The Tucker Carlson videos are dropping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The timeline is fascinating.

I truly dont understand what is being alleged. Do you believe Tucker was required by journalistic ethics to report that Trump was "a demonic force"?

[Anonymous]

No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Your'e being purposefully obtuse. Go away and let the grownups talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Might want to read about the back and forth between the judge and counsel from Parloff’s tweets. It’s not as dramatic as that woman would have you believe.

[Anonymous]

Breaching attorney client privilege has been a goal of DOJ for decades. They started by going after lawyers for Al Qaeda and claiming they were Al Qaeda. This got Republicans on board, and some Democrats didn't put up a fight.
Then they got the Democrats by going after Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Breaching attorney client privilege has been a goal of DOJ for decades. They started by going after lawyers for Al Qaeda and claiming they were Al Qaeda. This got Republicans on board, and some Democrats didn't put up a fight.
Then they got the Democrats by going after Trump.

The attorney-client privilege does not cover statements made by a client to their lawyer if the statements are meant to further or conceal a crime. For this exception to apply, the client must have been in the process of committing a crime or planning to commit a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Might want to read about the back and forth between the judge and counsel from Parloff’s tweets. It’s not as dramatic as that woman would have you believe.

Yeah, this all seems to be over the agent deleting messages that she did not send, which is what she was supposed to do because they don't qualify as Jencks material. Much ado about nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breaching attorney client privilege has been a goal of DOJ for decades. They started by going after lawyers for Al Qaeda and claiming they were Al Qaeda. This got Republicans on board, and some Democrats didn't put up a fight.
Then they got the Democrats by going after Trump.

The attorney-client privilege does not cover statements made by a client to their lawyer if the statements are meant to further or conceal a crime. For this exception to apply, the client must have been in the process of committing a crime or planning to commit a crime.

Agreed. The point is that DOJ insists on seizing all material, and they have procedures for filtering out attorney-client materials.
This should instead be handled by a judge, without DOJ being able to access the materials.
Their defense is they are following their procedures, which were created by Ashcroft around 2002.
BILLIONS made it look like this is treated as an egregious crime that ends a career and sends someone to jail , but the reality is they just look the other way at breaking attorney-client privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

Not true. In propagating the myth that Trump won the election, there was an illegal use of the Fox platform. Everyone at Fox knew it, thus the entire network is liable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

Not true. In propagating the myth that Trump won the election, there was an illegal use of the Fox platform. Everyone at Fox knew it, thus the entire network is liable.

It wasn’t illegal but it was defamatory.