Tucker Carlson about the JFKA

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Cory Santos said:

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

Did you?  I was too busy screwing up the coffee maker.  Had to clean up a couple of cups pooled on the floor.

[Cory Santos]

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

Did you?  I was too busy screwing up the coffee maker.  Had to clean up a couple of cups pooled on the floor.

Really?   I didn’t catch that.   Yeah during script discussion I mentioned that but of course all credit to you for your new catchphrase you created.  Even better then “fanboy”.  

[Cliff Varnell]

6 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Really?   I didn’t catch that.   Yeah during script discussion I mentioned that but of course all credit to you for your new catchphrase you created.  Even better then “fanboy”.  

I can only take credit for the context — students of JFK who allow their love for the man blind them to the mistakes he made regarding the Bay of Pigs, the partition of Laos, and the overthrow of Diem.

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

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If it somehow is not obvious in 2022 that the traditional political party distinctions are no longer applicable and it is simply about division to prevent a return to non-globalist, Constitutional based rule, with many globalist criminals on BOTH sides of the spectrum,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.  

 

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...

 

Ditto. I may disagree with you on this or that minor point, but love your post. 

Somewhat related: "Trade Wars are Class Wars" book by Michael Pettis. Not a polemic, despite the title, and not even overbearingly "left wing." Just an honest assessment of how "free trade" really works. 

(Short answer: Decrease labor share of income and subsidize exports). 

Another viewpoint never, ever heard in the M$M. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I generally liked what Roger wrote, then I got to this part.

Roger: 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."

 

All you here who believe  Tucker's clip was revolutionary like Ben( who ranks it next to Eisenhower's MIC speech and Trump first walking down  the escalator) and believe he does have an "undisclosed source" who has seen the hidden files and says he "believes" that the CIA killed JFK.

Does it a ultimately matter to you if there is a source? Will you 1) be disappointed if there is no followup and you never hear from Tucker again about these files? or 2) will you love him all the more  because he's venting things you've always wanted to hear?

[Bob Ness]

14 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

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.

On what planet were these anonymous? Just checking because almost none of it was.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Matthew Koch]

23 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

On what planet were these anonymous? Just checking because almost none of it was.

 

Most of the Reporting on the Russia Collusion (Hoax) was based on anonymous sources 

https://observer.com/2016/12/mainstream-media-outlets-cite-anonymous-sources-who-believe-it-was-russia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/accusations-russian-government-cyberespionage-u-s-election-1.3900325

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/11/21/james-laporta-associated-press-poland-russia-missile/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-anonymous-sources-are-worth-paying-attention-to/

 

Ukraine Impeachment had an unnamed source for the Quid Pro Quo Impeachment on Ukraine. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764071379/read-house-intel-releases-whistleblower-complaint-on-trump-ukraine-call

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/10/politics/whistleblower-complaint-corroboration/

Here is Ran Paul talking about the unnamed whistle blower. 

 

 

Watch: Rand Paul Names Suspected ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella in Senate Speech https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/02/04/watch-rand-paul-names-suspected-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-in-senate-speech/

 

[John Cotter]

Those who think Tucker Carlson is the devil incarnate might reflect on the Lebanese proverb, "If you get a hair from the devil, that's net profit".

[Joe Bauer]

Just now, John Cotter said:

Those who think Tucker Carlson is the devil incarnate might reflect on the Lebanese proverb, "If you get a hair from the devil, that's net profit".

JC

Please excuse my lameness ... but I just don't get the above quote.

 

[John Cotter]

12 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

JC

Please excuse my lameness ... but I just don't get the above quote.

 

I understand it to mean that Tucker Carlson's alleged sins and character flaws are irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of what he says.

[Matt Allison]

Tucker Carlson's confirmed sins and character flaws are relevant if it means the opinion he posits turns off those that most need to be enlightened.

Carlson's audience is MAGA nutjobs and wannabe fascists; they already believe any conspiracy theory any rando chooses to float.

