Did Tucker blow smoke up your ass for three years screaming Russia Russia Russia! ? I don't think so. Tucker is by very far the best news commentator in the country.
Yeah, still holding my breath awaiting the Horowitz-led indictments! When can we expect Hillary to go to prison?
Tucker blows smoke up everyone's ass on his own conspiracies and outlandish claims. he is not a new reporter he runs a show that needs ratings to stay on the air, he is not interested in facts but viewers.
You obviously don't follow. Tucker is the only person on TV that has the balls to both criticize the left and the right for blatant stupidity. Because, it is mostly stupidity. That the left gives him more fodder, that's not his fault. He was the first person on TV to question Dr Fauci and his motives. His assertions on BLM and cancel culture are spot on. He has also gone hard against Republican senators and house members for malfeasance. He also criticizes Trump when appropriate. Have you seen any interviews with Trump and Tucker? I don't think so. Tucker calls it like it is the vast majority of the time. Is he guilty of being a ratings whore too, of course. But he keeps his show as honest as it can be. Much better than all the hate TDS drivel that floods the liberal networks.
He is truly a Prince among men: The audio released Sunday by Media Matters compiled more than a dozen instances of Carlson's commentary on the "Bubba the Love Sponge Show" between 2006 and 2011, in which he's heard describing women as "extremely primitive" and suggesting that underage marriage is not as serious as forced child rape and that he would "love" a scenario involving young girls experimenting sexually. "How is he black, for one thing? He has one white parent, one black parent," he said in 2006. Two years later, he added, "I don't know how black he is, but I'm sure he's a good basketball player - he says he is, anyway." Tucker Carlson used his Fox News prime time program to falsely claim that the white supremacy problem in America is a "hoax." Oh and let us not forget FOX being so unbiased He is just another media hack whore with an agenda like the rest.
#BestPeople https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...l?via=taps_top Quote: ...As Roberts explained on Thursday, however, Duke had much more discretion than her memo suggested. According to Sessions, DACA is illegal because it “has the same legal … defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA.” But the 5th Circuit found that only one half of DAPA crossed the line: its extension of government benefits. The court did not say that the other half of DAPA, deferred deportation (or “forbearance”), was illegal. Yet Duke treated both halves as an inseparable whole, never even considering the possibility of ending government benefits for Dreamers while continuing to defer their deportation. “Removing benefits eligibility while continuing forbearance,” Roberts wrote, “remained squarely within [Duke’s] discretion.” She therefore had an obligation to explain why she rejected this option. By failing to do so, Duke acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs these executive actions. It gets worse. Duke, the chief justice noted, never asked if there was “legitimate reliance” on DACA. When an executive agency “changes course” by changing the rules, it must ask how its new rule will affect people who relied on the old one. Here, the “reliance interests” are powerful: DACA allowed more than 700,000 people to live and work legally in the United States. As Roberts noted, the program’s recipients have “enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children.” Abruptly revoking Dreamers’ work permits could “result in the loss of $215 billion in economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years.” In light of these consequences, Duke could have “considered more accommodating termination dates for recipients caught in the middle of a time-bounded commitment, to allow them to, say, graduate from their course of study, complete their military service, or finish a medical treatment regimen.” But Duke did no such thing. She simply ignored the weighty costs to real people and the nation at large. By doing so, Roberts held, she acted in an unlawfully arbitrary and capricious way. After multiple court losses, the Justice Department figured out that Sessions and Duke’s scheme was legally problematic. That’s why, in 2018, it had Duke’s successor, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, issue a new memo to shore up the old one. Nielsen provided a slew of retroactive justifications for DACA repeal; she also considered, and rejected, possible reliance interests. Roberts, though, found Nielsen’s memo irrelevant. It is a “foundational principle of administrative law,” the chief justice wrote, that courts can only look at “the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.” If Nielsen wanted to elaborate on the legal reasons for DACA repeal, she could only discuss those justifications Duke provided. Nielsen, Roberts determined, broke this rule by throwing in post-hoc rationalizations that are nowhere to be found in Duke’s memo. So the court can only look at the original memo—and that memo’s reasoning is “arbitrary and capricious.” Roberts’ opinion is strikingly similar to his decision last year blocking the census citizenship question. In each case, the Trump administration cut corners in a mad dash to enact new policy. In each case, it provided dubious, flimsy, and outright dishonest reasons for its actions. In each case, it hoped the Supreme Court’s conservatives would disregard its ineptitude and mendacity and serve as a rubber stamp. And in each case, Roberts refused to play along, drawing a line in the sand. The chief justice is not a closet liberal, but he is a stickler for the rules. And he is not willing to let Trump bend those rules without, at a minimum, a more plausible pretext. Thursday’s decision is narrow. It allows the Trump administration to attempt a do-over, to start from the beginning and repeal DACA legally. It rejects the plaintiffs’ claim that the administration acted out of racist animus in violation of equal protection. (Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor would’ve preserved those claims.) All four dissenters—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—treat the decision as an earthquake and an overreach. But in reality, it is a careful, circumscribed ruling, one that gives Trump the power to end DACA if his administration can figure out how to do it legally. There’s little doubt that, if the president wins a second term, he will rescind DACA the right way, once again putting Dreamers in the crosshairs. At bottom, Roberts’ opinion is about political accountability. If Trump and his allies want to strip lawful status from Dreamers, the chief justice indicated, they must be clear and candid about their reasons for doing so. The American people deserve to know why an administration would take such a dramatic and damaging step. Trump’s appointees cannot just claim, without persuasive evidence, that they are legally obligated to end DACA. At the end of the day, the president, who is accountable to the voters, must own his decision.
What a bunch of bullshit. He said 'something' years ago and this is how you evaluate a person. The left trying to destroy him because he is honest about what the left does. Nothing new to see here...