ANOTHER TRUMPIAN MINION DEFENDS TUCKER CARLSON.

 

TWEETS FROM JASON WHITLOCK

"The New York Times and the rest of corporate media are desperately trying to make Carlson indefensible."

"I get why you were so angry. I get why you went to the capital. I’m disappointed you fell for the trap. It hurt all of us."

Months ago, he penned and voiced a damning monologue on Fox News arguing that the CIA killed President John Kennedy. He routinely mocked the FBI, CIA, and DOD for embracing a woke agenda. Tucker is a nagging, dangerous thorn in the side of the surveillance agencies and globalists.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

MY RESPONSE:

Yes, because his own Words on Air, E-mails, Instant Messages, and written material published on the internet Reveal what an Intelligent, Truthful, Responsible, and great Humanitarian he truly is. (My God, do Trumpians even bother to think before they open their mouths?)

IN ADDITION: For those who may have forgotten, (Like Whitlock), here is the article where it is admitted, in court testimony, and in the Judges decision, that no reasonable person can take anything TUCKER CARLSON says seriously.

https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/2023/04/no-reasonable-viewer-takes-tucker.html

The following is a quote taken directly from the JUDGES RULING, WHICH FOUND IN FAVOR OF FOX.

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."

"This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said.

TUCKER CARLSONS REPUTATION WAS A JOKE LONG BEFORE FOX FIRED HIM. BACK THEN, FOX DIDN'T CARE. THEIR CORE AUDIENCE OF FASCIST HATE MONGERS ATE UP CARLSONS GARBAGE, BECAUSE IT REQUIRED NO INTELLECTUAL EFFORT TO BLINDLY ACCEPT THIS WANNABE JOSEPH GOEBBELS RANTINGS.

ALAS, HE STILL COULDN'T RESCUE DONALD TRUMPS REPUTATION. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN STILL RECOGNIZES DER FUEHRER TRUMP AS A TRAITOR, AS WELL AS A SELF-SERVING EGOMANIAC.

SAY IT AGAIN: TRUMP LOSES IN COURT. Judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against New York Times.

Former President Trump during a round of golf at his course in Turnberry, Scotland, on Tuesday. Photo: Robert Perry/Getty Images

CAN YOU SAY "ABUSE OF PROCESS."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

FROM AXIOS.COM

• Rebecca Falconer
• Sara Fischer

Former President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times was dismissed by a New York Supreme Court judge on Wednesday.

Driving the news: Trump filed a $100 million lawsuit against the NYT and Mary Trump in 2021 over the news outlet's 2018 Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on his tax records, alleging "an insidious plot to obtain confidential and highly-sensitive records."

• However, New York Supreme Court Justice Robert Reed said Trump's claims "fail as a matter of constitutional law."
• Courts have "long recognized that reporters are entitled to engage in legal and ordinary news gathering activities without fear of tort liability" due to First Amendment protections, Reed said.
• In dismissing the complaint against the NYT, Reed ordered Trump to pay all legal fees associated with their case.

What's next: The judge has yet to rule on the case against Mary Trump.

What they're saying: "The New York Times is pleased with the judge's decision today. It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine newsgathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public," said NYT spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander in an emailed statement on Wednesday evening.

The other side: Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, told AP on Wednesday night that the legal team "will weigh our client's options."

• "All journalists must be held accountable when they commit civil wrongs," she added in her email.
• "The New York Times is no different and its reporters went well beyond the conventional news gathering techniques permitted by the First Amendment."
• Representatives for the former president did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

Editor's note: This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

A TWITTER EXCHANGE ON THE SCOTHUS ETHICS SCANDAL.( ...and a little more.)

Mukasey: If I were a district judge and somebody wanted to fly me on his private plane on a vacation with his family, I were friendly with that person, would I have refused and endangered the friendship? I’m not sure that I would’ve.

MY RESPONSE: I would think that if they truly honored or respected the office, they would realize the possible ramifications of every "gesture" of friendship. As for the SCOTHUS...having the greatest responsibility should require the greatest need for no Conflicts of Interest. Gifts worth $$$.

In Addition- We are not talking about all private or personal gifts between two friends. These are Financial Windfalls valued in the thousands, even tens of thousands of Dollars. When you sit in Judgment on such an individual, or realize such an occasion may occur in the future, any Judicial Official with even a slight understanding of proper Ethical Behavior would turn such gifts down.

Of course, the Majority of this SCOTUS cares little for the Intellectual Justifications for the Decisions they make. Do you think Ethical Considerations matter to them? These are not Legal Scholars or Experts who earned their seat. They are Political Minions of the Fascist Element trying to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

 

President Biden

Republicans on the Hill have said that unless I agree to cut programs that hardworking families rely on by 22 percent and let the super wealthy and corporations cheat on their taxes – they won't pay America's bills. It's not only extreme. It's without precedent.

From the Publisher.

With or Without Trump, somethings never change. The GOP ignores anyone who can't fill their pockets with Cold Hard Cash, in or out of Office.