[Bob Ness]

57 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

 

Most of the Reporting on the Russia Collusion (Hoax) was based on anonymous sources 

https://observer.com/2016/12/mainstream-media-outlets-cite-anonymous-sources-who-believe-it-was-russia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/accusations-russian-government-cyberespionage-u-s-election-1.3900325

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/11/21/james-laporta-associated-press-poland-russia-missile/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-anonymous-sources-are-worth-paying-attention-to/

 

Ukraine Impeachment had an unnamed source for the Quid Pro Quo Impeachment on Ukraine. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764071379/read-house-intel-releases-whistleblower-complaint-on-trump-ukraine-call

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/10/politics/whistleblower-complaint-corroboration/

Here is Ran Paul talking about the unnamed whistle blower. 

 

 

Watch: Rand Paul Names Suspected ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella in Senate Speech https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/02/04/watch-rand-paul-names-suspected-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-in-senate-speech/

 

Oh stop it. He was on national TV asking Russia to find Hil's emails. Junior was texting about a meeting at Trump tower. That's all they needed. The Ukraine stuff was also well known as Trump himself held up the aid and explained why. 

When McCain leaked the Steele dosier Steele himself disavowed the accuracy as it was a draft report that wasn't entirely vetted. I knew it at the time as did others paying attention but eventually it gained steam and let's face it, if it were 100% true nobody would be surprised. And the Republicans certainly wouldn't object considering what we see from them now regarding 1/6.

As far as Tucker's quoting an unnamed source, I don't have a big problem with that. It all factors
into my judgment about the veracity of any of his reporting, which is to say I can sort through what he says and decide from there. It's safe to say I believe his concern about the subject is larded with the current RW need to eviscerate the bureaucrats in federal agencies all over who saved us from the Red Clown. Hopefully he goes down in flames permanently and if so, we can thank them not the spineless Republican politicians who lick his boots.

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Bob Ness

[James DiEugenio]

I don't have it John, they did not send it to me. Its likely on You TUbe.

[Benjamin Cole]

Seems to me people at angry at...Tucker Carlson? 

1. Anger should be vented first at President Job Biden, who happens to be a Donk, for cravenly and stupidly caving into CIA pressure to keep records secret after 60 years. (Trump did the same thing, but Biden is President now, and this is news now). 

2. Secondly, you might angered that center-left corporatist news coverage has become so worthless in the last 10 years, deeply (and unabashedly) coopted by the intel state. MSNBC-CNN: "Let's ask John Brennan and Jen Psaski the right way to frame this JFK Records story." President Joe Biden, who 100% responsible presently for CIA secrecy regarding the JFKA...has suddenly disappeared off the map (I mean, more than usual, which is saying something).

3. Then you might take a crack at Tucker Carlson, for telling the truth (Carlson has laid the murder of JFK at the feet of the CIA, where it likely belongs) but having an agenda. Maybe Carlson just wants to make Biden look weak and craven, which certainly true in regards to the JFK records. (Though actually, Carlson most aggressively goes after Pompeo and Brennan, and leaves Biden out of it). 

Dudes: The story is not Carlson. The story what Carlson has laid out: The CIA murdered JFK, and/or covered up the truth. And you are angry at Carlson? 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I generally liked what Roger wrote, then I got to this part.

Roger: 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."

 

All you here who believe  Tucker's clip was revolutionary like Ben( who ranks it next to Eisenhower's MIC speech and Trump first walking down  the escalator) and believe he does have an "undisclosed source" who has seen the hidden files and says he "believes" that the CIA killed JFK.

Does it a ultimately matter to you if there is a source? Will you 1) be disappointed if there is no followup and you never hear from Tucker again about these files? or 2) will you love him all the more  because he's venting things you've always wanted to hear?

Kirk,

    I'm a progressive Democrat who has always despised Tucker Carlson and Fox News, but I do believe that he has a legitimate CIA source, as he claims, and I also believe that his recent commentary about the CIA and the JFK assassination is historic, and valuable.  No M$M talking head in history has been willing to say on national television what Carlson just said.

   (Dan Rather must be sh*tting in his shorts-- after spending his career at CBS deliberately repeating lies about what happened in Dealey Plaza.)

     Do you think Carlson is lying about his alleged CIA source?

    I don't know what Tucker Carlson's motives are for this rather shocking outburst of M$M honesty about the CIA's involvement in murdering JFK and covering up the evidence for 59 years, but I'm grateful for it.

   There's too much all-or-nothing thinking around here--i.e., a notion that everything Tucker Carlson says is either horse manure or gospel.