January 6 - How much do you care?

[SeattleGriz]

Media didn't give two shits about accessing the video until Tucker got it. Can't make this shit up.

[houndawg]

Media didn't give two shits about accessing the video until Tucker got it. Can't make this shit up.

The original video will still be available after Tucky presents his edited version. Be patient, son.

[SDHornet]

Media didn't give two shits about accessing the video until Tucker got it. Can't make this shit up.

Narrative went from "no one needs to see the videos" to "why is only Tucker getting them?" MFers had 2 years to push for the video release and now all of sudden they care about who gets it. The MSM are total clowns.

[houndawg]

Media didn't give two shits about accessing the video until Tucker got it. Can't make this shit up.

Narrative went from "no one needs to see the videos" to "why is only Tucker getting them?" MFers had 2 years to push for the video release and now all of sudden they care about who gets it. The MSM are total clowns.

...er......begs the question..


Why release the vids exclusively to a guy whose own lawyer said, in court(!), can't be believed anytime he speaks? Other than to discredit them before the public sees them of course..

[BDKJMU]

Narrative went from "no one needs to see the videos" to "why is only Tucker getting them?" MFers had 2 years to push for the video release and now all of sudden they care about who gets it. The MSM are total clowns.

...er......begs the question..


Why release the vids exclusively to a guy whose own lawyer said, in court(!), can't be believed anytime he speaks? Other than to discredit them before the public sees them of course..

That wasn’t Tucker’s personal attorney, but FNC’s lawyers who used that angle in defending FNC against a libel lawsuit. It worked, too. MSNBC used the same defense for Maddow in a libel suit. Again, it worked.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774712 ... ox-s-lawye

[UNI88]

...er......begs the question..

Why release the vids exclusively to a guy whose own lawyer said, in court(!), can't be believed anytime he speaks? Other than to discredit them before the public sees them of course..

That wasn’t Tucker’s personal attorney, but FNC’s lawyers who used that angle in defending FNC against a libel lawsuit. It worked, too. MSNBC used the same defense for Maddow in a libel suit. Again, it worked.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774712 ... ox-s-lawye

Does it matter whether it was his personal attorney or FNC's attorneys?

Were they wrong?

[BDKJMU]

That wasn’t Tucker’s personal attorney, but FNC’s lawyers who used that angle in defending FNC against a libel lawsuit. It worked, too. MSNBC used the same defense for Maddow in a libel suit. Again, it worked.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774712 ... ox-s-lawye

Does it matter whether it was his personal attorney or FNC's attorneys?

Were they wrong?

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

[UNI88]

Does it matter whether it was his personal attorney or FNC's attorneys?

Were they wrong?

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

Were they wrong?

[BDKJMU]

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

Were they wrong?

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

[UNI88]

Were they wrong?

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

I would say that the attorney was correct for the most part. Tucker is about as credible as Whoopi Goldberg and anyone who believes anything he says without verifying it is a fool. And verifying it in a MAGAt echo chamber doesn't count.

[houndawg]

Were they wrong?

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

Thats nice and all, but my question was: why release them exclusively to somebody whom all sides agree has no credibility?

Why would McCarthy do that, BD?

[kalm]

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

Thats nice and all, but my question was: why release them exclusively to somebody whom all sides agree has no credibility?

Why would McCarthy do that, BD?

Haven’t you heard? They have whistleblowers!

[kalm]

BREAKING!

Tucker releases first batch of images..

[BDKJMU]

Maybe. They were saying what they needed to for FNC to win a civil case.

Thats nice and all, but my question was: why release them exclusively to somebody whom all sides agree has no credibility?

Why would McCarthy do that, BD?

Wrong.

[kalm]

Thats nice and all, but my question was: why release them exclusively to somebody whom all sides agree has no credibility?

Why would McCarthy do that, BD?

Wrong.

Wait…there’s actually people who believe anyone at Fox has credibility after what came out last week?

