Dominion seems to think it is a crime for Murdoch to direct his talking heads to pump up one candidate over another. It doesn't seem like he was directing them to hide actual news like Hunter Biden's laptop which ALL of the other networks, including Fox either hid outright or downplayed. That was news that could actually have swung the 2020 election and it was hidden with exactly that intention. If it is a crime for the head of Fox to give guidance to his talking heads, then why isn't it a crime for the heads of other networks to do the same?
Lou Dobbs was the only Fox talking head that seems to have run with the cheating scandal. Apparently he believed the evidence and was fired for talking about it out loud. There were minor mentions by others but they stopped talking about the election within a couple of days because Murdoch told them to. Tucker specifically said that he was discontinuing coverage of the allegations until actual evidence could be produced. The problem was that the actual evidence was quickly erased. If Dominion had nothing to hide, why did they obstruct actual examination of any of their voting machines until the machines could be tampered with to remove the fingerprints of the fraud? They sure acted like the guilty party which is why I am inclined to believe that they were in fact guilty. They could EASILY have put the allegations to bed by allowing third parties to examine the voting machine before the data was erased from them. In violation of most state laws BTW since all election materials are supposed to be kept for at least two years after an election. Normal practice is to erase just before an election rather than immediately after for this very reason.
If it is not a crime for Zuckerberg to spend nearly a half a BILLION dollars to skew an election, I'm not sure why a $7500 contribution that resulted in a positive story should send people screaming about corruption. I guess because Zuckerberg is a liberal and he succeeded in corrupting an election the "correct" way, the ends justify the means. The NYT does this all the time. They take money for "ads" that are supposed to convince people that they are not reading an ad but instead reading a news article. I think the money into the Biden family cofers is up to around 1.5 billion. At least they are interviewing Bobolinski finally and getting some insight into how the influence peddling scheme was run.
Nothing here but hearsay regarding Tucker. Same with the second link.
A judge unsealed more text messages and testimony from Fox’s biggest stars—which pull the curtain back on a battle between the network’s so-called “news” and “opinion” divisions.
www.thedailybeast.com
This seems to be actual parts of the filing. It is useless given all the redactions. The last interesting thing I read was #154 on pg 21. #152 and #153 were pretty interesting also. Stopped reading after pg 55.
Found no damaging emails from Tucker up to that point. It is painfully hard to read with tiny print and mostly redacted. And of course there is no way to search it to at least find relevant items.
I am quite sure that we will see "damning" emails from Tucker although he and Hannity are the only Fox shows where the host doesn't take obvious potshots at Trump. Even Stuart Varney takes potshots at Trump whenever he can. And the "news" contingent never miss an opportunity to use purple words so we know their opinion of Trump. Of course, I have no interest in watching a news show where the host makes his opinion part of the broadcast. If Fox is wondering why their news shows don't have high ratings, I would say that is a primary reason. I don't watch Fox news and it isn't because their opinion of Trump is invariably negative, it is because they can't refrain from making the show about them. News needs to be Who, what, where, and when and I could give a flying f*** what the host thinks about it. News anchors should keep their opinions to themselves. Period.
