Tucker Carlson's Ouster Was Part of the Dominion Settlement

[kpete]

Variety: The mystery surrounding Tucker Carlson’s ouster from the airwaves at Fox News — and his future plans in media — are coming into sharper focus.

On April 26, Carlson spoke by phone with one of Fox Corp.’s eight board members, who told the host that his recent benching was a condition of Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the conversation.

The unnamed board member told Carlson that the condition does not appear in any of the settlement’s documents, and instead was a verbal agreement. If Fox didn’t comply, the settlement was off, Carlson was told. Dominion had plenty of leverage given that the $787.5 million deal to settle Dominion’s defamation suit against the network wouldn’t officially close until late-May.

If Dominion opted to blow up the deal, Fox would return to square one on settlement talks or potentially subject the Murdoch family empire to a jury trial that would undoubtedly expose more embarrassing details about the operation of Fox News and fallout from its 2020 president election coverage. Unlike Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo, Carlson wasn’t a key player in the suit that claimed Fox News repeatedly and knowingly aired false claims about the company with regards to the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

............

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-exit-dominion-lawsuit-twitter-show-1235613404/
https://politicalwire.com/2023/05/16/tucker-carlsons-ouster-was-part-of-settlement/

[Scrivener7]

1. So, basically, we don't have anyone's word but Carlson's that this is true.

My guess: he's just making up this story to inflate his importance.

The proof for that is in this statement by Carlson: "But Dominion was looking for the best way to maim the conservative news network, and forcing Fox News to cut ties with the most-watched personality in cable news would deal a potentially insurmountable blow and lead to a viewer exodus, according to Carlson’s understanding."

He is just a ridiculous man and was a liability and they got rid of him.

[dalton99a]

4. +1

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. Yep. Sounds hinky. A $787.5 million dollar settlement hinged on a "verbal agreement"? Hmm...

[Scrivener7]

8. Suuuuure, Tucker. Suuuuuure.

[area51]

10. +1 n/t

[Martin68]

11. Good point. Impossible to fact check. Face-saving rumor released by Carlson?

[spooky3]

17. I agree that it doesn't ring true. Management gets to

Weasel out of the responsibility, too.

[Artcatt]

20. Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

[getagrip_already]

21. Tuckies lie? Omg! My world is fake!

You mean he would lie in order to allow air to escape his body in an offensive and self agrandizing way?

Oh noze!

[Botany]

2. Of course it was

Dominion wanted Tucker's scalp. And they got it too.

[Indykatie]

3. Carlson Is Lying.

[Wonder Why]

16. Be fair. Tucker has not lied once about anything.

He lies all the time about everything.

One more lie shouldn't count against him.

[lpbk2713]

5. All about "me".

What a crock of shit.

[calimary]

22. Yes.

And yes.

[C_U_L8R]

6. Carlson lies about Dominion at his peril.

It's pathetic he's so desperate for attention.

[marble falls]

9. Like Nelson says ...

[dchill]

12. No, no! It was ME! I'M the reason!

[ToxMarz]

13. Of course there is no 'evidence'. Conspiracy theories are so much more fun

and useful. They can be anything you want them to be. They don't need proof just belief, and no one can prove otherwise.

[Geechie]

14. I called this on day 1. nt

[MissMillie]

15. So what?

Fox News Corp. had the option of skipping the settlement and going to trial.

Somewhere along the way, the money-crunchers decided that despite Carlson's popularity, Carlson was going to cost them money--not just because of the Dominion suit, but because of the accusations by Grossberg.

Rupert Murdoch's testimony in the Dominion suit showed us that his decisions are based on money. I have no doubt whatsoever that being willing to lose Carlson was just another business decision.

Whether or not Carlson is telling the truth... I don't know, and I don't care. He may have a cause of action if Fox breached an employment contract. Again, I don't care.

(There is a part of me that enjoys watching Carlson learn that he's expendable. )

[calimary]

23. Your last sentence is your best, MissMillie.

Little Tucker thought he was untouchable because ratings, because knuckledragger popularity, because wealth and prominence, because whatever his Little Caesar complex allowed him to believe.

And in the end, he was just another small hired hand with a galaxy-size ego. And just as flushable as toilet paper.

[democrank]

18. K & R

Thanks, kpete

[NJCher]

19. the real problem

as has been stated here many times before, is the giant media corporations that make a buck off bottom feeding.

Carlson is expendable, just like Bill O'Reilly. One night Rachel did an entire rundown of the list of the expended. Glenn Beck. Remember him. There are more.

Corporations and social media that make their money off exacerbating the already dysfunctional members of our society and harnessing their maladjusted look on life for political reasons is what needs to stop.

[NotVeryImportant]

24. I had a feeling that that was the case.

Good.

[Midnight Writer]

25. Hope Dominion sues Tucker for this lie.

[Qutzupalotl]

26. If he's supposedly known since April 26 why they fired him,

he would not have to sue them for answers, and indeed would know that he could not.

Also, this doesn't line up with Carlson's own public statements of disbelief.So yes, he's lying again.

[Peppertoo]

27. I think this is plausible.

[Ms. Toad]

28. That story makes no sense from a legal standpoint.

The provision was supposedly verbal.

While contracts are not required to be in writing (generally), when contracts are written they are generally presumed to be a complete integration of the entire agreement between the parties. That means any verbal deal which pre-dated the written agreement is presumed to have been deliberatley omitted.

Settlement agreements are (generally) binding agreements. To "blow up the deal," Dominion would need to point to a provision of the agreement which Fox breached. It can't just decide to back out (that would be a Dominion breach, not a Fox breach). It can't rely on the verbal agreement, because that is presumed not to be a part of the final agreement.

So unless both parties are lying, and it actually is part of the written agreement, Carlson's claim that it was part of the agreement is - at best - a non-binding promise. Dominion denies it was part of the deal.