Tucker Carlson FIRED

[Longhornlove 5134]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

He did that privately. On air, his statements are were a huge part of dominion's claim. His private messages were the evidence that established Fox new everything was bullshit. He was reason #1 the settlement was as large as it was. 

If by privately you mean live on TV and posted on the internet for all the world to search for sure, private it is.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud   Took place on November 19th 2020 just for your information.

[atomheartbevo 90542]

15 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

 

So now he's trying to sound reasonable and not pushing batshit conspiracy theories or Russian propaganda straight from Russian state media.  Is it because he's no longer protected by FNC (they are paying the $787 million, not him, and they will be paying Smartmatic, not him)?  If he tries to rehabilitate his image and tone down all of the batshit conspiracy theories, Russian stuff, replacement theory bullshit (well I guess it's not bullshit, they did replace him), he might be able to pull it off, but he's got to make it appear that FNC was the reason why he said that stuff, and he's got to hope that Abby Grossberg doesn't have any more recorded conversations.

 

[Fondren & Main 6871]

Well, now this is interesting…

https://thespectator.com/topic/abby-grossberg-never-met-tucker-carlson-fox-lawsuit/

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean that was the joke and why he bolded that in his quote. ThatsTheJoke.gif

Yeah I was trying to do a riff on the Seinfeld I mentioned the bisque yadda yadda episode 

[TwiceHorn 31983]

10 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Well, now this is interesting…

https://thespectator.com/topic/abby-grossberg-never-met-tucker-carlson-fox-lawsuit/

Except it's not really.  I'd wager due to circumstances of his show, few of his producers spent much time with him personally.

[Homercles 10206]

Well not to mention it’s The Spectator…so of course it’s spun 

[SizzleChest 8302]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except it's not really.  I'd wager due to circumstances of his show, few of his producers spent much time with him personally.

He's not quite as reclusive as Howard Stern, but he's in the area code.  

[Sawbonz 28081]

13 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

Those who are celebrating Tucker’s demise at FNC are misguided. He was being throttled there, and he will have options to actually increase his reach, should he choose to do so. I have a hard time thinking of anyone in the news arena - cable or broadcast network - who can move millions of viewers. Too many egomaniacs in the business fail to realize that they are easily replaced, and when they move, the needle barely budges. His monologues can be downright brilliant, and are themselves newsworthy. His long form interviews on Fox Nation make it obvious that he is not just a news reader. People who don’t realize this either never watch him or only see carefully edited clips.

Tucker is very antiestablishment, and some of his harshest criticisms are reserved for RINOs and career bureaucrats. He’s done multi-night hit pieces on Republicans and Republican donors. There are reasons why the Lindsay Grahams and Mitt Romneys don’t dare go on his show. I am friends with two Senators (one a very good friend) who are to varying degrees establishment Republicans. I have asked each of them why I don’t ever see them sticking their necks out on lip service issues, and the very mention of Tucker Carlson makes them a bit squeamish.

It’s pretty obvious that I am a bit of a Tucker fanboy. He’s the only one I watch with any regularity on FNC or Fox Nation. I already switched “cable” provider, not out of protest as much as not needing a package with Fox News. I’ve likewise non-renewed my Fox Nation subscription. Their news notifications will sit there right along with other news sources.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Holy shit I just watched that diarrhea of a video. It’s like he told Chatgpt to write the most nonsensical garbage it could come up with about modern politics and media, then end with as much irony as machinely possible.

This simulation is just insane.

Edited April 27, 2023 by DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

[Schulz2.0 29241]

 

[Biff Tannen 46060]

9 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Honestly, it's refreshing. At least he admits it. Other than him, the most popular news show on television apparently doesn't have a single regular viewer.

And they all voted for Gary Johnson

[Captain Ron 13094]

3 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

 

 

[Nicole44 22206]

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Nicole44

[atomheartbevo 90542]

2 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Well, now this is interesting…

https://thespectator.com/topic/abby-grossberg-never-met-tucker-carlson-fox-lawsuit/

2 hours ago, Homercles said:

Well not to mention it’s The Spectator…so of course it’s spun 

The interesting thing is that she has 90 or so audio recordings with over 34 hours of audio, and because he was remote, she talked to him on the phone or over video a lot, and Maine is a single-party consent state, so her recording him is not an issue.  She already helped Dominion out with their lawsuit with the Bartiromo audio.  And her lawyer says various law enforcement agencies have contacted them about the recordings (for reasons discussed in CR).

