Where the Lies Come From

[playtime]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

 

[struth]

I find it funny the network that spent years ignoring reality and evidence, and instead spread the false Russian conspiracy hoax that we now know was started and spread by the inner circle of the Obama Admin, including Biden, to undermine the free and duly elected President....is talking about radicalization...sad

I guess the proagandist need a new line....and the sheep will keep following....

 

[struth]

lest anyone forget, ol' tucker was part of the CNN & MSNBC families for years b4 going over to fox.

his opinions are based on whoever pays him more to have them.

Tucker Carlson


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson[5] (born May 16, 1969)[6] is an American conservative television host and political commentator who has hosted the nightly political talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News since 2016.
Carlson became a print journalist in the 1990s, writing for The Weekly Standard. He was a CNN commentator from 2000 to 2005, and co-host of the network's prime-time news debate program Crossfire from 2001 to 2005. He would later host the nightly program Tucker on MSNBC from 2005 to 2008. He has been a political analyst for Fox News since 2009, appearing as guest or guest host on various programs before the launch of his current show.

His opinions are his opinions.

riiiiiiiiight .... based on what? fake news, propaganda, & CONspiracies. he feeds the poorly educated what they want to hear.

You referring to things like "there is evidence of Russian collusion"...or...."Hunter Biden story is a conspiracy and not worthy of reporting on"

Like those things?

lol ... there was obstruction & certainly russian interference as evidenced by mueller's reports.

as for hunter biden? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what ever happened to that story, 'eh? a blind computer tech? uh-huh....


FAIL.

Go with that.

It works well for you.

Good luck

so tell me - whatever happened to that hunter story, 'eh?

lol .....

Funny you should ask, Congress was concerned too....they just discussed it the other day with Biden's AG nominee: Merrick Garland, Joe Biden haven't spoken about Hunter Biden investigation

 

[berg80]

Tucker gets it right the majority of the time.

Carlson lies about renewable energy Texas - Google Search

 

[struth]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Of course they don't....he's a pundit, not a reporter.....just another silly lawsuit, easily won.

“It’s a commentary show,” “It’s a show that markets itself … as opinion and spirited debate. That context matters.” - geez,...duh.....the sad thing is most reasonable viewers, know that...the unreasonable ones are watching his counterparts, like Cuomo, Lemon, and Rachael....and think they are getting facts....

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Brought to you same boat as PROG-Checks & PROG-Polls, tailored for desirable outcome.

Misinformation

 

[berg80]

I find it funny the network that spent years ignoring reality and evidence, and instead spread the false Russian conspiracy hoax

What hoax?

A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?

Our summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

www.lawfareblog.com

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Left is where the disinformation comes from.

No rational person who lives in a fact based reality can say that. Perhaps if you take your head out of tucker’s butt

No rational person believes the MSM anymore.

Mindless Biden Loon Zombies off their Meds believe the MSM

 

[playtime]

lest anyone forget, ol' tucker was part of the CNN & MSNBC families for years b4 going over to fox.

his opinions are based on whoever pays him more to have them.

Tucker Carlson


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson[5] (born May 16, 1969)[6] is an American conservative television host and political commentator who has hosted the nightly political talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News since 2016.
Carlson became a print journalist in the 1990s, writing for The Weekly Standard. He was a CNN commentator from 2000 to 2005, and co-host of the network's prime-time news debate program Crossfire from 2001 to 2005. He would later host the nightly program Tucker on MSNBC from 2005 to 2008. He has been a political analyst for Fox News since 2009, appearing as guest or guest host on various programs before the launch of his current show.

His opinions are his opinions.

riiiiiiiiight .... based on what? fake news, propaganda, & CONspiracies. he feeds the poorly educated what they want to hear.

You referring to things like "there is evidence of Russian collusion"...or...."Hunter Biden story is a conspiracy and not worthy of reporting on"

Like those things?

lol ... there was obstruction & certainly russian interference as evidenced by mueller's reports.

as for hunter biden? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what ever happened to that story, 'eh? a blind computer tech? uh-huh....


FAIL.

Go with that.

It works well for you.

Good luck

so tell me - whatever happened to that hunter story, 'eh?

lol .....

Funny you should ask, Congress was concerned too....they just discussed it the other day with Biden's AG nominee: Merrick Garland, Joe Biden haven't spoken about Hunter Biden investigation

oh yes - i know about that. & goody - then the truth shall set us free .... right? & still the article says nothing about that supposed laptop .

 

[playtime]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Of course they don't....he's a pundit, not a reporter.....just another silly lawsuit, easily won.

“It’s a commentary show,” “It’s a show that markets itself … as opinion and spirited debate. That context matters.” - geez,...duh.....the sad thing is most reasonable viewers, know that...the unreasonable ones are watching his counterparts, like Cuomo, Lemon, and Rachael....and think they are getting facts....

excuses excuses - peddling CONspiracy theories that stoke hatred & trump humpers act on them with violence is sickening.

can you tell me when any pundit from CNN & MSNBC have spurred such hatred on?

 

[struth]

I find it funny the network that spent years ignoring reality and evidence, and instead spread the false Russian conspiracy hoax

What hoax?

