Tucker Carlson Releases 2-Hour Interview With Vladimir Putin

The interview immediately sparked condemnation from Democratic lawmakers and other media outlets who cast it as a means for Putin to reach a growing far-right faction in the Republican Party. Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) called Carlson a “traitor” while others said the decision to interview Putin was “unbelievable.”

Carlson is such a useful idiot for Putin. That dumb look of Carlson's is so pathetic.

Is there a difference between the GOP and the KGB these days?

Miss Tucker isn’t good poosie. Pootie had to be disappointed.

Tokyo Rose, meet Vladivostok Tucker!

R2 is parroting the msm and Hillary talking point. The msm is quite pathetic in that the talking parrots have no clue that no one believes a word they say, let alone even watch them.

You should read Rose Toguri's story before you lump her in as a traitor with Carlson.

At the 33:01 minute mark, Tucker slides under Pootie's chair and starts rimming him live on TV.

That was the intention R1.

The only demon missing is Rasputin.

If you ever wondered who would have supported the Nazis during WWII... Tucker Carlson.

Interesting that virtually the only objection Tucker had was to ask Putin to release that WSJ journalist. That seems like it was a manipulative and tactical suck up to the media because the only front-page articles about this on the big outlets that I checked are about this (he's a journalist and 'one of their own' which is why they care) . Aside from that his interview isn't getting a lot of positive reporting even in the right wing media.

The Tokyo Rose was attractive and played decent music.

Two things no one could ever say of mothertucker.

Do MAGAts have the attention span to watch a two hour interview? I pity the Newsmax producer who has to watch the whole brain-numbing thing to extract soundbites for their viewers who like their food pre-chewed. Actually, I don't...

If this had happenend pre 1990, Carlson would have been shunned and probably forbidden from returning to the US. But the Russian influence in the US is now destroying our country.

People would rather be under a dictatorship than live next door to a black or brown person.

Has anyone seen all of this? It starts with Putin filibustering about Russian history for a half hour.

Did Tucker manage to keep his eyes open? If not, this probably made them pop right open.

[QUOTE]46 minutes into his history lesson, Putin stops to mock Tucker for applying to the CIA when he was younger and getting rejected.

🤣 Excellent trolling. Of course, Putin thinks Tucks is an untrustworthy, disloyal traitor. Doesn’t Tucks understand that if he were a subject in Putin's dictatorship and he conducted himself the same way as he has, he'd be candidate #1 defenestration? Did that cross his mind at any point during his junket?

Stop promoting this shit by linking to it

What's wrong with promoting Ron Filipowski?

And, fuck you, r20. Have an unpleasant day.

Putie's useful bitch

[quote]R6: [R2] is parroting the msm and Hillary talking point. The msm is quite pathetic in that the talking parrots have no clue that no one believes a word they say, let alone even watch them.

"The msm..." Somebody's apparently a foreign troll for whom English is only a second language.

[quote]R19: Of course, Putin thinks Tucks is an untrustworthy, disloyal traitor. Doesn’t Tucks understand that if he were a subject in Putin's dictatorship and he conducted himself the same way as he has, he'd be candidate #1 defenestration? Did that cross his mind at any point during his junket?

In case Tuckums didn't notice, there was an implicit threat in the interview where Putin accused him of blowing up Nord Stream. Tuckums jokingly responded, “I was busy that day”. Putin responded, “You personally might have an alibi, but the CIA has not such [alibi]”, using the feint as an opportunity to throw shade at the CIA. Yet it was far from an idle joke. Imprisoned Evan Gershkovich is a journalist, as Tucker Carlson is thought by some to be, and should Putin decide to imprison him - any false charge, like blowing up Nord Stream, would do, regardless of whether it was in any way probable - he could simply do it, if he thought there was some advantage to it.

If Putin imprisoned Tuckums, IMO, we should let him have him. But Tuckums would do well to stay the fuck out of Russia from now on.

Couldn’t CNN have been sent to do an interview?

At least Christiane Amanpour would ask Putin some direct, tough questions.

Jake Tapper would constantly interrupt Putin’s filibuster.

Manu Raju, a Lindsey Graham favorite, would at least make it all serious.

Putin would not have consented to speak with any of those, R24.

R24 - Pootie is only interviewed by people on the payroll.

Putin’s prissy little furniture set is identical to my sister’s “princess” bedroom set in 1981.

R6 is Parroting an adoring Putin cock-sucker.