If the worst of the audio is him calling various women "cunts", yeah that's not a good look but it'll be fine with his audience since that's already come out about him.  His audience will have to get twitter accounts (he could go the YouTube route, but YT would actually boot him over stuff he said on his show), but he's already monetizing his twitter account from what it looks like.  Elon would probably give him a better rate as well since he likes him.

Or he can go the Bill O'Reily/Glenn Beck and do his own platform/streaming network of sorts (or podcast in O'Reilly's case).

[atomheartbevo 90542]

2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Holy shit I just watched that diarrhea of a video. It’s like he told Chatgpt to write the most nonsensical garbage it could come up with about modern politics and media, then end with as much irony as machinely possible.

This simulation is just insane.

It felt like a combination of ChatGPT, some PR people writing some spin, and a lawyer or two looking over, and maybe tossing in a pinch of what he used to be like on CNN and MSNBC.  It was the most generic thing ever, and I can't decide if he's using it as a job interview, or if he intends on starting his own show on twitter or wherever.  Like I said, he can't say what he said on Fox because anybody filing a defamation suit for stuff he says going forward, that money will come out of his pockets.

Edited April 27, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[Chooky 13337]

19 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

So Wallyprior is basically an outright white supremacist, huh?

When it comes to tuck, I was probably wrong about my earlier response to you. Apparently Fox had great concern about some of the texts that became evident but haven't become public yet. Something particularly foul, as they are alluding. So that might be something ludicrously bigoted. Or it could just be litigious gamesmanship. Or it could just be a media mogul worth $25 billion who will fire anyone for being a pain in his ass. 

[atomheartbevo 90542]

3 hours ago, Chooky said:

Or it could just be a media mogul worth $25 billion who will fire anyone for being a pain in his ass. 

It definitely could be simple - he supposedly called one of the female Fox News execs a cunt (not sure if it was text or emails), which is enough for somebody like Murdoch to fire him, since the upper level execs would probably be hand-picked by Murdoch.  But he also had a lot of batshit people on and didn't try to rein them in, which contributed to the $787 million settlement, not to mention the upcoming $2.6 billion Smartmatic lawsuit.

People are shocked, but Tucker has been there not quite 7 years, and contributed to a $787 million payment, plus the upcoming Smartmatic thing, and cost Fox News a lot of advertisers, while Bill O'Reilly only cost Fox News $35 million in payouts to women and O'Reilly had the top-rated cable news network show for 16 years in a row or something like that.  And when Glenn Beck was fired, his show was drawing a higher viewership in that spot than CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC combined.

Tucker is almost a blip compared to O'Reilly's run though.  Whether it was costing Murdoch a lot of money or shitting on Murdoch's executives, or the nasty stuff being hinted at, who knows, but Murdoch put everybody else on notice not to fuck around.

Edited April 27, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[Genco 3053]

8 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It felt like a combination of ChatGPT, some PR people writing some spin, and a lawyer or two looking over, and maybe tossing in a pinch of what he used to be like on CNN and MSNBC.  It was the most generic thing ever, and I can't decide if he's using it as a job interview, or if he intends on starting his own show on twitter or wherever.  

Cryptic, conspiratorial, the deep state/pentaverate suppressing some secret knowledge that Tucker will reveal sometime in the future. It was a halfass Q drop laundered with some $5 buzzwords and a horoscopic writing style.

[Pescado_Rojo 19555]

4 hours ago, Chooky said:

When it comes to tuck, I was probably wrong about my earlier response to you. Apparently Fox had great concern about some of the texts that became evident but haven't become public yet. Something particularly foul, as they are alluding. So that might be something ludicrously bigoted. Or it could just be litigious gamesmanship. Or it could just be a media mogul worth $25 billion who will fire anyone for being a pain in his ass. 

$20 says there's a hard R N bomb in there. Probably more than one. 

[Beau Vine 55812]

12 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Well, now this is interesting…

https://thespectator.com/topic/abby-grossberg-never-met-tucker-carlson-fox-lawsuit/

Jesus Christ dude, did Prager not have the story yet?

 And it literally says in the first full paragraph that Tucker worked remotely, so she would actually have to go to his house to meet him.

[Beau Vine 55812]

13 hours ago, Longhornlove said:

If by privately you mean live on TV and posted on the internet for all the world to search for sure, private it is.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud   Took place on November 19th 2020 just for your information.

You know what took place a week before that?  A Michigan judge tossed Jessy Jacob's affadavit as not credible:

https://www.courthousenews.com/michigan-judge-rejects-challenge-to-detroit-election-results/

Yet here's Tucker, a week after that:

Quote

At one point, Giuliani held up an affidavit from a worker in Detroit called Jessy Jacob alleging fraud in that city's polling places.

