Imaginary grievances, such as that I called you a Putin lover. I didn’t “lose my shit” (although I did just drop the kids off at the pool - among my favorite times of the morning) by pointing out that you raised an invalid point. That Tucker was “allowed” to ask about Gershkovich is no counterpoint to the accusation that Tucker’s (or anyone’s) interview with Putin is fully choreographed in advance.

Putin’s incentives are to forbid questions about the internal opposition candidate he disappeared into a Siberian prison where he’s now been murdered. However he died in prison, assuming that report’s right, the state murdered him. Gershkovich is leverage against the west. Putin’s incentives are to have questions about him asked. He wants the west to trade for him.

You’re the one who cluelessly introduced that fact as an “offset” to the Navalny point. But it’s not an offset, it’s consistent. If you don’t like people asking why you appear to be defending Putin and Tucker’s obviously choreographed interview, I’d shitcan your histrionics about “losing shit”, and stop manufacturing “counterpoints” to it. There are none.