[UNI88]

Wrong.

Wait…there’s actually people who believe anyone at Fox has credibility after what came out last week?

There has to be at least one person at Fox who is credible just like CNN has at least one person who is credible. Or is Chris Wallace the one person who was credible at both?

[kalm]

Wait…there’s actually people who believe anyone at Fox has credibility after what came out last week?

There has to be at least one person at Fox who is credible just like CNN has at least one person who is credible. Or is Chris Wallace the one person who was credible at both?

Ok…so I’m guilty of a little hyperbole.

Satisfied?

[UNI88]

There has to be at least one person at Fox who is credible just like CNN has at least one person who is credible. Or is Chris Wallace the one person who was credible at both?

Ok…so I’m guilty of a little hyperbole.

Satisfied?

It was hyperbolic but a point worth making.

Technically BDKalmR is correct, there are people who believe Tucker. There are kool-aid drinking right-wing radicals who consider Tucker and his ilk at Fox credible. Just like there are kool-aid drinking left-wing radicals who consider Lawrence O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC and CNN credible. I feel sorry for both sets of pathetic suckers.

[BDKJMU]

Ok…so I’m guilty of a little hyperbole.

Satisfied?

It was hyperbolic but a point worth making.

Technically BDKalmR is correct, there are people who believe Tucker. There are kool-aid drinking right-wing radicals who consider Tucker and his ilk at Fox credible. Just like there are kool-aid drinking left-wing radicals who consider Lawrence O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC and CNN credible. I feel sorry for both sets of pathetic suckers.

Believe him about what? I don’t regularly watch him, but have here and there maybe 1-2x a week.
You can believe Tucker on ____ % of things and not believe him on ______% of things. Some things he’s 100% right on. Some he’s somewhere between 99% right and 99% wrong. Some he’s 100% wrong. I believe his right far outweighs his wrong on, but worh close to 3 1/2 hours of content a week (5 hrs before commercials) there’s enough wrong for the left to say he’s full of BS.

[UNI88]

It was hyperbolic but a point worth making.

Technically BDKalmR is correct, there are people who believe Tucker. There are kool-aid drinking right-wing radicals who consider Tucker and his ilk at Fox credible. Just like there are kool-aid drinking left-wing radicals who consider Lawrence O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC and CNN credible. I feel sorry for both sets of pathetic suckers.

Believe him about what? I don’t regularly watch him, but have here and there maybe 1-2x a week.
You can believe Tucker on ____ % of things and not believe him on ______% of things. Some things he’s 100% right on. Some he’s somewhere between 99% right and 99% wrong. Some he’s 100% wrong. I believe his right far outweighs his wrong on, but worh close to 3 1/2 hours of content a week (5 hrs before commercials) there’s enough wrong for the left to say he’s full of BS.

So? A librul could say the same thing about Lawrence O'Donnell.

[houndawg]

Thats nice and all, but my question was: why release them exclusively to somebody whom all sides agree has no credibility?

Why would McCarthy do that, BD?

Wrong.

Not wrong. Checkmate, bitches.

[houndawg]

Ok…so I’m guilty of a little hyperbole.

Satisfied?

It was hyperbolic but a point worth making.

Technically BDKalmR is correct, there are people who believe Tucker. There are kool-aid drinking right-wing radicals who consider Tucker and his ilk at Fox credible. Just like there are kool-aid drinking left-wing radicals who consider Lawrence O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC and CNN credible. I feel sorry for both sets of pathetic suckers.

Your compassion is an inspiratioon for us all

[BDKJMU]

We’ve been lied to by the donks and most of the MSM for 2+ years now.


https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/03 ... ve-n712481

[BDKJMU]

Absolute bald faced lie from Garland. ZERO officers died on Jan 6..

[kalm]

We’ve been lied to by the donks and most of the MSM for 2+ years now.


https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/03 ... ve-n712481

Yes! The “meek” “tourists”!