Well, if Tucker Carlson says it, it must be true.
He is more credible than most.
Not according to FOX News in court.
Actually no, Fox and the Court didn't say that....the Court said basically...only an idiot would go to a political pundit show and expect to get news and not political commentary
McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) case opinion from the Southern District of New York US Federal District Court
law.justia.com
"ox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect."
...
"10from ‘varying degrees of what many people might view as extortion, manipulation, fraud, and deceit.’ And hyperbole is ‘simply not actionable’ for defamation.” (quoting Gross v. N.Y. Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146, 152, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, 623 N.E.2d 1163 (1993))). Such accusations of crimes also are unlikely to be defamatory when, as here, they aremade in connection with debates on a matter of public or political importance. SeeHorsley v. Rivera, 292 F.3d 695, 702 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that an accusation that the plaintiff was an “accomplice to murder” was not actionable because it was made during an “emotional debate concerning emotionally-charged issues of significant public concern,” specifically regarding abortion). Such statements are just one type of the “‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States.” Clifford v. Trump, 339 F. Supp. 3d 915, 925 (C.D. Cal. 2018). This is especially true in the context of commentary talk shows like the one at issue here, which often use “increasingly barbed” language to address issues in the news. See RODNEY A.SMOLLA,1LAW OF DEFAMATION § 6:92 (2d ed.). The context in which the offending statements were made here make it abundantly clear that Mr. Carlson was not accusing Ms. McDougal of actually committing a crime. As a result,his statements are not actionable."
----it appears once again, you were victim of leftist misinformation and lies, and didn't actually read the opinion or legal argument
www.dailymail.co.uk
