Thursday, July 8, 2021

UPDATED: Tucker Carlson Redux

The revelation that the Tucker Carlson email around which the NSA spying controversy has swirled was part of an attempt by Tucker to arrange to interview Vladimir Putin makes a lot of things more clear.

First of all, the likely scenario now is that, as NSA says, Tucker was not targeted. Rather, Tucker's email came to the attention of analysts because it was directed to someone close to Putin--someone who would be a key intermediary in getting any interview ball rolling. The target wasn't Tucker, per se, but Russian nationals, particularly those close to the Russian leadership.

So far, so good. There's no problem with this. That's well within normal national security bounds.

Where the problems start is with the decision by the Zhou regime to have its agents--NSA, FBI, whoever--leak the contents of Tucker's email to various regime proxy media outlets, i.e., the usual liberal suspects. The strategy, as Tucker explains it, seems to have been that these regime proxies would leak hints that Tucker is somehow a Russian agent. The idea would be that the interview with Putin was to be part of a Russian disinformation op targeting "our democracy"--meaning, Dem political interests. The Dems were probably also trying to devise ways to tie this in to their Domestic War on "Terror" via "Russian hacking".

Even worse, the leaks might hint that Tucker is personally controlled by Putin--just like Trump, doncha know. The Dems and their media proxies haven't yet taken to referring to Putin as Vlad The Impaler, but short of that Putin is the all purpose Boogey Man that Dems think they can use to hoodwink conservatives, destroy Tucker's credibility, and keep their own base enmeshed in a world of conspiracy theories.

So, where do things stand?

Obviously we have a glimpse in this of just how concerned Dems have become over Tucker's standing with the American public. The decision to take this risky step could not have been lightly decided upon. Not unless Zhou himself was in charge, but in that case his handlers would have stepped in. The presumption has to be that Zhou's handlers were involved at every step of the process.

From a legal standpoint, the Zhou regime is on very thin ice. The Executive Branch's broad national security surveillance powers under the constitution--powers that the federal courts have always affirmed, despite later institution of the FISA regime--were never intended for domestic political use. The argument that Tucker is an agent in a foreign disinformation op targeting the American public is, factually, pretty threadbare. This is especially the case given that key First Amendment rights are directly implicated. Not only Tucker's personal Free Speech rights but also the freedom of the "press" stand to be chilled by this type of covert government activity, utilizing highly intrusive powers that are reserved for national security matters. This involvement of the Intel agencies in domestic politics and media control is exactly the type of activity that should be controlled by prosecution under theories of attacks on the constitutional rights of citizens.

It seems to me that Tucker has played this exactly right, especially by seizing the initiative and getting the jump on the Zhou regime's plans. Key is that Tucker appears to have a source within the regime's media circle of influence--not just within NSA. That means that if this matter should ever wind up in court, Tucker might well be in a position to prove the actual leak, as well as the anti-constitutional motive for the leak. Further, Tucker actually possesses the text of his own email. He can choose when to reveal it, how much--if anything--to redact, and so forth. That's his ace in the hole. By seizing the initiative Tucker has changed the dynamics of this tawdry plot against him. If and when he reveals his email, it will not be a response to some ginned up regime/media "outrage". He will be on the attack, rather than on the defensive.

All in all, Tucker has done very well by seizing the moral high ground. My guess is that this could well turn out to be an own goal by the Zhou regime and its IC and media proxies. Tucker will end up with enhanced standing before the American public and the authoritarian designs of the Dems will be further confirmed and exposed.  Senate and House appearances by NSA and FBI officials could become very messy. Trump will also weigh in at some point. Could be a very happy ending.

UPDATE: I know, I'm a bit behind things, but ...

Tucker did a brilliant job last night:


  1. So if I email someone in Russia, who happens to be close to Putin, NSA can monitor my communications? Sounds like madness to me. Tucker seizing the initiative notwithstanding, NSA/CIA/FBI/DOJ have been running roughshod over our liberties for longer than most of us imagine. Early justification was that we'd give up a bit of our privacy in order to save ourselves from a terror attack. What do we do when the terrorists work for the U.S. government?

    1. You need to read what I write and think about it.

      The NSA basically collects ALL collectible communications--I've said this many times. However, it doesn't actively target everyone in the world. They DO target, by means of database search software, for example, the communications of foreign leaders, and especially foreign leaders of "hostile foreign powers," such as Russia and China.

      Does that seem like madness to you? It doesn't seem like madness to me.

      Nor did this start with FISA or the Patriot Act, as so many seem to think. Federal courts have ALWAYS given the Executive Branch broad discretion in conducting national security surveillance. Strange as this may seem to you, FISA was intended as a restraint on that discretion. I've published lengthy commentary on all this.

      The problem is with the use of this technology in the domestic political sphere.

    2. "Federal courts have ALWAYS given the Executive Branch broad discretion in conducting national security surveillance."
      No sh*t (as long as it's not weaponized vs. USPERs)!
      Had courts ever done otherwise, guys like Goldwater would've raised holy hell, with good reason.
      I usually have much regard for "libertarian" arguments, but on this one, I'm aghast.

