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.

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).