Tucker Carlson about the JFKA

[Joe Bauer]

If anyone here has ever felt Wag The Dog/Faux News poster boy Tucker Carlson has done any to much to a massive amount of damage to our society in 20 years of divisive, demonizing and deceptive broadcasting to a huge national audience 5 nights a week,

I ask you...how can you even think that this one weird CIA involved take on the JFK event by him is worthy of instantly dismissing his entire career of divisive hate, anger, doubt, mistrust, democracy damaging propaganda and portraying him now as some kind of truth and justice seeking hero?

To me Carlson is still the constitutional equal rights attacking and totally self-serving upper class oligarchy favoring and defending, journalistic ethics antithesis scoundrel he always was and his.

This one odd quirky broadcast by Carlson ( that will soon be apathetically ignored and forgotten by the general public ) does not and should not absolve this guy's lifetime of American democracy damage in any way ... imo anyways.

If Carlson came on and said he believed UFO's are real and extra-terrestrial and ET's are real, it would create a temporary stir like his JFK/CIA shtick as well. Yet, again, the general public would be numbed to this soon after through all the means that have been used to create that societal reactive numbness for decades.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Larry Schnapf is decent, but back to Tucker Carlson: tonight he changed his reporting of the allegation of his anonymous source. Yesterday (the first night of his reporting on the anonymous source) he identified the source as someone who has seen the withheld documents and says the CIA killed Kennedy. No claim that the documents said that. Represented as the source saying that but with no specific evidence claimed other than source's claim or belief.

Well that changes tonight. Starting at 29:18 Tucker Carlson: "We spoke to someone who had access to the documents who said that they showed the CIA was directly involved in the murder of an American president. If that's not true someone should correct us but no one has."

Well, a contributing factor to why no one contacted Tucker Carlson to refute that claim at the time he uttered these sentences might be because this is the first time Tucker Carlson reported that claim--that the documents "showed the CIA was directly involved in the murder of an American president". In other words, Tucker Carlson makes an even more sensational allegation than last night (last night was merely a claim of an anonymous source stating a personal claim or opinion; tonight for the first time the claim is that the source says the documents say that). Then asks why a claim that had first been made about 3 seconds ago has not yet been corrected by any agency if its not true.

Tonight's claim runs counter to reported claims--unanimous so far as I have heard--that those who have seen the withheld files have said there are no smoking guns, etc. there. That may or may not ultimately be true--who knows--but that is the claim from on-the-record named persons who have seen the withheld files--such as Judge Tunheim--and there has been no prior claim from anyone who has seen the withheld files that those files "showed the CIA was directly involved in the murder of an American president".

But Tucker Carlson's mystery source, completely counter to Judge Tunheim and others--according to Tucker Carlson (tonight) says differently.

And he didn't say that yesterday. Just didn't get this phrasing right last night to say that directly, as he did tonight. He phrases it tonight as if he is repeating what was said yesterday, but its not only repeating, its a new bombshell (if true), well beyond what he said yesterday.

It seems clear that Tucker Carlson reads from prepared written script (a few seconds earlier he seems to stumble over reading a word). There are staff writers and editors, people who deal in words. Therefore it is difficult to believe this difference in wording and meaning between last night and tonight is accident or carelessness. And the source is anonymous. Claiming something nobody else who has seen the same withheld files has said is there. Why anonymous? Why the change in reporting what the source claimed from last night to tonight? Why the rhetoric noting that tonight's new incendiary claim has not yet been denied by the CIA a whole three seconds after it was first uttered on national television?

As interesting as is the issue of the facts is the question of what kind of game Carlson is rolling out. How much mileage and traction will Carlson get out of an anonymous source with a highly questionable and unverified allegation? Will it gain traction and result in the anonymous source's revelation of some stunning document disclosure that the credible Judge Tunheim just missed and overlooked? Or will it end with some Pulitzer-award-winning five-part expose investigative journalism series in the New York Times going into the background and fact-checking showing the whole thing was equal parts con and delusion, and intelligent people thereafter will forever associate "oh that's what Tucker Carlson's secret source claimed, and its discredited" against some diehard true believers who will defend the discredited story (and some PR firm which ran the thing laughing themselves hoarse all the way to the bank)? Which is the more likely way this story will play out if it takes traction?