GIULIANI: She was assigned to voting duties in September and she was trained by the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan. She was basically trained to cheat. She said that "I was instructed by my supervisor to adjust the mailing date of these absentee ballot packages to be dated earlier than when they were actually sent in. The supervisor made that announcement for all workers to engage in that fraudulent practice." That's not me saying that. That's just American citizens saying that under oath.

What Giuliani said is correct. This is the sworn statement of an American citizen made under oath and under penalty of perjury, so you cannot dismiss it out of hand. Jacob goes on to say that her supervisor told her not to check the photo IDs of voters when they arrived. She says she saw city employees coaching voters on who to vote for, as well as voters voting more than once.

Is any of that provable? Is it true? Well, we should find out, not because Michigan is a swing state, but because voter fraud is a direct attack on our democracy.

But the media don't want to know. They're not interested. If you watched the coverage after the press conference today, you saw credentialed reporters, some of whom we know and like, actually, refuse even to acknowledge it.

No mention whatsoever of the contents of what they described as "what he says are sworn affidavits." Giuliani says that the Jacob affidavit has been made public, but they can't be bothered to check.

(Bolded parts for enjoyment of extreme irony.)

I have no idea why you'd think that link you posted helps Tucker, other than I think we just uncovered our second Tucker fanboy.

[Longhornlove 5134]

20 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You know what took place a week before that?  A Michigan judge tossed Jessy Jacob's affadavit as not credible:

https://www.courthousenews.com/michigan-judge-rejects-challenge-to-detroit-election-results/

Yet here's Tucker, a week after that:

(Bolded parts for enjoyment of extreme irony.)

I have no idea why you'd think that link you posted helps Tucker, other than I think we just uncovered our second Tucker fanboy.

Please pay attention, maybe you should go back and re-read what I responded to and with, and just maybe you will figure it out. I'm not in the mood to spoon feed you. If you are attempting to insult me by accusing me of enjoying Tucker Carlson shows I am afraid you have failed. He is quite entertaining but certainly not my go to for news and opinions. I do enjoy a good laugh and Tucker certainly gives many, many good laughs.

[Dahobbs 18181]

34 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You know what took place a week before that?  A Michigan judge tossed Jessy Jacob's affadavit as not credible:

https://www.courthousenews.com/michigan-judge-rejects-challenge-to-detroit-election-results/

Yet here's Tucker, a week after that:

(Bolded parts for enjoyment of extreme irony.)

I have no idea why you'd think that link you posted helps Tucker, other than I think we just uncovered our second Tucker fanboy.

Tucker tried very hard to walk a line. He wanted to insinuate the election was stolen, give his viewers hope that something would come out, without necessarily outright saying it. He presented everything as an open question. Yet his private messages show he knew the whole thing was a lie, every bit of it, but kept dangling the story to appease his viewers. The link @Longhornlove provided is just more of that. Again, he was a big part of why Fox had to settle. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Dahobbs

[SydneyCarton 49323]

9 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

Please pay attention, maybe you should go back and re-read what I responded to and with, and just maybe you will figure it out. I'm not in the mood to spoon feed you. If you are attempting to insult me by accusing me of enjoying Tucker Carlson shows I am afraid you have failed. He is quite entertaining but certainly not my go to for news and opinions. I do enjoy a good laugh and Tucker certainly gives many, many good laughs.

Well, then perhaps you want to answer many of the similar questions posed to the now absent IMissWallyPryor, since you find Tucker so entertaining.
 

I'll just go ahead and re-paste my last post on the subject. 

 

Tell us how you feel about the mass genocide taking place in Ukraine and whether or not you think Russia is winning that war. I guess you can throw in how you feel about the fact that Tucker Carlson is often quoted and revered by Russian state TV and Russian propaganda? And the fact that White Nationalists watch Tucker Carlson to figure out how to frame their viewpoints, because he does it for them. 

 

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/21/16008190/strikethrough-white-supremacists-love-tucker-carlson

 

Quote

But Carlson’s rise to stardom has also earned him the attention of another group: white supremacists. Richard Spencer celebrated O’Reilly’s replacement, arguing Carlson showed an “open-mindedness” to white supremacist ideas that O’Reilly didn’t. Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke frequently tweets praise of Tucker’s show. And the white supremacist website Daily Stormer has called Carlson “literally our greatest ally.”

