Fox News, Dominion Voting Systems and Tucker’s Departure
Intentionally gagging Tucker Carlson before the 2024 Elections?
It was with great fanfare that Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion “defamation” lawsuit against FOX News Media in March 2021.
Interesting that, given that a 2020 HBO documentary Kill Chain highlighted the manifold vulnerabilities of the election machines, and featured several Congressional Democrats decrying those “vulnerabilities.” Left-leaning magazines like Wired and Fast Company ran stories about Kill Chain.
As far as we can tell, not one of those have been sued by Dominion.
In February, 2023, American Discerner speculated that the Dominion-Fox suit might actually be a “collusive” lawsuit, i.e., one brought by both parties to achieve a jointly-desired outcome (“Are the Dominion Voting Systems Lawsuits "Against" Fox News and Newsmax Actually “Collusive Suits?”).
Lo and behold, again with great fanfare, in April, 2023 it was announced that Fox was settling the suit for $787.5 million … without going to trial and putting on a defense.
To be sure, there are times when a case against one party is overwhelming, and it’s less expensive to just write a check — even a huge one — and make the lawsuit go away.
At other times, it makes more sense to begin trial, and if things appear to be going south, move to settle before the trial concludes.
And sometimes, a decision is made to go through trial, take one’s chances – and if things go south with the verdict, to then discuss settlement with the other side in lieu of appealing (the other side then motivated by avoiding a possible reversal on appeal, and getting their money sooner).
But something doesn’t smell right about this Dominion-Fox “settlement.” Questions are being asked. Even Alan Dershowitz is questioning it; he posits that Fox News’ legal position and possible defenses were much stronger than the post-settlement media spin.
That media spin is (predicably) that the Dominion machines are sound, the results of the 2020 elections unquestionably valid, and that anyone who dares question either is engaging in debunked “conspiracy theories” and is now (rightly) potentially subject to crippling legal costs.
Very interesting that take. Very interesting the cheering-on a chilling effect on public debate and media coverage – by entities that used to be all about the sanctity of a “free press.”
We can’t know for sure, but what if this “settlement” was planned from the beginning, as part of a collusive suit?
Did Fox News deliberately throw the defense of this litigation in order to perpetuate the 2020 “free and fair” election BIG LIE?
Let us entertain some more intelligent speculation along these lines:
a) What might Fox News have to gain from this “settlement?” Well, if Fox were involved in the planning and execution of “the steal,” e.g., by calling Arizona early, would it not have an interest in maintaining a coverup of what is, arguably, treason in aiding and abetting a coup d’etat?
b) Also, could it be that there’s a side-agreement with Dominion Voting Systems that Fox News will never actually pay the settlement, and that Dominion will take no legal action to collect it? That the generation of the headlines and media spin was the actual (shared) goal, the actual purpose of the “settlement?”
c) Or, if on paper Fox News actually does pay the settlement, that Fox will secretly be reimbursed by other players … perhaps by elements of the Deep State domestically, or the Globalist-CCP Axis internationally? After all, money is fungible; it doesn’t have to come to Fox labeled as “reimbursement for Dominion settlement costs.”
Again, we can’t know any of this for sure. But it’s fair to ask probing questions. After all, our continued existence as a Constitutional Republic is at stake, for without genuinely “free and fair” elections, our Republic is extinct.
And a “settlement” to a “defamation suit” – about which the evidence was never vetted in open court – is no basis for ceasing the questioning of a national election, especially given the myriad anomalies that occurred related to it. Very much including questions about the machines.
Which brings us to Tucker Carlson and his (apparent) firing on April 24, 2023.
Similar to what occurred to Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson’s show suffered the broadcast version of summary execution. Here one day, gone the next. No allowance for a farewell. “Disappeared,” not unlike a Soviet citizen consigned to the Gulag after being rounded-up in the middle of the night.
As of this writing there is much speculation for the reason for Tucker’s “disappeared.” His prematurely cut-off expose of the lies around J6. His comments on other subjects that were not pleasing to his corporatist / controlled-opposition bosses. Pushing to the edge (or beyond) of the corporate envelope. Perhaps other topics that he threatened to pursue on-air.
Maybe. Likely. But also consider this possibility …
The night before, 60 Minutes ran a fake news puff-piece laundering of Ray Epps and his involvement with J6. It could be coincidence. Or it could be part of an emerging Globalist-CCP Axis / media campaign to gin-up the “insurrection” Big Lie as we head toward the 2024 election season … alongside an overall effort to begin suppressing non-controlled opposition Conservative and Patriotic voices.
A common employment contract provision at the levels of a Tucker Carlson includes non-competition for a period of time after employment. That means that Tucker could not host a television program for “x” years (and perhaps not engage in other activities, such as a podcast).
That contract could also provide that Fox could remove Tucker from his show, and still pay him out for the remaining term of the contract, adding even more time until the non-competition provisions even take effect.
Fox Business summarily removed one of its most popular hosts, Lou Dobbs. It is suspected that the reason he has not had a successor television show is the type of non-competition provisions described above.
Now Fox News has summarily removed it most popular – and so, presumably, most revenue-generating host from prime time.
On the surface, inexplicable. Perhaps Fox has been assured of offsetting revenue from forces that want Tucker silenced?
Tucker silenced? Maybe the timing is significant. IF there are non-competition provisions for a certain period of time (plus, perhaps, a remaining term of his contract), this just might be enough to prevent Tucker from covering, or even publicly commenting on, the 2024 election cycle.
So, perhaps the primary purpose for the Tucker Termination is to gag him from commenting on the 2024 elections, and the lost revenue to Fox is an acceptable price to pay for Fox, or whoever might be reimbursing it. How many millions — or tens of millions of dollars — might that be? Just to silence Tucker?
Maybe the facts – the truth – is something totally different. If so, bring it on. Bring it all out. Until such time, we are forced to make educated guesses and intelligent speculation. And they aren’t pretty.