Ok, bud.
How do you know that Tony B has not been paid by Trump/Rudy to make up stories about the Bidens?
Carlson has no repercussions if he's paid to lie, the courts have already ruled its not true.
Tucker - Tony Bobulinski interview FULL
- Thread starter daywalker11
- Start date
How do you know that Tony B has not been paid by Trump/Rudy to make up stories about the Bidens?
Carlson has no repercussions if he's paid to lie, the courts have already ruled its not true.
I don't know about payoffs...but how did Rudi even get involved, I'm sure that is not the most ethically sound story to be told.
This is your confirmation bias, bud.
Its clearly not represented by reality or even Carleton U's course descriptions.
You presume that you need a philosophy degree in order to report traffic accidents and shootings. You conflate opinion/commentary with facts/truth, just the way you admit Carlson is opinion then claim that what he presents is the truth. Journalists do have to abide by industry wide standards, Carlson and his guests don't anymore than Howard Stern is held to be factual.
You should start here.
This is why people need to think for themselves. The article provides a link to the courts decision. Fox's position is described in the decision. Here it is, verbatim:Actually No...they said "No reasonable viewer takes Tucker Carlson Seriously"...I'll post it again.
Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously
Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.www.businessinsider.com
"Fox News again moved to dismiss. The motion argues that when read in context, Mr. Carlson’s statements “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts” "
and again,
"Fox News seeks dismissal at the pleading stage on two constitutional grounds. First, it asserts that Mr. Carlson’s statements on the December 10, 2018, episode of his show are constitutionally protected opinion commentary on matters of public importance and are not reasonably understood as being factual. "
and here:
"Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect."
and the court then rules:
"As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual representations and, therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation."
and finally,
"Plaintiff Karen McDougal claims to have been defamed by accusations of “extortion” leveled at her by Tucker Carlson on Defendant Fox News Network’s broadcast. However, as described herein, Ms. McDougal has not offered a plausible interpretation that the statements Mr. Carlson made, when read in context, are statements of fact. The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation "
Will you continue to put your faith in a reporter to accurately tell you about a legal proceeding? You shouldn't.
And yet here you are telling us that his interview with Bublinski is more trustworthy than sworn testimony by Vidman.
Rhetorical hyperbole, bud, you are pushing rhetorical hyperbole as if they were facts.
What I'm reading is that the Tucker Carlson Show can not be viewed as accurate representation of facts...it's entertainment.
I'm not sure how Rudy got involved, or whether he did anything illegal or scummy to get his hands on the materials from the laptop. If he was a government official, I might have more interest in that. As it is, I think that's a red herring.
As it is, the only issue to me is whether anyone contests the authenticity of the materials. If not, the issue then becomes whether Biden prepared to take the responsbility of persuading voters that, despite misleading voters about his disassociation from his son's business dealings, that he can be trusted to run the country without the impairment of obligations he may have to foreign countries and/or their oligarchs. I wouldn't vote for someone who didn't think the public deserved to know.
Not quite. It's a ruling about those statements on that show. No more, no less.
Based on the information currently available to me, yes. Lots of sworn testimony is unreliable. It happens in virtually every trial.
Rudy got Trump impeached the first time he went to the Ukraine to get dirt on the Bidens and got his henchmen arrested.
Defendant in campaign fraud case involving associates of Rudy Giuliani scheduled to plead guilty | CNN Politics
One of the four defendants in the federal case against associates of Rudy Giuliani is scheduled to plead guilty Thursday, according to a person familiar with the matter.
www.cnn.com
Why is this not likely to be more of the same, bud?
He's Trump's personal attorney...his motives of doing something scummy are pretty clear.
C'mon, who do you think has hidden more crooked business dealings...Joe Biden or Donald 'my tax returns are still being audited' Trump?
Rudy didn't get Trump impeached. Trump was impeached because it was December of 2019, just when the Democrats wanted him to be impeached. The reasons, obviously from the proceedings, were immaterial.Rudy got Trump impeached the first time he went to the Ukraine to get dirt on the Bidens and got his henchmen arrested.
