Questions raised by the Deep State Fox interview of Kyle Rittenhouse by Tucker Carlson:
-
When was the interview arranged?
-
Who arranged the interview?
-
When was the interview conducted? Kyle’s verdict was rendered around Noon on Friday. With clips of the interview shown, Fox and Tucker were promoting the interview on Friday evening. That sure was a fast turn around!!!
-
How did Kyle go in a few short hours from being the emotional young man exonerated on murder charges to appearing to be a composed, scripted young man in the Tucker Carlson interview?
-
After this national and personal ordeal, why did Tucker focus on me??? Weren’t there more important issues to discuss publicly?
-
I was NEVER contacted by Fox or Tucker Carlson to be informed of the accusations and afforded an opportunity to respond. Why not??? Tucker Carlson (and Sean Hannity) have my cell number. I was one call away. This was clearly a Fox ambush hit piece on me. Who wanted to use Kyle Rittenhouse to falsely attack me?
-
Why did Fox totally ignore the background of David Hancock (a/k/a Fraudcock), the disgraced former Navy SEAL, in discussing Kyle? I spoke to Kyle one time briefly over a year ago. Fraudcock has been in total control of Kyle and his mother for almost one year. The public record raises very serious questions about the honesty and agenda of Fraudcock.
-
Why did Tucker strongly suggest that I was one of Kyle’s criminal lawyers? I was not. John Pierce was calling the shots for Kyle during the time period in question along with Mark Richards. I was not. I was just trying to help Kyle through #FightBack. I had agreed to help him in defamation matters after the criminal case. Why did John Pierce terminate that relationship almost immediately after #FightBack posted the bail monies.
There are MANY more serious questions to be explored with respect to this Deep State ambush hit piece.
Do the research. Connect the dots. Draw your own conclusions.
Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
Link to Original Telegram Post: https://t.me/linwoodspeakstruth/7484
Notice the pattern....Questioning the validity of the interview. Questioning the motives of the participants. Throwing out a boogie man (David Hancock), smearing him and then asking lots of questions suggesting bad motives/actions....[Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it--Hello Alinsky tactic]
Interesting on no. 6. Is the interview bogus because Lin didn't get to challenge it in the story? He has his chance in this Telegram post, but all he does is use the Alinsky tactics without offering actual rebuttals.
Not sure what I think about Lin, but his post is devoid of solid facts challenging the info from the interview....It looks more like an Alinskyite lawyer saying "I don't like the interview".