Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tucker Carlson about the JFKA


Karl Kinaski

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Do you doubt that Pompeo was involved in reviewing the classified CIA documents that Trump declined to de-classify in October of 2017 and April of 2018?

Maybe he was.

But does anyone really believe a JFK assassination plot was put down on paper and filed away? Despite there being no record of them ever doing that for any other "wet affair"?

Of course not.

So that means someone that knows the case backwards and forwards would have to be the one to have delineated such info from the extant files, and then make the accusation to TC. Mike Pompeo doesn't fit that profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tucker's source would not necessarily have to be in the CIA.

That person could be retired from the CIA but was in on the collection process for the ARRB.

Secondly, this person could know someone in the CIA who was in on that collection process.

BTW, what was the Tunheim announcement today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Apparently, no one was nonplussed by my two posts – quoting NPR, no less – to the effect that Fox’s successful defense in Tucker’s slander case was “You can’t take anything he says seriously. No reasonable person would. He makes stuff up.”

No, I don’t believe he has a credible source for two rather obvious reasons:

1. This is Tucker Carlson. He makes stuff up.

2. Anyone who has seen all the documents would have to be a deep insider at the CIA. No such individual would take anything to Tucker Carlson or Fox News.

The fact that Tucker is getting the publicity he’s getting on this forum, of all places, speaks volumes about the conspiracy community’s desperation to be taken seriously – does it not?

@Kirk GallawayI finally found someone who agrees with your Tucker take, he also has about as good of arguements as you do.. meet @Lance Payette

 

Meanwhile, for the people on the right side of the bell curve.. basically; Fox News requested the case be dismissed do to Tucker's show serving as opinion commentary and not News.

https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news/

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-wins-defamation-lawsuit-after-fox-news-argues-his-viewers-know-watch-his-show-some-1534357

Lance the second part of your #2 is like most of your arguments, which is called grasping at Straws. You need to make a News Years Resolution to not use Logical Fallacies when you craft an argument. The only person I've seen do it better than you is Vincent Bugliosi in his Reclaiming History monstrosity.

 The people here have clearly posted Tucker Carlson and his two segments out of surprise that someone with that large of an audience and is conservative would mention Jolly West and MKULTRA and than lean into the CIA and Mike Pompeo like he did, while reporting on the current release of the files. If you watch his show you know this kind of stuff which is why the left and neo con right like you spend so much trying to project, Qanon on the MAGA people. The other forum people who treat their politics like religion tried to warn the other members not to be seduced by Tucker Carlson's good looks and  pro MAGA, nationalist, conservative, Christian, reactionary, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, white cis male gendered elitist ideas. (Sarcasm Added) 

The source is probably someone like Steven Miller who would have briefed the President, and would have a vested interest in throwing shade at Mike Pompeo. 

 

Edited by Matthew Koch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 4:12 PM, Matthew Koch said:

@Kirk GallawayI finally found someone who agrees with your Tucker take, he also has about as good of arguements as you do.. meet @Lance Payette

 

Meanwhile, for the people on the right side of the bell curve.. basically; Fox News requested the case be dismissed do to Tucker's show serving as opinion commentary and not News.

https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news/

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-wins-defamation-lawsuit-after-fox-news-argues-his-viewers-know-watch-his-show-some-1534357

Lance the second part of your #2 is like most of your arguments, which is called grasping at Straws. You need to make a News Years Resolution to not use Logical Fallacies when you craft an argument. The only person I've seen do it better than you is Vincent Bugliosi in his Reclaiming History monstrosity.

 The people here have clearly posted Tucker Carlson and his two segments out of surprise that someone with that large of an audience and is conservative would mention Jolly West and MKULTRA and than lean into the CIA and Mike Pompeo like he did, while reporting on the current release of the files. If you watch his show you know this kind of stuff which is why the left and neo con right like you spend so much trying to project, Qanon on the MAGA people. The other forum people who treat their politics like religion tried to warn the other members not to be seduced by Tucker Carlson's good looks and  pro MAGA, nationalist, conservative, Christian, reactionary, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, white cis male gendered elitist ideas. (Sarcasm Added) 

The source is probably someone like Steven Miller who would have briefed the President, and would have a vested interest in throwing shade at Mike Pompeo. 

 

Hi

Edited by Lance Payette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

What I linked to and quoted - twice - was an article from National Public Radio that itself quoted the trial judge. I assumed readers wouldn't want to see it a third time, but here you go. People can decide for themselves whether I mischaracterized it

Lance you don't understand the difference between news and punditry? 

Here's a documentary you could use to educate yourself

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Koch said:

Lance you don't understand the difference between news and punditry? 

Here's a documentary you could use to educate yourself

Bye

Edited by Lance Payette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Give it a rest. You aren't going to win this one. BTW, my B.S. degree is in Journalism.

The statements Carlson made were specific and factual, not punditry (and Fox didn't assert any "punditry" defense).

 

The case was over the term extortion but just like the M$M we can't expect Lance to report accurately on the facts at least he made it one post with out saying the word UFO.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 5:40 PM, Matthew Koch said:

 

The case was over the term extortion but just like the M$M we can't expect Lance to report accurately on the facts at least he made it one post with out saying the word UFO.. 

Bye

Edited by Lance Payette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Would the ACTUAL COURT OPINION satisfy you?

Plaintiff claims that at least two statements in this segment are defamatory: (1) Mr. Carlson’s accusation that Ms. McDougal “approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money” and (2) Mr. Carlson’s suggestion that Ms. McDougal actions were “a classic case of extortion,” which is a crime.  Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-20.  Plaintiff submits that Mr. Carlson’s statements were facts, as indicated by his statement: “Remember the facts of the story.  These are undisputed.”  See Episode Transcript; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12, 16, 34.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/

Please, feel free to keep embarrassing yourself, but I'm done with you.

The presstitute is done with me, lol. I'm not a Neo con statist like you are so what the judge says isn't gospel and doesn't really matter given what was argued on court. Thant's two post without mentioning UFO's I'm proud of you Lance.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

No, it was Fox's lawyers and the trial judge who said Tucker makes things up and can't be taken seriously. I'm just the messenger.

Lots of people of a conservative ilk speak to and appear on Fox News. I don't believe someone desiring credibility and taking a potentially very serious legal risk would choose to confide in Tucker Carlson.

Do I believe Pompeo was involved in the review? Obviously. I have enough confidence in his integrity that I don't believe those documents included any JFKA Bombshell or that he would confide in Tucker if they did. For that matter, if they had included a JFKA Bombshell, I'm pretty confident The Donald would've told 200 people before the day was over.

That's a lot of ifs, Lance, considering your original assertion that Tucker Carlson is making up the story about his alleged CIA source.

Among other things, you're over generalizing-- assuming that everything Carlson says is fictitious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

That's a lot of ifs, Lance, considering your original assertion that Tucker Carlson is making up the story about his alleged CIA source.

Among other things, you're over generalizing-- assuming that everything Carlson says is fictitious.

If, if, if.  If if's and but's were candies and nut's we'd all have a Merry Christmas.  Dandy Don. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...