Because that’s not how this works. It’s not on us to do your homework.
Why don’t you tell us what claims he made, and why you think them to be credible?
If you don’t find him fully credible, how do you choose which parts to believe? Or does “interesting” not need to be credible?
I saw a phrase used to describe parts of the new Borat movie:
gulling the rubes
Ain’t it just divine ?
No I’m just saying , I want to know both sides and I’ll decide what I want to believe. “Know your enemy” if you don’t want to watch, no skin off my nose. I do my own homework.
Fox News argued that reasonable people shouldn’t take Carlson seriously. So, the side he’s on is the unreasonable side, by his own employer’s admission. Why would you want to know the unreasonable side?
Even Huckabee and Cruz have said this isn’t the issue anyone should be focusing on. Much more important things.
I concur with them. I was answering the laptop question with the interview.
and you have yet to provide any specifics -
Hey, I got some moon landing was a hoax, 9/11 truther, and flat earth videos you may want to check out.
You want to know both sides, don’t you?
How about you tell us what you thought was interesting and credible about the interview, rather than sending us to a legally admitted purveyor of lies and asking us to dig through a bunch of bullshit?
This is false. I bit the bullet and watched the interview. It is not interesting.
Zero new information.
What you’re doing is the equivalent of, ‘Watch this to learn what MSM doesn’t want you to know!’.
Fine. What did you learn that MSM doesn’t want us to know?
Nothing. He learned nothing new in that interview that wasn’t already public knowledge.
Rachel Maddow used a similar defense.:
Good for her.
What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
You will have to ask Rittersport. That is a common legal defense used by the media and is nothing significant .
If you read the underlying stories …
-
Maddow’s single comment (ie, that OAN was “really, literally paid Russian propaganda”) was alleged to have been her opinion
-
Carlson’s entire show (not just a single episode, but every show he does) was basically downgraded to something approaching fiction
-
Maddow’s statement was characterized that way by her attorney.
-
Carlson’s entire gig was characterized that way by the presiding judge in the case.
It would be hard to objectively view those two as equivalent.
Follow this link at your own peril . . . or if you enjoy rabbit holes of crazy.
Apparently the court decided the OAN suite was without merit:
And yes, the OAN reporter in question is a Russian propagandist:
The article reported that OAN’s Kristian Rouz was writing for Sputnik, a Kremlin-owned news wire.
Why would I ask another poster? You brought it up, as though it had some relevancy to the thread. Why do you want someone else to do your homework for you?
What, specifically, does Maddow have to do with Biden’s laptop?
Obviously she emailed him spirit-cooking baby recipes.