White supremacists’ affection for Carlson has a lot to do with the way he talks about immigrants. Unlike other conservative pundits, who focus their anti-immigration rhetoric on illegal immigration, Carlson spent the first few months of his show depicting both legal and undocumented immigrants as potentially dangerous criminals. He’s gone after Mexicans, Muslims, and refugees, often cherry-picking stories of immigrant crime and inviting anti-immigrant extremists to depict “foreigners” as threatening invaders.

But yeah, feel free to tell us how you feel about White Supremacy, people who push white supremacy rhetoric, and how you feel about the war in Ukraine. 

[Longhornlove 5134]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Tucker tried very hard to walk a line. He wanted to insinuate the election was stolen, give his viewers hope that something would come out, without necessarily outright saying it. His private messages show he knew the whole thing was a lie, every bit of it, but kept dangling the story to appease his viewers. The link @Longhornlove provided is just more of that. Again, he was a big part of why Fox had to settle. 

"He did that privately. On air, his statements are were a huge part of dominion's claim. His private messages were the evidence that established Fox new everything was bullshit. He was reason #1 the settlement was as large as it was. "

So which is it, it can't be both dude. The quote above is yours, not mine.

LMFAO, love how people spin things to fit what they want. Not completely unexpected though. We went from Tucker being the ring leader of election denial, only objecting privately yet in public, to his truthful messages causing the settlement. This place is comical and infuriating at the same time just like any other social media I suppose.

[Foosters 18221]

Ok why don't you tell us why he was fired?

 

 

 

[Hagbard Celine 11157]

On 4/24/2023 at 11:08 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Meanwhile, on Texags:
 

Ellis Wyatt

In reply to Rossticus • 10:50a

This decision proves that profit isn't their motive. It was, but it isn't anymore.

Rupert Murdoch is a leftist and his kids are much more liberal than he. Them hiring Paul Ryan was a signal that they were shifting leftward. They will now become just another network pushing a leftist point of view.

 

@aggypedia please record this for posterity, with no comment

 

aggy on the termination of Tucker Carlson 24 April 2023:

"Rupert Murdoch is a leftist and his kids are much more liberal than he. Them hiring Paul Ryan was a signal that they were shifting leftward. They will now become just another network pushing a leftist point of view."

 

[SydneyCarton 49323]

2 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

"He did that privately. On air, his statements are were a huge part of dominion's claim. His private messages were the evidence that established Fox new everything was bullshit. He was reason #1 the settlement was as large as it was. "

So which is it, it can't be both dude. The quote above is yours, not mine.

LMFAO, love how people spin things to fit what they want. Not completely unexpected though. We went from Tucker being the ring leader of election denial, only objecting privately yet in public, to his truthful messages causing the settlement. This place is comical and infuriating at the same time just like any other social media I suppose.

I think we've stumbled on the crux of the issue here. Which of his statements, exactly, were truthful?

[Longhornlove 5134]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Well, then perhaps you want to answer many of the similar questions posed to the now absent IMissWallyPryor, since you find Tucker so entertaining.
 

I'll just go ahead and re-paste my last post on the subject. 

 

Tell us how you feel about the mass genocide taking place in Ukraine and whether or not you think Russia is winning that war. I guess you can throw in how you feel about the fact that Tucker Carlson is often quoted and revered by Russian state TV and Russian propaganda? And the fact that White Nationalists watch Tucker Carlson to figure out how to frame their viewpoints, because he does it for them. 

 

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/21/16008190/strikethrough-white-supremacists-love-tucker-carlson

 

But yeah, feel free to tell us how you feel about White Supremacy, people who push white supremacy rhetoric, and how you feel about the war in Ukraine. 

I suppose you are calling me a racist. Nice. Not shocked, that seems to be the go to move.

[SydneyCarton 49323]

Just now, Foosters said:

Ok why don't you tell us why he was fired?

 

 

 

I've got dibs on "He was too honest for main-steam media and Fox had to silence him."

[Longhornlove 5134]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I think we've stumbled on the crux of the issue here. Which of his statements, exactly, were truthful?

Maybe the lady was a cunt?

[SydneyCarton 49323]

5 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

I suppose you are calling me a racist. Nice. Not shocked, that seems to be the go to move.

No. I asked you some simple questions. Which you're very, very obviously not willing to answer. I'll let others speculate on why you won't answer them. 
 

You said you are often entertained by Tucker Carlson, a man who has repeatedly and consistently espoused racist language. And a figure who also, publicly, has been called and ally and friend by ACTUAL WHITE SUPREMACCISTS, for which I provided support and documentation. I asked you how you felt about liking and being entertained by a guy loved by White Supremacists because they think he espouses their views. If you're NOT a racist, then I would think that dichotomy would make you somewhat uncomfortable. And that's what I'm asking you about. 