Funny, people like you didn't have a problem with this kind of "anonymous" reporting about Trump and Russia or with the failed Ukraine quid pro quo Impeachment.

Robert F Kennedy Jr who appears regularly on his Tucker Carlson called it the most courages news cast in 60yrs. Tucker  has an audience of around 3.5 - 4.5 Million people. I assume the secret source is someone like Steven Miller. You wrote this about Tucker on the MSNBC thread and it says more about how biased your are imo, who needs Cointel pro when people say this about MSNBC but say what you did about Tucker.. 

 

Yes. Excellent msnbc segment. 

I agree with you on Tucker Carlson. He is a bad one. He quotes an anonymous source who thinks the CIA was involved, without any claim that the anonymous source has specific evidence upon which to base that. Then Carlson turns that into a statement of fact that the CIA did it. (The point here is not whether the CIA was involved but Carlson's epistemology, the Alex Jones Sandy Hook kind of reasoning.) Then Carlson ends by saying something like "the same people who are covering up this are (the Biden administration) running the war in Ukraine ..."

It is news that Carlson is weaponizing JFK CIA-conspiracy theory on the right. Not doing so as a responsible journalist but in Alex Jones-level reasoning. There are a couple of possible ways to interpret this, some of which you and Kirk have mentioned. One could be "getting in front of the base"--that stunning poll announced in the MFF press conference in which across the board--Dem and Republican, ages, CT and LN alike--across the board 70% of Americans want full disclosure. And 50% of Americans believe the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a criminal conspiracy and not by Oswald acting alone. 

Therefore my antenna says, if it comes from Carlson it is by definition suspect. It matters very much who his anonymous source is. Is that source--if and when the name becomes known (it probably will be at some point)--is the source legit, or itself a spook operation? Why did Carlson's source go to Carlson? Why did the source allow himself or herself to be quoted, but not named? Why did this source not reveal any specifics undergirding the sensational allegation that the CIA did it? 

As you and Kirk have mentioned, Carlson is the #1 figure of right-wing media which is just filled with the worst kinds of industrial-strength, oligarch-funded conspiracy theories in the negative sense which have nothing to do with the JFK assassination. This is a culture in which something like 50-plus percent of Trump supporters still doubt former president Barack Obama was born in America. It is a culture of all sorts of nonsense, spun and weaponized. 

MSNBC and Scarborough is light-years better as a more intelligent argument for the release of the documents and skepticism toward the received story of the JFK assassination than Tucker Carlson. Don't let Carlson "own" this and weaponize it for right-wing purposes. Don't buy what Carlson is selling until Carlson produces the source, the source states evidence or reasons, and the source explains why Carlson was the outlet of choice. 

I remember long ago in the 2004 Democratic primary campaign. Al Sharpton of New York was one of the candidates for the nomination, and his campaign was in deep financial trouble. Some of the most hard-right amoral Republican operatives joined forces with Sharpton, with Sharpton's consent, helping fund and run Sharpton's campaign. Articles have been written about this, it is no secret. They did this, so it was said, in order to divide Democrats generally and more specifically to weaken Hillary Clinton in internecine warfare in New York in her upcoming Senate run. Sharpton accepted it because the funding and help they gave his campaign was real despite their not believing a word of Sharpton's campaign positions. And despite their assistance and funding there was no sign I ever saw that they ever tried to control what Sharpton said--Sharpton was still Sharpton, no change there.

I don't know why that came to mind.

Anonymous source ... Tucker Carlson ... until and unless proven otherwise I would assume the worst here. In agreement with you and Kirk. 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Matthew Koch

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

For what it's worth, Matt, I'm about as far to the left as you can get. Hell, I'm almost a communist lol. Certainly not a right-winger. But I've been following Tucker's work for 25 years and have nothing but respect for him as a journalist. He really is a truth-seeker (Republicans can seek truth, too) -- which is what every journalist worth their salt should be. 

Maybe if he didn't work at Fox News, you'd like his reports on JFK better? If he worked at MSNBC you'd probably be cheering him for "speaking truth to power!"

I mean, the guy just smashed the CIA two nights in a row! He brought this important issue to the attention of a gigantic audience. RFK's son Bobby Jr. -- also a liberal -- called it "the most courageous newscast in 60 years." 

Can't we set partisan politics aside and give credit where it's due? Tucker just did our community a tremendous service. Two nights in a row. 

