@suzianne saidWhat is your source of information?
Your article mentions what Tucker Carlson said about the FBI's "involvement".
You do understand that in a recent defamation case, FOX's lawyers argued that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
"This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is no ...[text shortened]... News". It's not news. It's opinion. The opinion of a talking head that cannot be taken seriously.
@metal-brain saidIt is in a court document:
What is your source of information?
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
page 12 google is your friend
@ponderable saidCarlson is not the original source though, it is Revolver.
It is in a court document:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
page 12 google is your friend
Suzi was attacking the wrong source.
@metal-brain saidIncorrect. Your article, if you were to actually read it, talks incessantly about what Tucker Carlson promotes on his show and what he's said about this outrageous idea, claiming that the insurrection was some kind of false flag operation of the FBI. Ridiculous.
Carlson is not the original source though, it is Revolver.
Suzi was attacking the wrong source.
@dood111 saidHe was there, part of a mob of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, physically threatening the lives of US legislators as they were trying to do their jobs and their Constitutional duty.
Did Buffalo Boy hurt anyone? Attack anyone? Set fire to a building? What?
You support an authoritarian coup d'état of the US Government. They were there to murder our elected representatives. Or, at the very least, to hold a gun to their head while they submit to the will of Donald Trump.
Too bad that most of the Republicans there that day still submit to him without the guns to the head. As it is, 21 House Republicans voted against honoring law enforcement on the scene that day with gold medals. Law enforcement on the scene that day was the only thing between your crazed mob and our representatives trying to fulfill their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
@suzianne saidThat's a load of crap. Nobody had guns, nobody was killed.
You support an authoritarian coup d'état of the US Government. They were there to murder our elected representatives. Or, at the very least, to hold a gun to their head while they submit to the will of Donald Trump.
If they were there to kill people they did a piss poor job.
1 edit
@dood111 saidYou keep lying about this.
That's a load of crap. Nobody had guns, nobody was killed.
If they were there to kill people they did a piss poor job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick
Brian Sicknick died that day defending our Constitution. Your boys were there to take a dump on it, at the behest of Donald Trump.
See also:
https://www.delawarepublic.org/post/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used
@suzianne saidThat was MSNBCs Racheal Madow, not Tucker carlson.
Your article mentions what Tucker Carlson said about the FBI's "involvement".
You do understand that in a recent defamation case, FOX's lawyers argued that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
"This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is no ...[text shortened]... News". It's not news. It's opinion. The opinion of a talking head that cannot be taken seriously.
""For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context," Bashant wrote. "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/may/23/san-diego-judge-dismisses-oans-10-million-defamati/
Does it bother you to get caught lying?
@suzianne saidTucker got it from Revolver.
Incorrect. Your article, if you were to actually read it, talks incessantly about what Tucker Carlson promotes on his show and what he's said about this outrageous idea, claiming that the insurrection was some kind of false flag operation of the FBI. Ridiculous.
Do you think he doesn't have his source of information?
We all do. DUH!
@mott-the-hoople saidAgain, a claim someone else is "lying" that is easily disproven:
That was MSNBCs Racheal Madow, not Tucker carlson.
""For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context," Bashant wrote. "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contes ...[text shortened]... /23/san-diego-judge-dismisses-oans-10-million-defamati/
Does it bother you to get caught lying?
"But Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said.
It added that Fox News "submits that the use of that word or an accusation of extortion, absent more, is simply 'loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language' that does not give rise to a defamation claim."
US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9
@mott-the-hoople saidRevolver did the FOIA requests. The government is their source.
That was MSNBCs Racheal Madow, not Tucker carlson.
""For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context," Bashant wrote. "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contes ...[text shortened]... /23/san-diego-judge-dismisses-oans-10-million-defamati/
Does it bother you to get caught lying?
suzi didn't read the whole article and got it all wrong. The only person lying is her.
Now she has to attack the government since that is the original source. She always leaps before she looks.
@metal-brain saidGee they should appoint a Congressional Commission to look into what happened on January 6th, right?
FBI Operatives Likely 'Unindicted Co-Conspirators', Organizers Of Capitol Riot: Report
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-operatives-were-unindicted-co-conspirators-organizers-capitol-riot-report