Additionally, you're an American, I presume. I don't know your age. But how does it feel to know a guy you find entertaining (your words) consistently spouts Russian Propaganda, and who is beloved by Russian Propogandists. Again, I would think this would make you uncomfortable. So I'm asking you about it. 

Of course, you're not answering any of that at all, at least not yet. Which leaves everyone to speculate as to why. 

4 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

Maybe the lady was a cunt?

Well, not you've demonstrated that you don't understand the the difference between what is considered "truth," and something that is subjective, which would be how someone feels about another person. Never mind that you don't know the lady in question, therefore you have no qualification at all to determine whether or not this lady being a Cunt is a "truthful statement." So why would you show up on a message board and stan for someone's statements being true? I'm assuming it's because you WANT Tucker Carlson to be truthful. Which brings me back to the first part of my post above. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[Longhornlove 5134]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ok why don't you tell us why he was fired?

 

 

 

I don't know, neither does anyone on this board, it is all speculation at this point. I have my thoughts but those will remain mine until this plays out more at minimum. I may not ever share that here for obvious reasons.

[royiv 9676]

2 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

I don't know, neither does anyone on this board, it is all speculation at this point. I have my thoughts but those will remain mine until this plays out more at minimum. I may not ever share that here for obvious reasons.

Please elaborate on the obvious reasons. I guess they're not so obvious to me. You've come on here and made a few statements about Tucker, but you're not willing to answer a few questions to help square your beliefs vis a vis some of the more controversial things he has regularly espoused on his show. That leaves me to conclude that you are aligned with Tucker on these issues.

 

[Longhornlove 5134]

2 minutes ago, royiv said:

Please elaborate on the obvious reasons. I guess they're not so obvious to me. You've come on here and made a few statements about Tucker, but you're not willing to answer a few questions to help square your beliefs vis a vis some of the more controversial things he has regularly espoused on his show. That leaves me to conclude that you are aligned with Tucker on these issues.

 

Posts like this is the "Obvious reasons". Just more unfounded accusations and insinuations.

[royiv 9676]

5 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

Posts like this is the "Obvious reasons". Just more unfounded accusations and insinuations.

Then why not answer the questions?

[Dahobbs 18181]

31 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

"He did that privately. On air, his statements are were a huge part of dominion's claim. His private messages were the evidence that established Fox new everything was bullshit. He was reason #1 the settlement was as large as it was. "

So which is it, it can't be both dude. The quote above is yours, not mine.

LMFAO, love how people spin things to fit what they want. Not completely unexpected though. We went from Tucker being the ring leader of election denial, only objecting privately yet in public, to his truthful messages causing the settlement. This place is comical and infuriating at the same time just like any other social media I suppose.

Privately, he said it was all a lie. Publicly, he dangled it out there as an open question and had folks supporting the lie on his program. I'm not sure what you think the disconnect is. You need to read the summary judgment motion and the court's ruling. 

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

Here are things you never saw on his program:

Quote

 

“

Sidney Powell is lying.” Tucker Carlson to his producer Alex Pfeiffer, November 16, 2020 (Ex.150)

“Sidney Powell is a bit nuts. Sorry but she is.” Laura Ingraham to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, November 15, 2020 (Ex.155 at FNN035_03890539)

* * * 

Each circumstantial factor cuts strongly in Dominion’s favor. But here, the words of multiple Fox employees provide overwhelming direct evidence of actual malice. In addition to the evidence cited above, the excerpts below feature just some of the additional examples showing Fox employees knew at the time that these claims—and the guests promoting them—were:

• “ludicrous” –Tucker Carlson, 11/20/20 (Ex.171) 2
• “totally off the rails” –Tucker Carlson, 12/24/20 (Ex.172)

* * *

Fox Hosts Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity immediately understood the threat to them personally. Carlson wrote his producer Alex Pfeiffer on November 5: “We worked really hard to build what we have. Those fuckers are destroying our credibility. It enrages me.” Ex.199 at FNN035_03890623. He added that he had spoken with “Laura and Sean a minute ago” and they are “highly upset.” Id. at FNN035_03890624. Carlson noted: “At this point we’re getting hurt no matter what.” Id. at FNN035_03890625. Pfeiffer responded: “It’s a hard needle to thread, but I really think many on ‘our side’ are being reckless demagogues right now.” Id. Tucker replied: “Of course they are. We’re not going to follow them.” Id. And he added: “What [Trump]’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” Id. at FNN035_03890626.