On Twitter, Miss Greenwald is jizzing over Tucker and Putin.

R29 That's so awful. He's so credulous. Hitler also said that he would not go further which fooled people but we all know that he did.

Not a single question about his beautiful daughter?

Greenwald is credulous for a price. The sad thing is he has two minor children from his association with the Russia-provided rough trade, so he has to be careful and toe a line to actually keep breathing if he cares about the children. Whether he does or not is up to speculation.

Uh, oh.

[QUOTE]Russian Telegram channels reported that the interview with Carlson and Carlson himself was not to Putin's liking, and the interview itself was considered a failure...

[QUOTE]According to reports, Putin didn't like Tucker Carlson - "a snob and a useful idiot who got a meaningful fee, but was lazy and lacked creativity." Kovalchuk family believes they could have done better with Tucker Carlson, but "everything was wasted." There's a wave of complaints in the Kremlin.

That set is so Russia. Like a grungy Eastern Europe porn set.

R2 Bad bot. Be gone, you devil.

Like I remarked, R33 - Tuckums had best never go to Russia again.

R17, are you crazy or senile or just very young? Do you think any American journalist in 1989, offered an opportunity to interview Mikhael Gorbachev, would have turned it down? Do you think a serious journalist today (not that Carlson is a serious journalist) would turn down the opportunity to interview Putin?

For that matter, do you think an American journalist, offered a chance to interview Hitler in 1938 or even 1939, would have turned it down? Journalism is not about only reporting news from good people or people journalists approve of. Only in wartime do we censor news from hostile leaders, and – despite what people seem to think here – we are not at war with Russia.

You can argue that it was a bad interview or that Carlson did not challenge Putin. That would be true, but it’s not the same as claiming the mere act of interviewing him was disloyal. The left has become as hysterical as the right these days. It’s insanity, and it will not end well for our country.

^^Mikhail

R38, Janet Flanner interviewed Hitler for The New Yorker. If you think that means Miss Flanner was pro-Hitler, by all means read her interview.

Tucker is obviously pro-Putin. But the act of accepting the interview in not necessarily damning.

[quote]R37: For that matter, do you think an American journalist, offered a chance to interview Hitler in 1938 or even 1939, would have turned it down?

I think they'd have needed to run that by the State Department first, or else when they returned to the US, the State Department would have run it by them. And rightly so.

Both journalists - and people who play journalists, like Tuckums - should not be talking to adversarial personages like Putin on their own volition.

R39, Flanner's interview was conducted in 1936. But I'd be willing to bet she talked to someone first.

[quote]The left has become as hysterical as the right these days.

Bless your heart, r37.

R39, I am both R37 an R38, and you're right. That was exactly my point. You can claim that Carlson is pro-Putin or that he is a lousy interviewer, but claiming he's a traitor simply for interviewing a leader who is hostile to the US is un-American.

You would be wrong, R40, very wrong indeed.. It would be an intolerable interference with the First Amendment right to freedom of the press to require a journalist to get government approval to interview a foreign leader. There are no exceptions in the Amendment for "leaders we don't like". You have a sad and faulty understanding of what freedom means in American terms.

While a journalist would likely tell the State Department, if only for his own safety, and some might allow the government to influence their questions, the State Department cannot stop them. It's shocking that you think they could or should.

[quote]but claiming he's a traitor simply for interviewing a leader who is hostile to the US is un-American.

That was hardly an "interview", r42 which is precisely the point. Why you continue to gloss over that point is beyond me.

[quote]R42: It would be an intolerable interference with the First Amendment right to freedom of the press to require a journalist to get government approval to interview a foreign leader. There are no exceptions in the Amendment for "leaders we don't like". You have a sad and faulty understanding of what freedom means in American terms.

You're projecting a very modern take - one might say 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑎𝑛 - on the First Amendment. Back then, it had not yet been weaponized in ways designed to destroy the Republic it was crafted to protect, as it has been today. And back in the 1930s, appeals to the First Amendment for that purpose may have fallen on deaf ears, whether or not one agrees with that. Appeals to national security tended to outweigh it.

Tuckum's interview is full of maliciousness. It should not have happened.

I thought the same thing, r27. The only piece missing is the Canopy Bed.

Does Vlad give Tuckums the polonium soup at the end? If not, I don't care to watch this pack of lies.

