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. 
Thanks.
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.
From Wikipedia:
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.
A compelling point, I’m sure.
I can only speculate on your meaning however, since emoji is not my first language. I’m not threatened by or opposed to them, just self-identify as a words-first user. 
I’m happy to present a (responsibly worded, based on educational background) poll, open to you and anyone else:
In your opinion, Tucker Carlson typically:
A) backs up claims with facts.
B) does not back up claims with facts.
Which is a more clearly defined way of asking if he’s a journalist, naturally.
We’ll revisit this in a bit, because I’m fair and will give Tucker the benefit of the doubt, and some time to form his case. Let’s review first:
-Tucker implies he has been ‘spied on’ by US government.
-Spying on US citizens is illegal.
-Tucker has not actually claimed a law has been broken (I don’t think? I’ve asked around but got air.)
-Tucker has not provided any evidence he was ‘spied on’ by NSA
-Tucker has not taken, or announced the taking of legal action against the US gov’t.
That’s an awfully liberal stretch of the definition of that word. 
No you didn’t, I told you if his communications were leaked to reporters that would be illegal, you went on to suggest the communications in question were between 3rd parties talking about him and his name was unmasked and then presumably leaked to reporters, that too is illegal.
If 1984 weren’t such a fairy tale reality for you there might be some discussion about governments who listen in and leak all manner of communications in order to hurt those they deem challenging the official “newspeak”.
Yes, we all know lots of hypothetical things are illegal. But beyond the vagueness of ‘being spied on’, he hasn’t claimed a specific law was broken, has he?
Again, feel free to correct me, which law specifically is HE saying has been broken, not you Mick. Saying the government spied on you makes for good clickbait but he needs to put his money where his mouth is, no?
What law is he saying was violated? Where is his evidence? Where is his action?
I get it, nobody can answer these, which is why I’m saying we’ll give him some time, and check back later.
An argument has also been made that being listed on wikipedia as a journalist, is evidence that one is such.
Which makes me wonder if one can make a convincing argument that Tucker is not, by simply editing that part out. Or convince someone he’s a fraud by editing that part in.
Meh, it seems from what I get he did have a conversation with someone about interviewing Vladamir Putin, if what you say is true and the conversation is between two other people discussing his conversation, that makes sense, “who is this Tucker Carlson to interview Putin?” in such a context it wouldn’t surprise me to learn two people having that discussion would call him a joke, an entertainer and not a serious reporter blah blah blah. Then the NSA listening in thought it would be fun to leak that to the press perhaps after unmasking his name.
If that’s the story, wake me up when something of interest happens, until then I’ll file it under NSA and intelligence agencies up to their usual shitty stuff.
That’s what the NSA says, not me.
Yes, that’s really my whole point. If he’s alluding to spying on air, the journalist in him should be backing it up. Or the citizen in him should be bringing evidence in legal action, separate from this.
But a journalist should never just imply something without bringing evidence. That’s not a real journalist.
Let’s see how it shakes out. We can all agree it will not reflect well if he alludes to a very serious crime on air with no real followup or action, I think.
me, personally?
but, that just means i wouldn’t claim him to be a credible journalist worth much of my time. more interesting to me are those who claim not to spend time consuming news media yet are so knowledgeable of TC and other personalities/stories on fox news. but then we start getting off topic, and i know you have a point toupee make
just joking
With all this posting about Tucker, I’m starting to think @mups is a fan of his fine journalism. He claims not to like it, but it’s like one of those schoolgirl crushes where the lovestuck girl blushes and punches the object of her affection in the arm.