Tucker Carlson about the JFKA

[Lori Spencer]

6 hours ago, Rob Couteau said:

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but a few years ago Rachel Maddow did a show on gun control (after the latest mass murder tragedy) and opened the story by saying that if we'd had better gun control in the Sixties, Lee Harvey Oswald would not have been able to assassinate JFK. NIce big mugshot of Lee opening the segment. That was the moment I stopped watching Rachel Maddow.

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. 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

The problem is I'm unaware of Tucker Carlson knowing a single person well-versed in the details of the JFKA.

Neither Pompeo or Trump or Michael Flynn would know the first thing about where to look for clues about a previously unknown aspect of the assassination story. So if one of them is his anonymous "source", it's easy to see why he would hide that.

Tucker Carlson deceives without compunction, and odds are that's exactly what happened with his segment. As mentioned above, he's down for anything that slams the intelligence community, whom he views as an impediment to his desire for white authoritarian rule in the United States.

No thanks.

Matt:

You have Tucker Carlson under 24/7 surveillance? Wiretapped?

How would know anything at all about Carlson's sources? 

Carlson is a nationally prominent newsman, who has voiced mounting suspicions about the national intel state for years. 

The Dec. 15 President Biden decision was pending, and everyone knew it. 

It is certainly possible that a CIA asset or officer, who had seen certain documents, to discreetly approach Carlson. 

I wish the source had been disclosed also.

The source may even be Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, who has been making increasingly concrete public statements lately. 

I just wish the corporatist Donk-left media was not totally coopted by the security state. 

 

 

[Lori Spencer]

Whoever Tuck's source is, I sure as hell hope those quotes were not said over text, email, or phone.

Only way to truly protect the source is to have that conversation face-to-face, in a secluded space, with absolutely no electronic devices in the vicinity -- and to take notes the old fashioned way, on paper. 

Don't call me paranoid...Ed Snowden told ya 10 years ago. There's no such thing a private electronic conversation. 

[Anthony Thorne]

Does it matter if they were sent over text, email or phone?

I'm not sure if the intelligence agencies will be all that surprised to see people doubting the official story, even high up government folk. I'm sure plenty have doubted it in the past.

They'd be more bothered if Tucker's source bothered to go on camera, or put his or her name to the assertion. But since that hasn't happened, they can just shrug, chuckle, and ask Phil Shenon to write up some more bullshit explaining away the week's inconvenient news headlines.

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour 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. 

You hit the nail on the head, Lori, They were trying to make you think that when they the passed the gun control law, that all murder would end. But that was all part of their ingenious plan.  I think the people in California who passed the gun control bill in California were the ones behind the assassination of RFK!

And I'm from California!

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Carlson is a nationally prominent newsman

He is nothing of the sort.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/

According to Judge Vyskocil, “Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements he makes." 

[Lori Spencer]

Tucker did a follow-up report tonight on the JFK Files, and once again knocked it out of the ballpark. (His guest was Larry Schnapf!)

Two nights in a row. Wow. That's pretty rare. Most news networks hit the story once and move on...

Larry did a great job. Loved the way he dangled the NBC Walter Sheridan subpoena story out there, knowing Tucker would be intrigued and take the bait. Now the whole world knows that the Dept. of Justice REFUSED to serve that subpoena on NBC. 

(Be sure to catch the teaser @24:21 where Tucker strongly reiterates that the CIA Killed JFK; segment starts @28:53)

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Lori Spencer
fixed timestamps

[Matt Allison]

 

[Lori Spencer]

1 minute ago, Matt Allison said:

 

How does the Russo-Ukranian war relate to this thread?

[Matt Allison]

Right-wingers trying to launder Tucker Carlson's reputation by reframing him as some sort of truth-seeker?

Nope. Not gonna happen.

I'm glad he had Lawrence on his show. I'm glad he asked for Pompeo to come on two nights in a row.

Doesn't change who he really is.

[Lori Spencer]

17 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Right-wingers trying to launder Tucker Carlson's reputation by reframing him as some sort of truth-seeker?

Nope. Not gonna happen.

I'm glad he had Lawrence on his show. I'm glad he asked for Pompeo to come on two nights in a row.

Doesn't change who he really is.

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.)

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Lori Spencer
added video link

[Matt Allison]

Here's a FWIW for you:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/689969/tucker-carlson-tried-join-cia

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Lori Spencer said:

Can't we set partisan politics aside and give credit where it's due?

I have said many times that the terms left and right now only serve one purpose, so sort us into opposing camps. They are redundant. Its possible for either party to come up with good and bad policies. There are a good and evil politicians on both sides. 
 

We need to take ourselves out of this paradigm, or tunnel vision. And just critically think. 
 

As for Tucker, he deserves massive credit here. That doesn’t mean I think he is a great guy or that I idolise him. He is indeed tackling issues that may be injurious to him and his career. He isn’t afraid to speak up. I do think he loves America. Some here have pointed out that he is worth a fortune, therefore implying that he is the corrupt elite. The flipside is, he doesn’t need to work. Something motivates him to get up and go in the morning. We all need meaning in our lives. I am certain he has made lots of mistakes, like all of us, he is imperfect. This moment is pretty seminal.

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

Tucker did a follow-up report tonight on the JFK Files, and once again knocked it out of the ballpark. (His guest was Larry Schnapf!)

Two nights in a row. Wow. That's pretty rare. Most news networks hit the story once and move on...

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?

Edited December 17, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Kirk Gallaway]

Interesting Greg! That's what I have been thinking. That according to Carlson the remaining files haven't been tampered with, and there's enough evidence there that Carlson's source "believes" the CIA was involved, and yet we were told by Tunheim there was no smoking gun..