R35, bot I am not. I live in Australia and watched the 2 hour video. I'd like Putin to push Carlson out of a multi-storey building...wouldn't you????

Tucker didn't interview Putin. Tucker gave Putin platform. Tucker didn't question Putin, in fact Putin questioned Tucker. Putin paid Tucker to fly there and "host" the Putin propaganda hour.

Tucker, you in danger, girl!

I don't give a Shit if *Putin* was the Lord Jesus Christ during his Second Coming - if the same Jesus along his journeys was well known to execute his rivals with complete impunity by Poisoning, Bring pushed out Windows, or for forcing his own followers to horrifically declare war and murder thousands of Civilians. In other words, his Deeds much outweigh the International " Status" of such an individual overshadowing any journalistic merit in "Interviewing" him. Report on his diabolical and menacing behavior in detail so as to be aware of his current machinations? Certainly. But by impartial and by needs - outside the known Dictator's very much biased realm of influence.

" Interviewing" Putin is simply doing nothing more than making oneself an overt mouthpiece to that Evil Piece of Shit's Propaganda machine.

Putin spent the interview insulting the frozen food heir...

Nobody trusts traitors. Especially not psychopath dictators of a dead and dying country that they’re fleecing for the last bits of scrap copper wire.

Why is the interview done with little girl furniture decor

Putin ran rings around TC. Hope the GOP finally realise Putin isn't Christian and doesn't give a sh*t about them...or the Dems for that matter.

How do we know Tucker didn't like being humiliated? Maybe that's what he went to Moscow for.

Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey flipped, flipped back, and flipped again in funding priorities for Ukraine. Lindsey was very hawkish in supporting Ukraine, whereby Putin and Sergei Lavrov declared a warrant to arrest Graham for advocating for more Russian military casualties. Then these GQP Senators succumb to Trump who is at minimum a Putin asset who detests Ukraine and is anti-NATO. House Speaker Mike Johnson, and other Congressional cronies, are in lockstep being pro-Trump and pro-Putin. Those classified secret documents Trump had in his possession, is their doubt Putin, and other foreign elements, have copies or know details of the content? Judge Aileen Cannon role with this saga is alarming.

Tucker is an arrogant, obnoxious, and idiotic tool. I want to see Miss Tucker interviewed by Jon Stewart.

[quote] [R17], are you crazy or senile or just very young? Do you think any American journalist in 1989, offered an opportunity to interview Mikhael Gorbachev, would have turned it down? Do you think a serious journalist today (not that Carlson is a serious journalist) would turn down the opportunity to interview Putin?

Tucker is not only not a [italic] serious [/italic] journalist; he is [bold] not [/bold] a journalist, period.

Says Judge Jeanine Pirro: let me talk next with Putin.

Boris Johnson just called him a traitor.

Prince Harry must be jealous. Didn’t he want to interview Putin and ask about childhood trauma?

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

You can bet if old Fucker gets tossed in one of Putin’s gulags, he’ll be screaming his empty head off DEMANDING that Joe get him out.

Personally, I’d take the phone off the hook and pretend to be Mariah.

[quote]If Putin imprisoned Tuckums, IMO, we should let him have him.

I really want this to happen.

Same here. He can have all the vodka and beets he wants while spooning with Navalny. It would be quite a feather in Putin’s bald butthole to toss him in jail for… I don’t know, something.

So now the only two American "journalists" who have interviewed Putin in the last decade are Carlson and Megyn Kelly (wearing an oh, so appropriate low-cut black cocktail dress). I wonder if legitimate journalists have pursued interviews. Not that Vlad would ever sit down with them.

[quote] Stop promoting this shit by linking to it

I don’t have a problem with the world seeing for themselves that Tucker is a fool and Putin is a maniac.

R65, there was the Oliver Stone interview with Putin, back in 2017. But Stone isn't a journalist.

It’s really the least of this utter cretin’s problems but why does Fucker have such a terrible haircut? It looks like his mother still cuts his hair…his geriatric, arthritic, half-blind mother.

It's a hairpiece, R68.

And this should be interesting because...?

It’s hilarious that Tucker thought this interview was going to be HUGE and it was a complete flop.

It's equally hilarious that Putin is disappointed with the interview and called Fucker a lazy cretin.

CIA-fantasist goes up against actual KGB chief.

Carlson and Pirro are doing the adoration of a dictator because that's what the MAGA's want Trump to become. The MAGA's are being groomed for a dictatorship.