A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?

Our summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

www.lawfareblog.com

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

The one where there was no conspiracy between Russia, Trump or his campaign.....it was all a lie.....

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

" Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. "

But then again we knew that in 2016! James Clapper Said He ‘Never Saw Direct Empirical Evidence’ of Trump-Russia Collusion in FBI Interview

Obama’s top brass contradict public statements about ‘collusion’ under oath

Newly released House Intelligence Committee transcripts show just how different a picture some top Obama-era officials painted of the Trump-Russia investigation under oath versus the loaded allegat…

nypost.com

“never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” - Clapper

" I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.” - Ben Rhodes

Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”- Samatha Powers

“I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure" - Susan Rice

You were fed lies and propaganda......

 

[struth]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Of course they don't....he's a pundit, not a reporter.....just another silly lawsuit, easily won.

“It’s a commentary show,” “It’s a show that markets itself … as opinion and spirited debate. That context matters.” - geez,...duh.....the sad thing is most reasonable viewers, know that...the unreasonable ones are watching his counterparts, like Cuomo, Lemon, and Rachael....and think they are getting facts....

excuses excuses - peddling CONspiracy theories that stoke hatred & trump humpers act on them with violence is sickening.

can you tell me when any pundit from CNN & MSNBC have spurred such hatred on?

It's not an excuse...it's a legal fact...hence why the lawsuit was kicked.

The sad thing is you don't know the difference between commentary and reporting....hence why you have fallen so hard for leftist propaganda.

 

[berg80]

The one where there was no conspiracy between Russia, Trump or his campaign.....it was all a lie.....

Let's be clear on the semantics. There's a difference between rightly saying Mueller reported he determined there was not enough evidence (in part because of a lack of cooperation from Manafort and Stone) to charge anyone with a criminal conspiracy, and saying there was no evidence of what has been loosely defined as collusion. The latter statement being unequivocally false.


It is a bit of a mug’s game at this point to fight over whether what either Mueller or the Intelligence Committee found constitutes collusion and, if so, in what sense. The question turns almost entirely on what one means by the term “collusion”—a word without any precise meaning in the context of campaign engagement with foreign actors interfering with an election.

So rather than engaging over whether the Intelligence Committee found collusion, we decided to read the document with a focus on identifying precisely what the committee found about the engagement over a long period of time between Trump and his campaign and Russian government or intelligence actors and their cut-outs.

Whether one describes this activity as collusion or not, there’s a lot of it: The report describes hundreds of actions by Trump, his campaign, and his associates in the run-up to the 2016 election that involve some degree of participation by Trump or his associates in Russian activity. In this post—which we are generating serially as we read through the document—we attempt to summarize, precisely and comprehensively, what the eight Republicans on the committee, along with their seven Democratic colleagues, report that the president, members of his campaign and his associates actually did.

A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?

Our summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[struth]

The one where there was no conspiracy between Russia, Trump or his campaign.....it was all a lie.....

Let's be clear on the semantics. There's a difference between rightly saying Mueller reported he determined there was not enough evidence (in part because of a lack of cooperation from Manafort and Stone) to charge anyone with a criminal conspiracy, and saying there was no evidence of what has been loosely defined as collusion. The latter statement being unequivocally false.


It is a bit of a mug’s game at this point to fight over whether what either Mueller or the Intelligence Committee found constitutes collusion and, if so, in what sense. The question turns almost entirely on what one means by the term “collusion”—a word without any precise meaning in the context of campaign engagement with foreign actors interfering with an election.

So rather than engaging over whether the Intelligence Committee found collusion, we decided to read the document with a focus on identifying precisely what the committee found about the engagement over a long period of time between Trump and his campaign and Russian government or intelligence actors and their cut-outs.

Whether one describes this activity as collusion or not, there’s a lot of it: The report describes hundreds of actions by Trump, his campaign, and his associates in the run-up to the 2016 election that involve some degree of participation by Trump or his associates in Russian activity. In this post—which we are generating serially as we read through the document—we attempt to summarize, precisely and comprehensively, what the eight Republicans on the committee, along with their seven Democratic colleagues, report that the president, members of his campaign and his associates actually did.

A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?

Our summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

www.lawfareblog.com

I literally quoted where he said there was no cooperation. I get that you need a blogger to tell you what Mueller said, but Mueller's own words are in my prior post.

Additionally, it's not the job of the people being investigated to help the Govt. In fact the US Constitution protects people from being forced to do just that. To suggest that's why they couldnt' prove their case, is sad and a cop out.

Moreover, Stone did speak, and they took both men's computers, phones etc....so they had it

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

As well as Manafort's

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[midcan5]

Tucker always looks like he is constipated. I realize that is odd comment but his face shows that his comments are doubtful or biased or made up. Of course maybe that is his real self, but his delivery is a kinda moralistic word fog. When all a news person does is blame others, with so little insight, you know he is just feeding the fans be they bigots or tools. Fox like OAN and Newsmax are anti American freedom and its diversity.

Tucker Carlson’s Ugly Anti-Trans Bigotry Flares Into Life. Again.