      A better "libertarian" argument, on fear of the use of this technology in the domestic political sphere, would be that we should now admit, that our methods of oversight of these powers have shown themselves to be so feeble, that this traditional broad discretion must now get a hugely harder look, than courts were ever willing to entertain.

    3. The difference from the past is that the US has morphed into a full blown national security state. That doesn't mean that everything NSA does is somehow illegit, but it means that things are out of control from the standpoint of anything that could have been envisioned in accordance with the constitution.

    4. "..things are out of control from the standpoint of anything that could have been envisioned in accordance with the constitution."

      Exactly. Sundance is doing a multi-part writeup on what he calls the 'fourth branch of government.' Worth reading, I believe.

    5. Please--this isn't gonna be his 26th republication of his James Wolfe piece, is it?

    6. Alas, he does bring up Wolfe.

    7. The James Wolfe episode is the example that Sundance uses to illustrate the willing collusion between the I.C. and the elected representatives (Senate SSIC) who are charged with oversight of the I.C. It is an excellent example for most folks who aren't as researched as you because so much of it was revealed to the public, yet the underlying corruption / collusion was conveniently omitted from most public articles about Wolfe..

  2. Replies
    1. Watch the "Everything wrong ..." video.

      It explains why the Democrat leadership is determined to conduct an investigation of the "Insurrection". The major reason is to hide the facts from the public.

      I think the guys in the video are FBI members.

    2. The FBI knows that Ashli Babbitt was not killed.

      The FBI knows who the guys in the video are.

    3. The FBI has involved itself in this stupendously stupid fakery, because the FBI knows that the 2020 election was stolen.

    4. The guys in the video are guys who were infiltrated into Oath Keepers by the FBI.

    5. Ashli Babbitt was not killed?
      You mean, she's in a Witness Prot. Program, or what?

  3. Any chance RICO can be used to go after rogue intelligence agencies?

    1. This RICO business is something else I've gone over too many times to count. Anyway, the NSA and the FBI are not "rogue" intel agencies--not in this Tucker case. They are operating with the full approval of the Resident. Or, rather, with the full approval of the Resident's handlers.

    2. Then the expansion of their power to coordinate with the media and the prog/communists to persecute half the country will continue unabated.

  4. Hmmmm...just spitballing here but nowadays everyone and everything is suspect and nothing is what it seems.

    In that vein, is it within the realm of possibility that the Oligarchy wants Tucker rehabilitated in the eyes of patriots? Afterall we know that a large number of patriots stopped watching or listening to Tucker after his disgraceful performance covering The Steal. Not to mention Fox's collusion with the Oligarchy in suppressing news on the fraud and certain Wuflu stories.

    Might it serve the oligarch's interests to restore Tucker's rep as a hero of the Trumpers for later use in some psy op or other info war they have planned? Does anyone believe that Tucker says anything that isn't pre approved by Fox? So everything he says must be scrutinized and what he *doesn't* say.


    1. I don't believe that for a moment.

    2. After viewing its falling ratings, Fox has apparently gotten religion and swung right. Harris Faulkner is all-out anti-Biden these days and can be rather (deservedly) harsh with the Dem guests who try to push their prog propaganda. Their Outnumbered panel program, which we don’t watch, is most often made up of all righties. The occasional leftie (like the insufferable Leslie Marshall) get a rough time… Ratings (and sponsors/money) do talk!

    3. Faulkner has long been a real asset to Fox, for being usually quite fair (by MSM standards), w/o being pigeonholed as an ideologue.

  5. Tucker has the largest anti administration megaphone right now.

    Trump’s ability to reach the public has been reduced as much as the Democrats and their big tech / media allies can do.

    There is a history of basically no consequences for the Trump spying and unmasking. And enough Russia Collusion FUD was deployed that most Americans are still confused on what happened. Based on this, I can see why those targeting Tucker thought the risk low.

    The us Press is already at a 29% trust level. What impact will this spying have?


  6. UPDATE: The NSA Leaked Details of Their Tucker Carlson Surveillance to Allied Deep State Media

    This is a great example of how the Intelligence Branch of the U.S. government now operates. Not only did the NSA conduct surveillance of Tucker Carlson’s electronic communication, but the NSA also leaked Carlson’s emails to allied intelligence media (Axios, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post) who operate as PR firms on behalf of the Intelligence Branch.

    Video of Tucker interview this morning by Maria Bartiromo is included in article.

  7. Amusing!

    Check Out All The Blue Check Morons Who Swore The Corrupt Intel Community Would Never Spy On Tucker Carlson

    Instead of questioning or expressing outrage at the NSA, blue checkmarks banded together to write Carlson off as a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

    The Federalist

  8. Earlier I posted a CTH article on Tucker and his appearance on Maria Bartiromo’s morning program. I failed to notice the date. It was yesterday, not today. The video is in the article, however.