I must say I’m kind of enjoying the post-interview mocking of that chubby shit.

I thought everyone knew fucker wore a wig. It’s so obvious. Looks like a hat and it’s often not on straight. You can see his gray sideburns poking out.

Shudder.

Now we know how Tucker answers the question, if you knew what Hitler was, could you kill him?" Obviously the answer is no because he let Putin fuck him.

It’s funny, I bet Fuckface thought this would dominate the headlines worldwide and make him the world’s most relevant “journalist”. It’s been treated as more a curiosity piece with both parties looking desperate and demented. Putin was clearly looking down on him as he attempted to climb up his ass. Incredibly sad. I hope Carlson faces some kind of consequences and shunning even if it’s just outside his echo chamber.

It was quite interesting to see how measured and to-the-point Putin's answers were, but the 30 minute introduction about Russian history was a bit excessive, and Tucker ought to have at least made an effort to delve into some aspects of it so it wouldn't have been so tedious. I would also have enjoyed it more if he had sked Putin about the historical changes that Russia underwent during the 1990s, which were catastrophic and Putin has been instrumental in solving. This man is an economist and getting his insights in neoliberalism and its effects would have been extremely valuable.

Larry C Johnson offers a rather interesting analysis on the interview.

Thanks, but I already know enough about Putin's "insights" into the crises of the 90s and his "solutions" to them, which are authoritarianism and extreme capitalism.

By the way, something that I didn't like, either, is Tucker's pathological obsession with isolating and attacking China. I'm glad that Putin basically told him that China is Russia's neighbour, they've had thousands of years of common history and it is in everyone's interest to support China's global commercial initiatives, because the Chinese are only interested in commerce, rather than domination. To highlight this, Putin also mentioned that China has NEVER colonized any other countries or started imperialistic campaigns of any sort.

Lee Camp gives a very good breakdown of Tucker's hypocrisy regarding this issue, and how he has openly advocated in favour of war against China before.

[quote] Putin also mentioned that China has NEVER colonized any other countries

Keep licking that Pooty-taint!

[quote] To highlight this, Putin also mentioned that China has NEVER colonized any other countries or started imperialistic campaigns of any sort.

The Tibetans would beg to differ.

China has never exercised imperial authority?

Do you drink expired house paint for a living?

Do you mean the Medieval feudal nightmare that kept peasants enslaved and allowed the priestly class to constantly brutalize them at all, R83? China has freed the Tibetan population from serfdom and eliminated the brutal regime that kept them oppressed, not to mention that it has lifted Tibet from abject poverty.

Also, how is China colonizing Tibet, when Tibet has historically been part of China since the 9th Century AD? And R84, tell me a single country that the Chinese have ever colonized - with evidence, of course.

China which tried to invade both Vietnam and Japan with 100,000 men in olden times? No imperial ambitions? He's been misled by the ethnic homogeneity of China, which he doesn't realize was created by invasions and ethnic cleansings implied by ancestor worship.

[quote] the ethnic homogeneity of China

The what?

R86, China was ruled by the foreign Mongol-Koryo Yuan dynasty when they Kublai Khan tried to invade Japan. The Chinese didn't have anything to do with it, as they were serfs under an occupying foreign power. Moreover that was in 1281, 743 years ago. You can hardly pretend that this is still relevant.

Regarding the Sino-Vietnamese war, China attacked Vietnam after the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and toppled the Khmer Rouge, which were being supported by the Chinese. The war lasted ONE MONTH, and China withdrew completely from Vietnam. How is that imperialistic? You are as stupid as you are ignorant (that is, VERY much so).

Not to worry. Tucker works those balls like a champ. Ol Pootie will definitely go home spent.

[QUOTE]Do you drink expired house paint for a living?

Isn't that what the Russian Army feeds its men on their western fronts?

I wasn't talking about the 1979 war. I was talking about the grand invasion of Vietnam thwarted by underwater stakes. The Chinese were serfs under their own governments. The Mongols and Manchus did not act any different from the usual Sons of Heaven.

And Korea they invaded multiple times, not to mention various central asian invasions like the conquest of Tibet.

[quote]R54: Hope the GOP finally realise Putin isn't Christian and doesn't give a sh*t about them...

What an odd statement, and one with which I must take issue, especially the linking of 'being a Christian' and 'giving a shit about someone.' I'm not sure how you arrived at any of this, save possibly through a mixture of cultural blinders and 'No True Scotsman.'

