>>4054871 pb
Tucker then went on to interview an idiot from UniVision who made the claim that Mexico is not a safe country to claim asylum because murders happen there.
Tucker missed a huge opportunity to BTFO here, he should have responded by saying:
America has murder, and crime and is also not safe for asylum seekers - and we don't need any MORE of it.
———-
Yes, that univision reporter lies like a rug….but Tucker interviewed him as an example of someone making unsubstantiated claims
re-post from lb
Tucker & Sexton: “Caravan Claims Exposed!” Six false claims the MSM has made about the caravan
Tucker: “For a free society to function, the press doesn’t have to be perfect but it does have to be better than a propaganda outlet. Are they?”
Interview with Buck Sexton, Former CIA analyst. Tucker states the claims and Sexton comments.
CLAIM #1: “The Migrant Caravan is mostly women and children who pose no threat to anyone.”
Buck: Not true. “The vast majority are men in their 20s and 30s.”
CLAIM 2: “The caravan…is mostly comprised of asylum seekers.”
Buck: Not true. “This is a scam…people [on the caravan] are being coached to lie.”
CLAIM 3: “There are no criminals in this caravan.”
Buck: “There are six hundred KNOWN criminals….this was known from the beginning.”
CLAIM 4: “The caravan doesn’t matter….and it’s very far away.”
Buck: “Buses and trains exist in Mexico….with some help, they got on those buses and trains. If they were actually refuges, they should claim refugee status in the first country they arrive in where they are no under mortal threat.”
CLAIM #5: “The caravan received no external support…there is no financing here.”
Buck: “They are clearly people providing support….If journalists wanted to know this stuff…they could find out. But they don’t want to know. They just want to show women and children getting tear-gassed.”
CLAIM #6: “Deploying troops to the border was [both] wrong and unnecessary.”
Buck: “The concern was that they [the caravan] would try to overrun the border—which is exactly what they did do.”
In summary (Buck): “We’ve just had this progression of lies all along the way. And at every phase, it seems the media always gets it wrong in one direction—and that is, that we’re exaggerating this threat when in fact we’re underestimating the reality of how big this problem is going to get.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwWZgz9hi-U
~ 11:45
Great juxtaposition!
This is what happens whenever you do online research on the caravans–coverage so distorted that it gives rise to bizarre scenarios like this.
Interesting discussions on Fox tonight–they're focusing re Mueller investigation on explaining why people copped a plea even if innocent. Both Corsi and Stone talked about this. (I know anons like neither but they still shouldn't have been railroaded because they're low-hanging fruit.)
Same discussion arose earlier this month among whistleblowers like Bill Binney & John Kiriacou, who observed that the current tactic among corrupt govt investigators is to pressure someone, charge them with multiple crimes ( thus, 200+ years in jail), bankrupt them–to basically ruin their life/family life–and then offer them a plea deal that they can't afford to refuse, even if innocent.
There's the roundtable, long but very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ_XSd1SXXk&t=3928s
I definitely agree with you. When there is clear evidence that someone is compromised–especially from multiple sources–that's one thing. But sometimes, people just don't like someone and hear others don't like them, either, and make assumptions they have not themselves checked out.
Was attacked by anons for posting a noteworthy Beanz recently, not realizing she was persona non grata here. I'm not sure how many of those attackers were anons vs shills. And of those who were anons, I'm not sure how many really checked out this story as opposed to believing what others said. Or simply have a bias against anyone they think is making money in alt-media and/or who they consider a "fame fag." There is such a thing as jealousy disguised as self-righteous indignation.
You can yell at me for making this observation but I did listen to what was said and have not found it entirely convincing. I want clear evidence when someone is called "bad", because it's a helluva charge to make against others unless you can cite substantive evidence detailing precisely what they have done to deserve that treatment.