Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A desperate group breaks into the capitol by physical force. Smashing barricades, windows and doors to gain entry. And when one of their number wearing a backpack is the first to try to climb through a shattered gallery window, past the hastily erected barricade, and into a gallery filled with congressmen.,ohgreatgooglymoogly now i know you know the story is all bullshit. If that isn't the most pathetic excuse for excusing a MURDERER..
A five foot woman leading an angry mob is capable of killing
Do you think they should weigh and measure everyone in the TRUMPMob to decide who to let through?
George Floyd was peacefully surrendering and in handcuffs when he was killed
keep believin' and repeatin' whatever you're told and you'll be safe for now.George Floyd was peacefully surrendering and in handcuffs when he was killed
Ashli Babbitt was leading an angry mob to kill members of Congress and was killed after ignoring orders to stop
It’s a fact Jackkeep believin' and repeatin' whatever you're told and you'll be safe for now.
You so silly! Good to see such a great sense of humor!George Floyd was peacefully surrendering and in handcuffs when he was killed
Ashli Babbitt was leading an angry mob to kill members of Congress and was killed after ignoring orders to stop
thank you. I really needed a laugh todayTucker is a true American patriot for exposing this.
Tucker Carlson Discusses Relentless Media Lies About Jan 6 Protests on Second Anniversary of Historic Day | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
The truth behind Jan 6 is still unknown. Deep State government workers and US politicians are preventing the facts behind that day’s events from being uncovered. There were no policemen who died that day at the Capitol. Both Joe Biden and Hakeem Jeffries claimed today that five policemen died on...www.thegatewaypundit.com
www.npr.org
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 'arrivewith 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."
really? Again?Once again Tucker is 100% correct.
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 'arrivewith 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."
exactlyI can dismiss the messenger legitimately here.
Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously
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 'arrivewith 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."
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 'arrivewith 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."
Did Tuck discuss the lies he told about Jan 6?
www.newsweek.com
Feel free to point out where he is wrong.really? Again?
LOL