And FWIW, Putin is Russian Orthodox.

Finally the west gets to hear Vladdy Poots!

And to find out what a deluded, obsessive bore he is.

[quote] I was talking about the grand invasion of Vietnam thwarted by underwater stakes.

The “grand invasion” wasn’t grand and it wasn’t thwarted by underwater stakes.

It was a spoiler attack to get the Vietnamese army out of Cambodia, a Chinese ally. And it wasn’t thwarted per se but it did fail in its highest objective — the Vietnamese did not need to pull out of Cambodia. However, the PLA did manage to seize the border area, and won a few battles. The Chinese army performed decently well despite not having fought for 25+ years.

Original idea, to broadcast one's job interviews.

[quote] If this had happenend pre 1990, Carlson would have been shunned and probably forbidden from returning to the US. But the Russian influence in the US is now destroying our country.

Guess again

If it had happened pre-1990 he would have been interviewing Gorbachev, which would have been perfectly acceptable, except that you wouldn't inflict Tucker on him.

The West liked Gorby. It was only the Russians who didn't.

[quote] The West liked Gorby

Just the woke progressives. Clearer minds were not fooled

R93 The fundies don't think Catholics - the first Christians - are Christians, so you'll have a stretch convincing them that members of the Russian Orthodox church are Christians, too.

Poland corrects Putin's lies—including his lie that Poland provoked the German invasion in 1939.

R100, Catholics were not the "first Christians"—the first Christians were obviously those in the churches established in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Roman church gradually diverged from Eastern Christianity, starting in later antiquity.

Historian Timothy Snyder has a substack essay explaining all the Putin inaccuracies/exaggerations/outright lies regarding Ukraine’s history that Carlson and his lack of preparation allowed to go unchallenged.

Oh, PLEASE R102! Timothy Snyder is in love with neoliberal Reaganite and Clintonite politics, worships neoconservatives and salivates every time someone mentions the fall of the USSR, how the Russians are very bad and American is the greatest country in history. His point of view is utterly irrelevant; you might as well just get a CIA promotional booklet or invite Victoria Nuland to give her impressions.

Funny when liberal talking heads interview him it’s called “journalism”. Sorry, but I want democracy, I don’t want to live in a MAGA or a WOKE paradise.

R103 Receipts, please? read his books, heard him speak and just finished “Our Malady” wherein he calls for a national healthcare and childcare system in the US. He’s not a neocon by a long shot.

R50 is accurate because it appears that many YouTube clips of the interview are now overwhelmed with pro Russian trolls and pro Trump trolls

^^^anytime someone makes a pro Biden or anti Putin/Carlson comment they are attacked by many. One person even makes a detailed description in a comment response about the functions of Russian bots, what’s triggers them and how to detect their syntax and errors. The trolls go rogue on the person. I’m sure many will say a person is a snowflake for not being able to handle opposition, those are the people that deny swatting exists and want everyone to stay silent. Also, calling people names rather than discussing the actual issues is quite telling. Chris Wallace was great and made a rebuttal to Carlson, and showed a clip from his interview with vladboi where he asked tough questions.

R99 I doubt anyone was calling themselves a "woke" progressive back then when people had sense. That "woke" bullshit is recent.

[quote] Funny when liberal talking heads interview him it’s called “journalism”. Sorry, but I want democracy, I don’t want to live in a MAGA or a WOKE paradise.

ALL the media coverage of this was has been garbage propaganda, both from the Russian side and from the Ukrainian. The western media has treated this entire affair as an old melodrama silent movie with the mustached black cloaked villain tying the virgin to the railroad tracks and we're supposed to throw popcorn at the screen when he appears.

[quote] Funny when liberal talking heads interview him it’s called “journalism”.

“Funny, when actual journalists interview him it’s called “journalism.”

Trump's renewed encouragement of Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO members (e.g. Poland) came right on the heels of Putin's false narrative that Poland provoked Hitler into attacking in 1939. No surprise to see Trump supporting his hero.

Question...why would Putin claim Poland provoked Hitler? What's in it for Putin? Isn't official Russian history, for very good reason, rather profoundly anti-Nazi?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Perhaps not, R113, but what countries does Russia have to go through to follow Trump's suggestion and get to the, as you put it, "freeloaders"? And once in, will Russia leave?

I can't look at that face R113. Like a rotisserie chicken left too long on the spit.

