Posted on 05/03/2023 7:56:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It also says a lot about the type of people who work at FOX.
They hire people like this crappy “whistleblower” to spy on their prime personalities, to build an oppo file...just in case.
Creepy, nastyindividuals who thrive on rumor, drama, and prissiness.
Your typical millennials.
Double Amen!
And correctly so.
I have yet to see or read any “leak” about Tucker Carlson that hasn’t made me cheer or raise a big thumbs up!
Agree. My take away is that this shows that Tucker is sane and has integrity. The leakers thinks that what Tucker is saying is bad because thy are neither sane or of high character.
It reminds of that as a small kids, we would cover our mouths, inhale a little, and You said a bad word.
Of course, the cardinal rule in either depositions or trial testimony is to carefully listen to the question and only answer what was asked and no more (unless you’re facing an inept attorney who words their question in such a way that they provide you an opening to get in information that they don’t want - then it’s a ton of fun to watch them panic as you “answer their question” in great detail).
Are these “leaks” supposed to make people not like Tucker? Makes him more real and likable is you ask me. I don’t like the language , but the sentiments are correct.
Only scummy lawyers will take scummy people as clients. Simple.
So. It was ‘his truth’. hahaha
He’s right: you know.
Would you settle for a thousand amens? 😊
I know right? The more you know about Tucker the more likable he becomes. He’s right that the more he speaks truth to power, the more powerful he’s becoming.
Fox News....the new Bud Light of Fake News.
They don’t have my attention.
I’m not watching.
That Fox leadership sees something wrong with it says more than any words said outright ever could.
The thing is their “hits” on Tucker Carlson aren’t landing.
Sure, Leftists will be happy to take shots at him. They hardly needed any excuse to do so. He showed everybody how evil and how insane they are on a nightly basis for years. Tucker’s audience isn’t going to be bothered by these supposed “hits” one bit. They haven’t shown us anything Tucker said or did that was wrong.
Michael Cohen (who is a shanda if I ever saw one) always bothered me as Trumps lawyer.
I assume it was some accident of history or a relic from Trump’s past, but he radiated douchebag from 20,000 feet.
I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Good on Tucker.
>One of my pet peeves is when the opposing attorney asks what seem to be simple questions but which also contain a subtle premise that they are trying to get you to accept.<
I’ve testified for a few arbitrations. One opposing lawyer would start his question with “Is it not true, blah, blah, blah?” I would wait out the two minute long question and respond “Yes.”
His face would brighten and he’d conclude that I agreed with his hairbrained position. I’d simply say “ Yes, it is NOT true.” The $hit eating grin would disappear.
It took a while, but I trained him not to start with “Is it not true?”
Oddly, outside the hearing room, he was a really nice chap to share a few beers with.
And don’t get me started with “notwithstanding.”
EC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.