Defendant in campaign fraud case involving associates of Rudy Giuliani scheduled to plead guilty | CNN Politics
One of the four defendants in the federal case against associates of Rudy Giuliani is scheduled to plead guilty Thursday, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Why is this not likely to be more of the same, bud?
I'm not sure if Rudy will be in any trouble for acquiring this information. It's a red herring. I don't care if he does or if he doesn't. The only thing I know for sure is that you have no clue, but somehow think you do.
You're asking my opinion on something about which there is little publicly available evidence. If I had to place a bet, given Biden's 47 years in office, I think the odds favour that he's breached the public trust on more occasions.
Last edited:
I think Trump has been more crooked in his 3 and a half years than Biden in 47...
Rudy stands to be in serious trouble.
Pushing what appears to be child porn, kompromat and illegally hacked files along with what appears to be fabricating emails, photos and/or video.
According to Lev Parnas those emails were for sale in the Ukraine for $5 million.
How Rudy Got Trump Impeached
Had Trump hired just about any competent lawyer instead of Rudy, his political circumstances would look quite different.
thebulwark.com
It's a fair question...how did Rudi get involved? C'mon, that laptop is such a plant it should be watered.
Man Who Reportedly Gave Hunter’s Laptop to Rudy Speaks Out in Bizarre Interview
John Paul Mac Isaac gave conflicting stories to reporters on Wednesday. He also said he feared for his life, citing the Seth Rich conspiracy.
I am not sure how this thread turned into a discussion of whether or not Journalism school should teach formal logic.
As far as Bobulinski - having seen the interview, he's credible to a point. The emails and text messages he have seem legit. They also - as reporters have pointed out - don't actually show anything. It's a lot of "clouds and suspicions" reporting.
It looks like Tony was brought in on a deal he thought he would score big on and then frozen out. He's just sure something suspicious was going on, but can't say what. He has no insight on the really salacious stuff like the crack and underage girls because he wasn't involved in any of that and to his credit doesn't claim to be able to verify any of that. (He's just talking about the emails and texts he was involved with.)
His involvement seems to be in 2017, so there's no insight into anything about Joe as VP.
I think he is sincere in his feeling there was more he didn't know and can't prove, but his gut feeling isn't really all that relevant. He harps a lot on his clearance, which works against his credibility because his clearance has nothing to do with what is going on.
In a way, he's fucked because of the rest of the story. If he had come forward and talked about what he felt were suspicious deals, this would be the kind of thing you would want to explore more. But because it is all tied into the laptop and the "throw every random accusation we can against the wall because we are losing" it just gets tainted with all the bullshit.
As far as Bobulinski - having seen the interview, he's credible to a point. The emails and text messages he have seem legit. They also - as reporters have pointed out - don't actually show anything. It's a lot of "clouds and suspicions" reporting.
It looks like Tony was brought in on a deal he thought he would score big on and then frozen out. He's just sure something suspicious was going on, but can't say what. He has no insight on the really salacious stuff like the crack and underage girls because he wasn't involved in any of that and to his credit doesn't claim to be able to verify any of that. (He's just talking about the emails and texts he was involved with.)
His involvement seems to be in 2017, so there's no insight into anything about Joe as VP.
I think he is sincere in his feeling there was more he didn't know and can't prove, but his gut feeling isn't really all that relevant. He harps a lot on his clearance, which works against his credibility because his clearance has nothing to do with what is going on.
In a way, he's fucked because of the rest of the story. If he had come forward and talked about what he felt were suspicious deals, this would be the kind of thing you would want to explore more. But because it is all tied into the laptop and the "throw every random accusation we can against the wall because we are losing" it just gets tainted with all the bullshit.
You must have missed the part in his interview when he talks about his meetings with Hunter et al, some of which in the presence of Joe, where they discussed the groundwork for their business based on deals made while Joe was VP. He wasn't in the company at the time, so he's only repeating what was told to him.
As I said in an earlier post, reality is that the kind of deal he's describing in 2017 doesn't appear from out of thin air. It's a product of built up relationships where you've demonstrated what you can deliver on, or it's payment for what you've already done.
