Tucker Carlson and his feud with the NSA

Obviously he cares about certain laws which are meant to be in place to protect US citizens, laws which it seems you don’t care about.

You just have different levels of caring about something. OK

What law was broken?

Why would there be any further productive use in discussing privacy laws with you when it’s clear over the course of the past few years, you have shown no interest if they get violated or not.

You brought it up. What law was broken?

1 Like

Obviously if the NSA leaked his conversation to reporters, that’s illegal. Which is how I believe he found out.

1 Like

Is there a specific reason you believe this, or is this a conspiracy theory?

Let’s say it were true though. Carlson should sue the federal government, correct?

Well this is interesting, I’m just learning about this on the fly here…

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/560850-nsa-refutes-tucker-carlson-spying-allegation

The host added that the purported individual had “repeated back to us information about a story we are working on that could have only come from my texts and emails,” though Carlson did not offer more details or evidence to back up the claim.

Ah yes, the true mark of a “top-rated journalist”, claiming something is true publicly, without showing the public audience the evidence. :sweat_smile:

It’s not a case of what I believe or don’t believe, you were asking what happened and I gave you the version of events as best I recalled.

As far as what he should or shouldn’t do, again, I don’t think this is a topic you have shown any interest in. Some people find the whole Snowden thing, NSA spying on everyone and doing so with little or no oversight an interesting topic, I haven’t seen that sort of interest from you.

Except for Tucker Carlson, which probably means you are more interested in having a go at Tucker Carlson, I don’t care for him one way or the other, so that’s an uninteresting conversation to me. Im sure you can find someone else to defend Carlsons honor.

Ok, so there’s no evidence.

I’m literally asking if you think he would then sue the feds, if this were true. He should have enough evidence, as a real journalist claiming what happened on TV (without showing evidence again, just stating facts).

I’m 100% sure I could. But I’m just asking questions.

Should be interesting to see if Tucker follows up, or it’s just fodder for his adoring fans. Worth a bookmark maybe.

If he does have evidence, he needs to use it against the feds, I would totally agree with that action.

How would I know? I just tired of you demanding questions from Tempo when you hadn’t bothered to learn the basic facts of what was going on, which I happened to get in passing.

Maybe start a thread on Tucker Carlson, it’s not really a well suited prolonged discussion for objectivity and bias in the media about if the NSA is doing the stuff they have been doing for years and no one from the left has given a damn about in years.

Have you ever heard about this politician named Adam Schiff? :smiley:

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. :sweat_smile:

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.