* * * 

As Tucker Carlson texted that night, “[t]he software shit is absurd.…Half our viewers have seen the Maria clip.” Ex.169 at FNN035_03890644.

* * * 

While the Executives were waking up to the “war footing” by November 10, key Fox hosts had understood the crisis immediately after Election Night. On November 5, Tucker Carlson texted regarding election coverage, “We’ve got to be incredibly careful right now. We could get hurt.” Ex.224.

* * *

Meanwhile, later that night of November 12, Ingraham was still texting with Hannity and Carlson. In their group text thread, Carlson pointed Hannity to a tweet by Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich. Ex.230 at FNN035_03890511. Heinrich was “fact checking” a tweet by Trump that mentioned Dominion—and specifically mentioned Hannity’s and Dobbs’ broadcasts that evening discussing Dominion. Ex.232; Ex.231. Heinrich correctly fact-checked the tweet, pointing out that “top election infrastructure officials” said that “‘There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.’” Id.; Ex.232.

Carlson told Hannity: “Please get her fired. Seriously….What the fuck? I’m actually shocked…It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Ex.230 at FNN035_03890511. Tucker added: “I just went crazy on Meade over it.” Id. at FNN035_03890512. Hannity said he had “already sent to Suzanne with a really?” He then added: “I’m 3 strikes. Wallace shit debate[.] Election night a disaster[.] Now this BS? Nope. Not gonna fly. Did I mention Cavuto?” Id.

* * * 

By November 18, Carlson told Ingraham “Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane.” Ex.241. Ingraham responded: “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.” Id. Carlson replied: “It’s unbelievably offensive to me. Our viewers are good people and they believe it.” Id. at FNN035_03891092.

* * * 

On November 19, after the Giuliani/Powell press conference, Carlson very carefully tried to thread his own needle. On one hand, he said publicly on his show that what “Powell was describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history” but “she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests.” Ex.170 at FNN018_02408904-05. On the other, however, he did not say what he believed privately—that she was “lying.” Ex.150. Instead, he closed by saying, “Maybe Sidney Powell will come forward soon with details on exactly how this happened, and precisely who did it.…We are certainly hopeful that she will.” Ex.170 at FNN018_02408905.

* * *

Late on January 6, Carlson texted with Pfeiffer that Trump is “a demonic force, a destroyer. But he’s not going to destroy us.” Ex.276 at FNN035_03890858. On January 26, Carlson invited his leading sponsor Mike Lindell on his show, where Lindell spouted these same conspiracies on air after previewing them for Carlson’s staff during a preinterview. See, infra, §V.D.6.

* * *

Tucker Carlson Tonight: Carlson testified that his show has “viewers and they expect us to bring as much information as we can, to be as honest as we can.” Ex.105, Carlson 33:16-19; Ex.148, Wells 72:20-23 (senior producer testifying that “we’re making the appropriate decisions for our audience, and what we believe to be true, and providing our assessment of the news events”); Ex.108, Cooper 197:5-7, 198:4-11 (Carlson’s show is “a credible news source” and she believes “viewers who hear the information presented on the Tucker Carlson show rely on Tucker Carlson to provide credible news”).

Tucker's name appears 89 times in the motion. Again, on air, he presented everything as an open question: fraud, if it occurred, would be the worse thing to happen to America. Privately, he said he knew it was all a lie. You'll not find that statement anywhere in his broadcasts with Fox or his twitter feed, or anywhere else public. So yes, he was fired, at least in part, because he was a big part of the reason his employer was out $800 million.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Dahobbs
Weird formatting

[Longhornlove 5134]

3 minutes ago, royiv said:

Then why not answer the questions?

Because this thread isn't about me, it is about Tucker Carlson getting fired. I defended accusations about why he was fired now I am the target. 

[SydneyCarton 49323]

3 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

Because this thread isn't about me, it is about Tucker Carlson getting fired. I defended accusations about why he was fired now I am the target. 

You're only a target insomuch as you've made yourself one by not answering very, very straightforward questions. No one asked you to volunteer that you find Carlson entertaining. I, however, did ask you what you think about his very controversial, very racist, and arguably anti-american rhetoric. But you won't answer that. Which therefore leads everyone to just assume the worst answers possible.

You've played yourself, sir. Also, LOL at the "this thread isn't about me." This is a fucking message board, it's conversations and they go where they go. It's like saying "This thread isn't about me" because the topic is about sandwiches in the food thread, and someone asked you what you like about a certain fucking sandwich. Again, it looks like a shitty fucking copout. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[royiv 9676]

1 minute ago, Longhornlove said:

Because this thread isn't about me, it is about Tucker Carlson getting fired. I defended accusations about why he was fired now I am the target. 

