Read on Twitter
The basis of this decision is that everyone knows Tucker Carlson is full of shit. Would that it were so. https://twitter.com/nickatnews/status/1309257525477269505">https://twitter.com/nickatnew...
These are Tucker’s alleged defamatory statements.
McDougal sued because, in fact, she had not gone to Trump and threatened to ruin his career or extort him. She had just tried to tell her story in the tabloids, and Pecker/Cohen intervened.
McDougal sued because, in fact, she had not gone to Trump and threatened to ruin his career or extort him. She had just tried to tell her story in the tabloids, and Pecker/Cohen intervened.
See how Tucker prefaced the allegedly defamatory statements: “Remember THE FACTS of the story. These are undisputed.”
Well, Fox News would argue that the statements that immediately followed those words “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts.”
Well, Fox News would argue that the statements that immediately followed those words “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts.”
The court, remarkably, agrees with Fox News’ argument. No one should think Tucker Carlson presents facts on his show, and it’s “abundantly clear” when he said the undisputed facts were McDougal committed a crime, he didn’t mean it. The decision draws on a lot of inapt analogies.
Here’s the court’s answer to the language I’ve pointed to in this thread. It gives great weight to Tucker stipulating for the sake of argument that Cohen’s version of the facts is true. But the court overlooks that Cohen never said Karen McDougal came to Trump and threatened him.