Tucker's interest in the Kennedy case isn't new. He's done many reports about it over the years, including this powerful interview with RFK Jr. from 2018. (The full interview was 10 minutes; unfortunately the only version I could find on YouTube was edited by the network to less than 4 minutes, but it's still quite good.)

 

Lori--

I agree, we are discussing Tucker Carlson's extraordinary reporting and commentary on the JFK Record secrecy (now extended by the President Biden).

Carlson has spoken more strongly and effectively regarding the JFKA, and more clearly laid the body at the CIA's doorstep, than any M$M journalist ever.

Carlson is calling out Brennan and Pompeo directly.

Carlson may have views on other topics that I, or you, or the next person do not agree with. So what? 

Like you, I have many "left wing" views. I probably support national health care (if it could be efficiently run), would cut military outlays in half, would phase out the VA, and would implement universal conscription. No more mercenary military. I could go on. But so what? 

Carlson is not a globalist, and I generally agree with him on those issues, but again, it does matter. 

If the left-wing is so upset at Carlson's extraordinary reporting, and think he has a hidden agenda, let them stop sniveling, and do better! 

But the CNN, MSNBC'ers are relying on the Brennans and the Biden White House for cues what to say. Jen Psaki is helping to guide coverage. 

[Matthew Koch]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can you link to it and set up a URL Matt.

The JFK Segment Starts at the 29:00 min mark. 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

CNN and NBC are no better than FOX. They are two sides of the same coin, designed to divide us.

 

I don't see anything wrong with these channels dividing left and right. We are already divided and these channels give political newbies the opportunity to see which side they tend to agree on.

The problem I have is how loose Fox News is with the truth. At least MSNBC tries to keep it honest.

(Earlier Cory Santos posted Lawrence O'Donnell apologizing for a mistake he'd made... as if that one instance of a MISTAKE made on MSNBC is suppose to compensate for the commonplace LYING that takes place on Fox.)

 

[Paul Cummings]

10 pages of thread with Tucker Carlson. pffft

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

Yup. Just a reminder that California Governor Ronald Reagan signed the nation's first gun control law in 1967 (the so-called "Black Panthers" bill) -- BEFORE the federal gun control bill of 1968 -- and it didn't do a damn thing to prevent the assassination of RFK in California a year later. 

 

I doubt that either Ronald Reagan or the sponsors of the bill expected the law to prevent all gun killings.

 

[Dennis Berube]

2 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

MSNBC and Scarborough is light-years better as a more intelligent argument for the release of the documents and skepticism toward the received story of the JFK assassination than Tucker Carlson. Don't let Carlson "own" this and weaponize it for right-wing purposes.

I suspected this forum would be in a frenzy after Tucker aired that segment. It never ceases to amaze me how serious students of this case can have an attitude that completely misses the moment and drags us back into the same situation we have been stuck in.

If it somehow is not obvious in 2022 that the traditional political party distinctions are no longer applicable and it is simply about division to prevent a return to non-globalist, Constitutional based rule, with many globalist criminals on BOTH sides of the spectrum, then I do not know how you can effectively analyze politics. Statements like the above are a perfect example. The Democratic party is not a safe heaven for democracy or the republic any more than the republican one. In the last 2 years, that point has been made painfully clear. With the Twitter files release, the entire Trump administration needs to be re-evaluated in light of the absolute disgrace of "left wing" (really extreme right imo) reporting and social discourse regarding Russia and Trump and of course the Covid/vaccine operation which is finally unraveling. 

The critical and most amazing thing to me about Tucker's segment was that he took a pivotal event from 60 years ago that most of his audience likely knew little about and in a little over 7 minutes delivered a perspective that should've made anyone who saw it think outside of the R vs L spectrum and more towards a USA/country one. He provided an avenue of political explanation that is NEVER presented on television. To try and decry that because it came from someone who you previously dissliked is political immaturity to the extreme and misguided. 

Gold is where you find it, not where you want it to be.  

 

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If the left-wing is so upset at Carlson's extraordinary reporting, and think he has a hidden agenda, let them stop sniveling, and do better! 

