I don't know Tucker Carlson personally, but I what I do know gives the appearance of saying anything for ratings, whether he believes it or not. And the Daily Mail is a rag along the lines of the New York Post. If someone has better sources, I'm all ears (and see some have posted some URLs in other comments).
Must have missed your point. My mistaken interpretation was that you were dismissing the claims because you dislike the person making the claim.
I don't know Tucker Carlson personally, but I what I do know gives the appearance of saying anything for ratings, whether he believes it or not. And the Daily Mail is a rag along the lines of the New York Post. If someone has better sources, I'm all ears (and see some have posted some URLs in other comments).
Carlson is not someone you want to build your opinion on, or base an argument on.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...
It's not an ad-hominem fallacy, it's a matter of judicial record.