C]

Well, shuckity shucks... its Tucker time.

[Taraka]

this is the stooge that many in this thread choose to call "the Man" The Legal Defense For Fox's Tucker Carlson: He Can't Be Literally Believed : NPR

 

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

 

September 29, 20204:34 PM ET

DAVID FOLKENFLIK

Twitter

Fox News host Tucker Carlson "is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,' " U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil wrote.

Tucker Carlson appears to be made of Teflon. Fox News' top-rated host has been repeatedly accused of anti-immigrant and racist comments, which have cost his political opinion show many of its major advertisers. Yet Carlson endures in his prime-time slot.

Carlson even attacked his own network's chief news anchor on the air, with no real consequences. That anchor, Shepard Smith, quit mid-contract shortly after Carlson went after him.

Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

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.' "

Article continues after sponsor message

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."

Vyskocil's ruling last week, dismissing a slander lawsuit filed against Carlson, was a win for Fox, First Amendment principles and the media more generally, as Fox News itself maintains. As a legal matter, the judge ruled that Karen McDougal, the woman suing Carlson, failed to surmount the challenge.

But in the process of saving the Fox star, the network's attorneys raised the journalistic question: Just what level of fact-checking does Fox News expect, or subject its opinion shows to?

Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."

In the Fox case, Carlson was presenting his own narrative, not even one extrapolating from known facts.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, McDougal, a former Playboy model, had sought to tell her account of an earlier affair with Trump. The National Enquirer tabloid bought McDougal's story for $150,000 during the 2016 campaign and then buried it to protect Trump from any fallout.

More than two years later, in December 2018, Carlson began presenting Trump as the victim of extortion. Seeking to discredit former Trump attorney Michael Cohen's tale of hush payments — and alleged campaign finance law violations — Carlson first told viewers, "Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed."

But they aren't undisputed. They're not even facts.

He then proceeded to say, "Two women approach Donald Trump and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money. Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion."

Pictures of former adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, and McDougal flashed on screen. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 on behalf of Trump, who denies that either affair occurred.

 

New Documents Reveal How Trump, Cohen, Aides Worked To Seal Hush Money Deals

 

In reality, McDougal never approached Trump. She and her representative had spoken to ABC News and to the National Enquirer because, she said, she feared word of the affair would leak out during the campaign anyway and she preferred to be the one to tell the story. It wasn't publicly known that David *****, then the CEO of the tabloid's parent company, had promised Trump he would help keep stories about extramarital affairs from seeing the light of day.

Carlson and Fox never corrected that significant error, as The Washington Post's Erik Wemple underscored.

Not to worry, Carlson's lawyers said. In written briefs, they cited previous rulings to argue Carlson's words were "loose, figurative or hyperbolic." They took note of a nonjournalist's use of the word "extort," which proved nondefamatory because it was mere "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet."

Carlson has been accused of hyperbolic, vicious and unfounded claims about women, people of color and immigrants in the past. This year, his audiences have made his show the top-rated program in the history of cable news. He maintains the backing of Fox Corp. Executive Chairman and CEO Lachlan Murdoch.

The Daily Beast reported Tuesday that Fox recently slashed its research team, cutting it by about one-fourth during modest networkwide layoffs. Fox News said that is overstating the size of the cut to the unit. It said it eliminated duplication and those functions are conducted elsewhere throughout its newsroom and programs.

In Carlson's defense, Fox's attorneys, from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, noted that meeting the standard of "actual malice" requires more than just showing someone should have researched or investigated a subject before popping off, thanks to U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

The Fox team's legal briefs compared Carlson's show to radio talk-show programs hosted by ex-MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade."

In sum, the Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case made by McDougal's legal team. She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact."

"Context makes plain," Fox's lawyers wrote, "that the reasonable viewer would do no such thing."

The judge fully agreed.

[Taraka]

 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by ~Kostabi~

[SCBills]

 

[T&C]

Hehe... the kid he just had on was right on point. 

[BillStime]

We will start to hear this narrative here in 5-4-3-2-1

 

 

[BillStime]

 

 

[ALF]

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

 

Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

[BillStime]

 

[Orlando Tim]

20 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

I thought he was arrested?

[Ralonzo]

Take what someone said, change it to what they didn’t say, then mock them for what they never said.

[Unforgiven]

14 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I thought he was arrested?

I think whenever there's truth the left panics and then contorts what was said 

outrageously then says the BS lie over and over and over.

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 6/17/2021 at 10:02 PM, BillStime said:

 

First off, Mr. Winslow is a known critic and opponent of the former Trump administration.  A Trump hater.  So lets understand his motivation.  And that motivation is not necessarily the pursuit of the truth.  That's a common theme in lots of places including the media.    Like CNN which employs a multitude of former FBI officials playing the role of journalist and analyst.  Can you guess what they always conclude when the motives and conduct of the FBI are questioned?  

 

The questions being asked about FBI involvement in 1/6 have nothing to do with this guy pictured above.  Its purely for dramatic effect.  The question is what role did the FBI and other law enforcement or intelligence agencies play in the planning and execution of the events that lead to the violence at the Capitol on 1/6?  Did informants or assets act on directives from the FBI to riot?  To create an incident?  To create the pretext for passing "terror" legislation aimed at domestic enemies of the government?  

 

We don't know.  But what we do know is this tactic has been used by our government before both domestically and internationally.  And what we do know is the legal filings appear to admit the government had "assets" embedded in certain groups and at the event.  What we don't know yet is what role they played.  What we do know is the government has no interest in telling us what role they played.  So what are they hiding?  

 

And for the media we've pretty much figured out their role.  To run interference as a propaganda and information distribution racket in service of the State.  And given how many times they've been on the wrong end of the truth when it comes to these "conspiracies" I can't understand why they've got any credibility left to even speak.  At this point who can believe anything they say?   

[Governor]

It’s the FBI’s fault now? They ordered that pathetic display? LMAO.

 

The right created so many boogeyman. I can’t keep track of all of them. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Governor