These recent attacks on Poland are Putin signaling his intentions. I’m sure his enablers in Poland have heard him loud and clear and will ramp up their internal attacks, too.

Putin thinks he can weaken Poland by calling them out and isolating them, using his US boot licking puppet to do so. What we need to do is kick him the cuntbone so hard he slithers back to Moscow and shuts his fucking mouth.

I’m fully on Poland’s side here. We (the US) needs to stop bumbling around like some trapped Roomba and give Ukraine everything they need to kick him right in the teeth once and for all.

He will NOT STOP. EVER. PERIOD.

Gotta love you neocons converts

[quote]both from the Russian side and from the Ukrainian

How *very* bothsides of you, r109.

R37 lusts after Tucker’s cock to fuck his neglected hole.

[quote] We (the US) needs to stop bumbling around like some trapped Roomba and give Ukraine everything they need to kick him right in the teeth once and for all.

"We (the US)," as I'm sure you're aware, specifically means Congressional Republicans, i.e. MAGAt Republicans. They're the ones blocking aid (or, as our resident Putin-licker might perversely put it, applying a brake to the out-of-control wokeness of self-determination and sovereign borders).

I know, r120. I’m just frustrated AF and every day peckerwood Mike dithers, Putin grows bolder.

[quote]R100: The fundies don't think Catholics - the first Christians - are Christians, so you'll have a stretch convincing them that members of the Russian Orthodox church are Christians, too.

[quote]R101: Catholics were not the "first Christians"—the first Christians were obviously those in the churches established in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Roman church gradually diverged from Eastern Christianity, starting in later antiquity.

R101, you're correct to say that "Catholics were not the 'first Christians' - but 'the churches established in the Eastern Mediterranean' weren't exactly homogenous. You seem to be saying that the Eastern Orthodox were first, and that's not correct, either. The first Christians were various gnostic sectarians - Docetists, Valentinians, Simonians, and Marcionites. In the latter half of the 2nd century, the first proto-catholics reacted against these, setting themselves up as a self-proclaimed 'orthodoxy.' 'Catholic' simple meant 'universal' so, in calling themselves that, they pretended to be normative Christianity. Of the earliest Christianities, little has survived beyond what the Church Fathers chose to describe in their writings, and that's been quite tendentious.

The earliest signs of divergence between Western and Eastern Christianities could be discerned in the late 3rd/early 4th centuries, with Roman Christianity's shift to writing in Latin, while the Eastern maintained Greek. The actual schism between East and West did not culminate until the 11th century.

[quote] You seem to be saying that the Eastern Orthodox were first

That's not what I was saying. I said that Roman Catholics were not "the first Christians" because Christian churches (ἐκκλησίαι) in the Eastern Mediterranean preceded the one(s) in Rome and, in any case, the Roman Church didn't begin to emerge as a distinct sect until late antiquity.

°–°

Why are people so ignorant of China's history? Why?

And before then were the Trung sisters. China has historically been a grasping imperialist power just like everyone else

And it was China which attacked in 1979

China was trying support mass murderer Pol Pot in that conflict.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

As the headline inside the article says, it was more of a cackle than a laugh.

[QUOTE]Look no further than Tucker Carlson. Fresh from his disgraceful 'interview' with Vladimir Putin — a visibly cowed Carlson serving as lapdog rather than seasoned journalist — the former Fox News darling went on Glenn Beck's show, laughing about Navalny and, yet again, defending the monster that is Putin. 'People who say Putin killed [Navalny] are idiots', Carlson said.

Well, he's right. Navalny died of sudden death syndrome. Much like Prigozhin died of sudden plane-crash syndrome, and all those Russian reporters died of sudden falling-out-of-window syndrome. Only an idiot would think there was anything suspicious about any of those deaths.

Fucker Carlson is probably terrified he’ll “mysteriously” die if he says anything that might anger his boyfriend Puty.

Has anyone snarked about the cheap ugly white furniture?

^ see r27, maybe another. Looks like the Kremlin deliberately chose the cheapest looking backdrop for him -- an empty room with some bedroom set furniture minus the princess canopy bed.

"Dictator chic" demands the most Louis of all styles.

"I don't know how far up the Louies go....that's one of the top Louies...."

Tucker reminds me a bit of Hart Bochner’s character ( but less savvy, more cowardly ) in Die Hard. Hans Gruber put an end to him though. Putin probably wanted to do the same to Tucker.