"Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest, right, Boys?"
If you suspected that the Hunter Biden investigation by DOJ was going to go away now that Old Joe is president, looks like you were correct. Nicholas McQuaid, a former law partner of Hunter Biden's attorney, is being named as acting head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.
Here's more from the Conservative Institute blog.
6 comments:
Do you know why Tucker Carlson escaped getting sued for defamation?
Because the court ruled that nobody is supposed to take his show seriously, and he isn't expected to be giving actual facts on his show.
Just so you know.
Meanwhile, there's a Republican member of Congress who thinks that the California wild fires were started by "Jewish Space Lasers".
But yeah...Hunter Biden...
Anonymous,
First of all, you need to tell me what case a judge ruled that about Tucker Carlson. What was the issue, who was suing and for what defamatory statement. Then we can discuss it. That doesn't sound like a legal judicial ruling to me.
If you are referring to that freshmen congresswoman from Georgia, far be it from me to defend her. I could say it's gratifying to know the Republicans have an answer for AOC-and so many others. Why should I defend every Republican jerk since I am not even a Republican?
Sorry, but I do think that the issue of Hunter Biden is a big deal.
Anonymous,
FYI, I have just read that thing the dopey congresswoman put out. My head is still spinning and I really don't care to dig into all this stuff because I am not a conspiracy theorist. I noted that the magic word, "Rothschild" was mentioned, but I didn't see any reference to "Jewish space lasers". Let's be accurate. Maybe someone else did and she is buying into the conspiracy-I have no earthly clue.
But suffice to say I will not be joining this woman's fan club any time soon.
Here's the info on Carlson. That he shouldn't be taken seriously was his lawyer's defense. The article also includes a direct link to a Federal Judge's opinion where she states:
The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
As for Greene's Jewish space lasers, here's what she wrote:
https://twitter.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1354870334655262724/photo/1
So yes, the phrase "Jewish space laser" doesn't appear exactly, but that is what it amounts to. Even if you get rid of the blatant anti-Semitism, "space laser" is nutty on its own.
And come off it with AOC. Give me one specific thing that she's said that's anywhere near that deranged. (Actual, full quote.) I've noticed that conservatives have this thing with her where they insult her intelligence yet they can never articulate actual things that she's said - just misrepresentations that are easier to refute. (Which says more about them than it does about her.)
That's a false equivalence.
Besides, AOC never said anything that inspired a mob to try and kill Greene, so there's that as well.
Bottom line though regarding Tucker Carlson - he's been proven to be a dishonest hack, and he even uses that as a defense when he gets caught lying. I'll believe the accusations against Hunter Biden when somebody who doesn't defend himself with "You're not supposed to take me seriously!" reports on it.
Anonymous,
First of all, you should know that NPR, despite being taxpayer-funded, is heavily-biased. Thus, if you look at the first couple of paragraphs, you can see their opinions-just as Carlson is biased and expresses his opinions. You might ask yourself why we pay taxpayer money to NPR-or public TV when they have their own political agenda.
As for the judge's words, I am surprised she would use that language. Instead of saying that Carlson engages in "exaggerations", what seems obvious to me is that Carlson's show is opinion-based-just as is Rachel Maddow, Chris Cuomo, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell and virtually all the anchors on CNN and MSNBC.
As for the Georgia congresswoman, you don't need to send me the link, _ I have read it. To assign the words, Jewish space laser is to extrapolate from what she actually said. It all seems to come from her reference to the Rothchild Inc.
As for AOC, if you want to argue that her long litany of statements are not as bad as Greene's that's your right. But AOC has argued against freedom of speech and said that anyone associated with the TRump campaign should be barred from politics etc. My conclusion is that both women are kooks. I don't like seeing either one in Congress, but they were elected by their constituents.
To sum up, Carlson is a conservative and has different views than you do. His show is opinion-based like most other shows. One thing I have always noted is that Carlson usually has guests on his show with whom he disagrees, and he debates them-quite effectively, I might add. Go to CNN and MSNBC and see how many debates between opposing viewpoints you see.
It doesn't matter if NPR is biased or not. That doesn't change my point, or the facts, at all. The link has a direct link to what the judge wrote. Carlson can say whatever BS he wants and there will be no consequences for him.
As for AOC, you're doing exactly what I said that her critics do, as if to prove my point for me.
I think that you put too much stock in "debates". Debates, even when done fairly, only prove who's a better debater - not who actually has the facts on their side. I've seen plenty of debates where the "winner" was factually wrong.
Post a Comment