Have you ever heard about this politician named Adam Schiff?
Just to add, the NSA says something about him wasn’t collected via the 3rd party possibility I mentioned.
An examination by the spy agency, prompted by congressional inquiries, found that the Fox News host’s communications were not targeted — as the NSA has previously stated publicly — nor intercepted through so-called “incidental collection,” where the U.S. government sometimes obtains the emails or phone calls of Americans in contact with a foreign target under surveillance, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Correspondence between intelligence agencies and oversight authorities are conducted through classified means.
Instead, the nation’s top electronic spy agency found that Carlson was mentioned in communications between third parties and his name was subsequently revealed through “unmasking,” a process in which relevant government officials can request the identities of American citizens in intelligence reports to be divulged provided there is an official reason, such as helping them make sense of the intelligence documents they are reviewing.
Oh, now I think I understand.
Anyway, so two third parties were talking about Carlson, that’s it. I imagine he knows what it looks like, that these parties are discussing him in some sort of ‘useful idiot’ context. So he needs to get ahead of that.
I’m not even sure anything illegal happened, but again if Tucker feels it did, he should be suing, or pursuing charges, or whatever. Let’s see how it plays out.
I’ll predict he does not initiate some kind of legal challenge though. I know it’s a real gamble on my part, just a hunch.
Ever stop and think you’re the problem?
ANd now this:
If we continue to censor unpopular opinions and censure those who hold them, we will be giving up the knowledge-building endeavor of constructive debate and open discourse. Instead, we should use liberalism’s greatest tools—logic, evidence, and persuasion—to sort fact from fiction and to challenge ideas we oppose.
I think people who want to change the topic are a problem. I’m asking questions, not getting many answers of substance, a lot of ad-hominems though.
Do you have an actual opinion on this topic, or anything of substance to add at all? Think on it.
The topic is objectivity and bias in the media, not Tucker Carlson and his feud with the NSA. Why not start a topic on it, I’lll cut and paste the last 60 or so posts for you if you like?
edit @mups find the move here, let me know if you want it in American politics
Tucker Carlson is a huge media figure, and I’m discussing the possibility of him floating claims out to his audience without providing evidence of said claims.
Don’t you think a ‘journalist’ making claims to his audience has a burden to then show that audience evidence of his claim?
Don’t you think that that lack of evidence is, in and of itself, evidence that this person in the media, is not only not a journalist, but also carries a bias?
I’m posting pretty normal questions here about journalistic standards.
I posted on a link about this topic just now. You on the other hand just wanna have your smear. You think the third party folks who mentioned TC’s name saw him as a useful idiot? Based. On. What? Oh right, your bias…but you’re not in the media, HOPEFULLY!, so OT. Go start a thread and if you actually care about it, read up on it. You JUST FOUND a piece written about this topic, that you have been banging on about for days, that was written six whole days ago.
Journalists contact possible subjects for interview. Do they all have to be American? So, ridiculous. Good thing for you that I use social interaction to wake up in the morning. Otherwise, I’d be with TG, actively ignoring you.
Actually I’ve already posted that this had nothing to do with him talking to a third party, he was mentioned in conversation between 2 third parties. Maybe Tucker claims this is what happened, but NSA is saying his name was picked up ‘inactively’.
I thought mentions of this stuff was a nono, I could be wrong. Thanks for the valuable input.
You were derailing a topic for whatever reasons you had, Tempo tried to step in, I did the same, but it seems all you want is to keep jabbering on about Tucker Carlson.
So, I created a thread for you. Enjoy.
Who cares? You and Tucker it seems.
the nation’s top electronic spy agency found that Carlson was mentioned in communications between third parties and his name was subsequently revealed through “unmasking,” a process in which relevant government officials can request the identities of American citizens in intelligence reports to be divulged provided there is an official reason
So, what was the reason? Hmm.
Why not read up and get involved in the Whitmer FBI scam? That is actually important.
Oh you fragile thing you. I can ignore you by not responding. Watch how this works.
See? No harm no foul.
I don’t know. But do you not agree if Tucker feels something illegal happened, and has evidence, should he not take legal action against the federal government?
Has he provided any evidence? I can’t even see him insinuating that technically anything illegal happened. Maybe you can help me out (like, I can’t find those words).
You misunderstand, it’s not my policy.
I find that your lack of research only creates room for your echo chamber speculation and it is either deliberate on your part, or a sign of your limitations. You have fun.
You mean objective facts?
I’m literally the only one on topic and not making ad hominems. I’ve provided plenty of sources.
Now I’m simply asking, what is it precisely Tucker is claiming that is illegal? He uses the word ‘spying’ a lot, but doesn’t just come out and claim some kind of illegal activity, doesn’t give evidence for it, and isn’t saying anything about legal action.
Maybe you don’t think it’s important to ask these questions, but again, he’s a significant media figure with significant influence. If he says the government is spying on him to his audience, he needs to follow it up, lest he expose himself as a fraud of sorts. No?
I love how you think someone is a journalist because they have high ratings. Thanks for that.
I love how you continuously make incorrect assumptions about what other people think. He meets the definition of a journalist, regardless of the fact that you’re triggered by the content of the journalism he does.
I didn’t assume anything. You just made the connection yourself.
I then laughed at the notion of him being a journalist of any kind. Your response:
I get it. You think his high ratings are factual evidence that he is a ‘top rated journalist’.
It’s ok, I have no problem with you saying this, again. Own it!
You ability to deny simple facts is really quite amazing. Keep up the good work.
We’re just going in circles now. Your words are your own. Have a good night sir.