This is retarded apologetics.

1. They have presented evidence. Including in the conference he ignored.
2. He chose to use his time to allege that they hadn't presented evidence when, in fact, they had. He could have used this time to be a help to the process; he chose the opposite.
3. Even if he had no ulterior intent, no servitude to Faux News, no connections to the deep state, only his own judgment, it was still, aside from a flat-out false statement, also an inexcusable lapse of judgment to cast shade on the proceedings at a time when the public needs sources of information outside the mainstream sidelining and scorning. Which is what he did, just with his own brand. He may not be satisfied with the amount of evidence yet presented, that would be reasonable, but criticizing Powell at a time when people need to be listening to what she says was stupid. He should have covered it, and then covered what more evidence he wanted to see.
4. There seems to be a clear reason Powell rebuffed Tucker and only interacted with Dobbs on Fox.

This is retarded apologetics.

1. They have presented evidence. Including in the conference he ignored.
2. He chose to use his time to allege that they hadn't presented evidence when, in fact, they had.
3. Even if he had no ulterior intent, no servitude to Faux News, no connections to the deep state, only his own judgment, it was still, aside from a flat-out false statement, also an inexcusable lapse of judgment to cast shade on the proceedings at a time when the public needs sources of information outside the mainstream sidelining and scorning. Which is what he did, just with his own brand. He may not be satisfied with the amount of evidence yet presented, that would be reasonable, but criticizing Powell at a time when people need to be listening to what she says was stupid. He should have covered it, and then covered what more evidence he wanted to see.
4. There seems to be a clear reason Powell rebuffed Tucker and only interacted with Dobbs on Fox.