A proper attitude! I believe JIm said somewhere in this thread that it is interesting that the "right wing" talks more openly about this case on tv than the "left", I agree. My opinion is that certain elements on the so-called "right" have come to the realization that we have a Turtles all the way down situation in terms of big lies in this country. The reasons for this are debatable, but there is no doubt that the Trump era and covid operation heavily influenced their willingness to have shows like Tucker's. There were simply too many big and Goebbelian-like false stories pushed by the corporate left in the last 10 years while they have ignored the truly important ones like always. For many, like Tulsi Gabbard, it started in earnest with the Syrian operation under Obama. Now, we see that all of the biggest tech corporations and slimy elements of our "national security" apparatus are essentially one and the same, true fascism, not the empty, name calling, political point grabbing type. It's sad to see so many well intentioned people somehow believe the same essential overt ideology as the FBI and DoD, who obviously don't share the ultimate outcome desired, but that is the case.

In a lot of ways, we are in the period (30 BC ish) where Augustus is still called Octavian and has just defeated Antony. Instead of a single ruler, we have an international crime syndicate, but the moment, I believe, is similiar in terms of control going forward. If we allow this crime syndicate unquestioned control as it is currently attempting to do (some would argue this happened in 1963 or at least before 2001), than we risk slipping into a potentially permanent highly technically advanced Roman empire. In this context, criticizing someone who, regardless of ultimate motive, says that we need to re-evaluate the concept of our government of the last 60 years is folly and harmful. As RFK Jr said, that was one of the most important broadcasts on national tv in 60 years.

But, in spite of everything, there are still some who call the national expose of a right wing conspiracy to kill a left wing President, a right wing weaponization for political purposes! The forces that took control in 1963, have maintained their system of control ever since and are now attempting to essentially eliminate the paper remains of the republic, are VERY much right wing ideologues thinly disguised as progressive globalists. I do not care what Tucker said in 2007, his reporting since 2020 (as far as I can tell, I rarely watch his show) has been light years above the DoD/Gates/Pfizer sponsored psy op drivel everywhere else, including other Fox shows. We live in an extreme time, waiting for the pure angel of truth to suddenly appear and deliver harmony is a recipe for disaster. If that segment was aired by Rachael Maddow (lol), there would be a poriton of the "right" that would react the same way that some on the left have to Tucker, they would be wrong to do so as well. Rise above the emotional control bait...

 

[Roger Odisio]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Larry Schnapf is decent, but back to Tucker Carlson: tonight he changed his reporting of the allegation of his anonymous source. Yesterday (the first night of his reporting on the anonymous source) he identified the source as someone who has seen the withheld documents and says the CIA killed Kennedy. No claim that the documents said that. Represented as the source saying that but with no specific evidence claimed other than source's claim or belief.

Well that changes tonight. Starting at 29:18 Tucker Carlson: "We spoke to someone who had access to the documents who said that they showed the CIA was directly involved in the murder of an American president. If that's not true someone should correct us but no one has."

Well, a contributing factor to why no one contacted Tucker Carlson to refute that claim at the time he uttered these sentences might be because this is the first time Tucker Carlson reported that claim--that the documents "showed the CIA was directly involved in the murder of an American president". In other words, Tucker Carlson makes an even more sensational allegation than last night (last night was merely a claim of an anonymous source stating a personal claim or opinion; tonight for the first time the claim is that the source says the documents say that). Then asks why a claim that had first been made about 3 seconds ago has not yet been corrected by any agency if its not true.

Tonight's claim runs counter to reported claims--unanimous so far as I have heard--that those who have seen the withheld files have said there are no smoking guns, etc. there. That may or may not ultimately be true--who knows--but that is the claim from on-the-record named persons who have seen the withheld files--such as Judge Tunheim--and there has been no prior claim from anyone who has seen the withheld files that those files "showed the CIA was directly involved in the murder of an American president".

But Tucker Carlson's mystery source, completely counter to Judge Tunheim and others--according to Tucker Carlson (tonight) says differently.

And he didn't say that yesterday. Just didn't get this phrasing right last night to say that directly, as he did tonight. He phrases it tonight as if he is repeating what was said yesterday, but its not only repeating, its a new bombshell (if true), well beyond what he said yesterday.