Tucker Carlson devoted a segment of his Fox News show to attacking trans kids and their parents—then claimed he was the victim. His prejudice is as ugly as it is predictable.

www.thedailybeast.com

Tucker Carlson is Donald Trump in a younger, better looking package

Carlson's head writer, Blake Neff, resigned over offensive posts, but Carlson defended him and then left for vacation.

www.latimes.com

 

[berg80]

Let's be clear on the semantics. There's a difference between rightly saying Mueller reported he determined there was not enough evidence (in part because of a lack of cooperation from Manafort and Stone) to charge anyone with a criminal conspiracy, and saying there was no evidence of what has been loosely defined as collusion. The latter statement being unequivocally false.

Did Trump and His Team Successfully Obstruct Mueller’s Investigation?

This is a largely unexplored topic.

Did Trump and His Team Successfully Obstruct Mueller’s Investigation?

As a result of obstructive efforts and other practical obstacles, Mueller’s team was unable to complete many of their intended investigative steps.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[playtime]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Of course they don't....he's a pundit, not a reporter.....just another silly lawsuit, easily won.

“It’s a commentary show,” “It’s a show that markets itself … as opinion and spirited debate. That context matters.” - geez,...duh.....the sad thing is most reasonable viewers, know that...the unreasonable ones are watching his counterparts, like Cuomo, Lemon, and Rachael....and think they are getting facts....

excuses excuses - peddling CONspiracy theories that stoke hatred & trump humpers act on them with violence is sickening.

can you tell me when any pundit from CNN & MSNBC have spurred such hatred on?

It's not an excuse...it's a legal fact...hence why the lawsuit was kicked.

The sad thing is you don't know the difference between commentary and reporting....hence why you have fallen so hard for leftist propaganda.

actually - uh - no. i never take anything at face value.... no sound bites ... nor edited video. when i hear something or see a sliced blurb, i research it on UNBIASED sites to see & read things in their entirety.

'commentary' based on propaganda to donny's poorly educated base, knowing fully well that them thar trump humpers won't bother to find out if it's true or bullshit peddling- but will just take it as fact - is not only misleading, but dangerous. no wonder donny loves you long time.

as an FYI, i don't have cable - - - so *your* OPINIONATED assersion is also not based on fact.

 

[struth]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Of course they don't....he's a pundit, not a reporter.....just another silly lawsuit, easily won.

“It’s a commentary show,” “It’s a show that markets itself … as opinion and spirited debate. That context matters.” - geez,...duh.....the sad thing is most reasonable viewers, know that...the unreasonable ones are watching his counterparts, like Cuomo, Lemon, and Rachael....and think they are getting facts....

excuses excuses - peddling CONspiracy theories that stoke hatred & trump humpers act on them with violence is sickening.

can you tell me when any pundit from CNN & MSNBC have spurred such hatred on?

It's not an excuse...it's a legal fact...hence why the lawsuit was kicked.

The sad thing is you don't know the difference between commentary and reporting....hence why you have fallen so hard for leftist propaganda.

actually - uh - no. i never take anything at face value.... no sound bites ... nor edited video. when i hear something or see a sliced blurb, i research it on UNBIASED sites to see & read things in their entirety.

'commentary' based on propaganda to donny's poorly educated base, knowing fully well that them thar trump humpers won't bother to find out if it's true or bullshit peddling- but will just take it as fact - is not only misleading, but dangerous. no wonder donny loves you long time.

as an FYI, i don't have cable - - - so *your* OPINIONATED assersion is also not based on fact.

Then why did you post the comments you did about Carlson?

 

[playtime]

Score!!!!

From NPR

Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts
June 17, 2020
Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts


Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News Argues Against Karen McDougal's Lawsuit | Law & Crime

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Of course they don't....he's a pundit, not a reporter.....just another silly lawsuit, easily won.

“It’s a commentary show,” “It’s a show that markets itself … as opinion and spirited debate. That context matters.” - geez,...duh.....the sad thing is most reasonable viewers, know that...the unreasonable ones are watching his counterparts, like Cuomo, Lemon, and Rachael....and think they are getting facts....

excuses excuses - peddling CONspiracy theories that stoke hatred & trump humpers act on them with violence is sickening.

can you tell me when any pundit from CNN & MSNBC have spurred such hatred on?

It's not an excuse...it's a legal fact...hence why the lawsuit was kicked.

The sad thing is you don't know the difference between commentary and reporting....hence why you have fallen so hard for leftist propaganda.

actually - uh - no. i never take anything at face value.... no sound bites ... nor edited video. when i hear something or see a sliced blurb, i research it on UNBIASED sites to see & read things in their entirety.

'commentary' based on propaganda to donny's poorly educated base, knowing fully well that them thar trump humpers won't bother to find out if it's true or bullshit peddling- but will just take it as fact - is not only misleading, but dangerous. no wonder donny loves you long time.

as an FYI, i don't have cable - - - so *your* OPINIONATED assersion is also not based on fact.

Then why did you post the comments you did about Carlson?

because 'he' - having the full blessing of yer chosen one - has the power to persuade people to act dangerously.

 

[Jets]

The lies come from Tucker Carlson?

No argument here...