Hey, taking cues from Tucker, folks are just asking questions. Also, like Tucker, you can't or won't answer those questions.

[Nicole44 22206]

22 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

I don't know, neither does anyone on this board, it is all speculation at this point. I have my thoughts but those will remain mine until this plays out more at minimum. I may not ever share that here for obvious reasons.

The issue with any theory (read every single one I can find-obscure and all) is that bc Fox is publicly traded the decision to fire Tucker came from on high. That is all anyone can get on our pay grade. Yes there are lawsuits coming. Every single pundit and new site (that is not Fox) has speculated. My personal favorite theory now is so convoluted I am not smart enough to share at this point either so I feel you’re not sharing of the shit you think you know. 

[Longhornlove 5134]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Privately, he said it was all a lie. Publicly, he dangled it out there as an open question and had folks supporting the lie on his program. I'm not sure what you think the disconnect is. You need to read the summary judgment motion and the court's ruling. 

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

Here are things you never saw on his program:

Tucker's name appears 89 times in the motion. Again, on air, he presented everything as an open question: fraud, if it occurred, would be the worse thing to happen to America. Privately, he said he knew it was all a lie. You'll not find that statement anywhere in his broadcasts with Fox or his twitter feed, or anywhere else public. So yes, he was fired, at least in part, because he was a big part of the reason his employer was out $800 million. 

 

 

 

There isn't a disconnect. I provided you proof that he challenged the Dominion voting accusations publicly. You are now twisting this into a different conversation for what purpose? To be right?

[Sawbonz 28081]

10 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

There isn't a disconnect. I provided you proof that he challenged the Dominion voting accusations publicly. You are now twisting this into a different conversation for what purpose? To be right?

Sounds like fox could have used you on their legal team. 

[Dahobbs 18181]

2 minutes ago, Longhornlove said:

There isn't a disconnect. I provided you proof that he challenged the Dominion voting accusations publicly. You are now twisting this into a different conversation for what purpose? To be right?

He didn't actually challenge them. He didn't say "it is all lie." All he said is that if she has evidence, she should show it WHILE simultaneously insinuating that all the smoke must lead somewhere. If he was being truthful, he would have said "this person is lying to you, the election was not stolen." But sure, maybe you think these statements from your link show a man being honest about the lie, and not a man dangling the possibility to his audience:

• " How you viewed it depended largely on who you voted for. Trump voters seemed hopeful that it might change the election results. The left and virtually every single person in the news media immediately dismissed it as an embarrassing clown show as well as a threat to the republic. That's right: the very same people who swore that Vladimir Putin's agents controlled the U.S. government called it a conspiracy theory. "

• "A lot of Americans believe this election was rigged. They're not saying that because they're crazy and they're not just saying it because they're mad. They mean it, and that's a potentially fatal problem for this country. Elections aren't merely "central to democracy", elections are democracy. Voting is the way the public expresses its will. It's all people have. If elections don't work, our entire system doesn't work."

• "Everything in this country depends on fair elections, and it's obvious even now that we don't have them when access to basic information is restricted and weaponized by a partisan billionaire class. Google and Facebook are far greater threats to our system than Russia has ever been, and we need to fix that immediately."

• "At one point, Giuliani held up an affidavit from a worker in Detroit called Jessy Jacob alleging fraud in that city's polling places. * * * What Giuliani said is correct. This is the sworn statement of an American citizen made under oath and under penalty of perjury, so you cannot dismiss it out of hand. Jacob goes on to say that her supervisor told her not to check the photo IDs of voters when they arrived. She says she saw city employees coaching voters on who to vote for, as well as voters voting more than once." 

• "Is any of that provable? Is it true? Well, we should find out, not because Michigan is a swing state, but because voter fraud is a direct attack on our democracy."

• "But the media don't want to know. They're not interested. If you watched the coverage after the press conference today, you saw credentialed reporters, some of whom we know and like, actually, refuse even to acknowledge it.

  No mention whatsoever of the contents of what they described as "what he says are sworn affidavits." Giuliani says that the Jacob affidavit has been made public, but they can't be bothered to check. Instead, they launched new editorials about how dishonest and crazy Rudy Giuliani is, as if their job was to rebut Rudy Giuliani."

• "All of which brings us to the bombshell at the center of today's press conference that was delivered by Powell, who also serves as Gen. Mike Flynn's lawyer.