It seems clear that Tucker Carlson reads from prepared written script (a few seconds earlier he seems to stumble over reading a word). There are staff writers and editors, people who deal in words. Therefore it is difficult to believe this difference in wording and meaning between last night and tonight is accident or carelessness. And the source is anonymous. Claiming something nobody else who has seen the same withheld files has said is there. Why anonymous? Why the change in reporting what the source claimed from last night to tonight? Why the rhetoric noting that tonight's new incendiary claim has not yet been denied by the CIA a whole three seconds after it was first uttered on national television?

As interesting as is the issue of the facts is the question of what kind of game Carlson is rolling out. How much mileage and traction will Carlson get out of an anonymous source with a highly questionable and unverified allegation? Will it gain traction and result in the anonymous source's revelation of some stunning document disclosure that the credible Judge Tunheim just missed and overlooked? Or will it end with some Pulitzer-award-winning five-part expose investigative journalism series in the New York Times going into the background and fact-checking showing the whole thing was equal parts con and delusion, and intelligent people thereafter will forever associate "oh that's what Tucker Carlson's secret source claimed, and its discredited" against some diehard true believers who will defend the discredited story (and some PR firm which ran the thing laughing themselves hoarse all the way to the bank)? Which is the more likely way this story will play out if it takes traction?

First of all, Greg, no one, including you, knows what documents or information are being withheld by the CIA.  That includes Tunheim who merely said he didn't see any smoking gun in what he had seen so far.  No fair citing him as an authority for your argument that therefore there is nothing important yet to be learned despite the claims of Tucker's source.  

Likewise, of course, no one knows what has been destroyed or altered by the CIA (we know some records that have been identified are "missing") or what actions were not recorded in the first place.

Who should we rely on to give us an accounting of everything the CIA did?  The CIA?

So what documents is Carlson's source talking about when he says they show the CIA was involved?  Whatever they are, were they the sole basis for his conclusion about CIA involvement, whatever that means, or were other things involved?  We don't know. But clearly Carlson is pitching this guy as someone with considerable knowledge  

We don't know who Carlson's source is, or even if he exists.  But read the whole quote of the source again, not just the first part, and it is clear that Carlson is using him to set up his main point of the episode.  After saying the CIA was involved, the source offers his take on what the result of the murder has been:  "It's a whole different country from what we thought it was.  It's all fake."

Consider what this means Carlson says.  Within our government are forces wholly beyond democratic control.  They are more powerful than the elected officials who supposedly oversee them.  They can affect elections and murder Presidents.  In short they can do anything they want.  They mock democracy by their very existence.

Pretty important message isn't it?    

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Consider what this means Carlson says.  Within our government are forces wholly beyond democratic control.  They are more powerful than the elected officials who supposedly oversee them.  They can affect elections and murder Presidents.  In short they can do anything they want.  They mock democracy by their very existence.

Pretty important message isn't it?    

Hugely important. Any person, who claims to support democracy, should think long and hard about it. Its not something exclusive to left or right. 
 

If such entities could get away with slaying the president in broad daylight, they can get away with anything. It’s cloudy thinking to suppose that the JFKA was the only crime against democracy that has taken place. I would suggest the reason it was done, was so that they could do whatever they liked in perpetuity. 

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't see anything wrong with these channels dividing left and right. We are already divided and these channels give political newbies the opportunity to see which side they tend to agree on.

The problem I have is how loose Fox News is with the truth. At least MSNBC tries to keep it honest.

(Earlier Cory Santos posted Lawrence O'Donnell apologizing for a mistake he'd made... as if that one instance of a MISTAKE made on MSNBC is suppose to compensate for the commonplace LYING that takes place on Fox.)

 

Wait if you do not watch Fox, as you said you do not earlier, how do you know that lying is “commonplace” for Fox?   You have no basis.   Unless you are only repeating what someone else told you.   This destroys any credibility on the issue.  

[Cliff Varnell]

Y’all being bamboozled.  

Everyone hypes the remaining documents to the point of talking head hysteria and when those docs do a Capone vault next year the MSM can say —“Nothing to this conspiracy nonsense.”

[Denny Zartman]

5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Y’all being bamboozled

Plymouth Rock didn't land on you, you landed on Plymouth Rock. Or something along those lines. 

[Cliff Varnell]

 

[Cory Santos]

26 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Y’all being bamboozled.  

Everyone hypes the remaining documents to the point of talking head hysteria and when those docs do a Capone vault next year the MSM can say —“Nothing to this conspiracy nonsense.”

Gee I wonder who said that to you yesterday at lunchtime?