  For more than a week, Powell has been all over conservative media with the following story: This election was stolen by a collection of international leftists who manipulated vote tabulating software in order to flip millions of votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. The other day on television, Powell said of Trump that when the fraud is finally uncovered, "I think we'll find he had at least 80 million votes." In other words, rigged software stole about seven million votes in this election."

• "On Sunday night, "Tucker Carlson Tonight" texted her after watching one of her segments. What Powell was describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history. Millions of votes stolen in a day, democracy destroyed, the end of our centuries-old system of self-government. Not a small thing.

  Now, to be perfectly clear, we did not dismiss any of it. We don't dismiss anything anymore, particularly when it's related to technology. We've talked to too many Silicon Valley whistleblowers and we've seen too much after four years on the air.  We literally do UFO segments, not because we're crazy or even interested in the subject, but because there is evidence that UFOs are real and everyone lies about it.

• "There's evidence that a lot of things that responsible people dismiss out of hand as ridiculous are, in fact, real. The louder the Yale political science department and the staff of The Atlantic magazine scream "conspiracy theory," the more interested we tend to be. That's usually a sign you're over the target. A lot of people with impressive-sounding credentials in this country are frauds who have no idea what they're doing. They're children posing as authorities. And when they're caught, they lie and then they blame you for it. We see that every day. It's the central theme of our show and will continue to be."

• "That's a long way of saying we took Sidney Powell seriously, with no intention of fighting with her. We've always respected her work and we simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention.

  But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of polite requests. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they also told us Powell had never given them any evidence to prove anything she claimed at the press conference.

  Powell did say that electronic voting is dangerous, and she's right, but she never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one. * * * Maybe Sidney Powell will come forward soon with details on exactly how this happened and precisely who did it. We are certainly hopeful that she will. What happened with the vote counting this month and at the polling places in Detroit and the polling places in Philadelphia and so much else actually matters. It matters no matter who you voted for."

[Nicole44 22206]

 

I’ve come up with my own theory that I admit makes no plausible sense and fuck it bc unless I know Murdoch (which I do not) all speculation is fair game. 
Irena Briganti handles the attack dog shit over there and she is damn good at it. 

[Longhornlove 5134]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're only a target insomuch as you've made yourself one by not answering very, very straightforward questions. No one asked you to volunteer that you find Carlson entertaining. I, however, did ask you what you think about his very controversial, very racist, and arguably anti-american rhetoric. But you won't answer that. Which therefore leads everyone to just assume the worst answers possible.

You've played yourself, sir. Also, LOL at the "this thread isn't about me." This is a fucking message board, it's conversations and they go where they go. It's like saying "This thread isn't about me" because the topic is about sandwiches in the food thread, and someone asked you what you like about a certain fucking sandwich. Again, it looks like a shitty fucking copout. 

Is it un-American to question why we are sending so much tax payer money to one of the most corrupt countries in the world to fight a war that we should have done more to prevent in the first place? I don't think it is. Does that make me a Russian stooge, no. Our government has been lying to us forever, we should question it without being persecuted as not being a patriot.

It is unfortunate that White Supremacists have called him an ally and a friend and you call that proof. The proof would be where he reciprocated that friendship. He hasn't yet, he is still himself labeled a racist. I don't buy it, it is just twisting words into something that isn't.

Is Joe Biden a racist because he eulogized a former KKK organizer Robert Byrd calling him "friend, mentor and guide"? That certainly seems more racist than a group endearing themselves to Tucker.

Russia has used Tucker as propaganda, not the other way around IMHO. Obviously Tucker is a Russian agent right? Give me a break. That is complete BS.

Is Tucker a racist because he reported on the "Replacement Theory" created and propagated by the left? You talk about something we didn't want you to bring up so therefore you are a racist right?

[Genco 3053]

37 minutes ago, royiv said:

Then why not answer the questions?

It's a lot easier to "not dignify that with a response" than it is to try to defend the indefensible.

[Longhornlove 5134]

2 minutes ago, Genco said:

It's a lot easier to "not dignify that with a response" than it is to try to defend the indefensible.

There you go, that is how you do it, pile on the insinuation racist train because he is a conservative.

[Homercles 10206]

I thought this thread had peaked with IMissWallyPryor…but then LonghornLove walk up music!!

[Genco 3053]

1 minute ago, Longhornlove said:

There you go, that is how you do it, pile on the insinuation racist train because he is a conservative.

Right. You're another persecuted conservative. What a heavy cross to bear.

It's not that you're defending a uniquely toxic, malign bigot who launders white nationalist talking points. No, it's because you're a conservative.