Protecting Tucker’s Source

[Lawrence Schnapf]

There could be a basis to get Whistleblower protection for Tucker's source or congressional immunity if we get an oversight hearing. working on these ideas behind the scenes.  

[Paul Brancato]

49 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I value the Tucker episode and what Tucker said quite a bit, but I'm not sure why there's all this pressure to reveal the ID of the person who said it.

The quote is "I believe they were involved." So it's the opinion of someone in DC, presumably within the government somewhere. This is useful to hear, but you'd have to guess the person who said it doesn't want to do a long on-camera interview about the topic. It'd be an awkward day at work the next morning.

Also "being anonymous is absolutely worthless & beneath all standards of professional journalism" is a bit rich given that mainstream US journalism pretty much copyrighted the phrase "...according to sources familiar with the matter". If I had a dollar every time I read that line over the past half decade, my wallet would be in great shape.

I agree with this. I’d rather see documents than hear from the person who says he’s read them. Revealing the name could result in a follow-on shoot the messenger, end of story. Carlson may have done us a favor by doing his hard hitting piece, but only if Larry is successful in parlaying this opening into bi-partisan Congressional pressure. 

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Please stop your attempts at gatekeeping--what people can say and what they shouldn't be allowed to say.

Isn't that exactly what you're saying to me with that sentence? How ironic.

And I'm not telling people what they can or can't say; I'm pointing out that we don't need NINE different Tucker Carlson threads. He's not the subject of this board. Merge them all into one and say whatever you want. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Matt Allison
there were even more than I thought

[Tom Gram]

Morley and Zaid are doing this cause they think Carlson’s source either doesn’t exist or it’s someone with questionable credibility, which is valid concern. 

If leveraging Carlson’s support to get an oversight hearing will actually help get any documents released I’m all for it. The problem I think is if this alleged source is proven to be a hoax or something the whole thing might backfire. I’m not sure how that’d help Carlson though - it’d make him look like an idiot, but hell maybe Carlson was played too by this “source” and genuinely believes that he has a credible deep-background source on the remaining JFK files. Either that or he knows the source is bogus and doesn’t care, but there’s still no real evidence that the source is not legitimate. I’ll stay cautiously optimistic and leave it up to the attorneys to figure out the action plan. 

Also, to my limited understanding of this whole fiasco, Zaid looks to be Larry’s attorney, so it’s his job to not let Larry get sucked into a questionable situation. Also as far as I know the lawsuit and oversight angles are totally different and can be conducted in parallel, but I’m pretty clueless on that too. 

[Matt Allison]

29 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The problem I think is if this alleged source is proven to be a hoax or something the whole thing might backfire. I’m not sure how that’d help Carlson though

Tucker Carlson's allegiance is to his whiteness, not to the United States.

He pushes the Russian agenda because of that, and has said he feels no remorse about rooting for Russia.

Everything he does can be deduced from those simple facts.

[Matthew Koch]

15 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Tucker Carlson's allegiance is to his whiteness, not to the United States.

He pushes the Russian agenda because of that, and has said he feels no remorse about rooting for Russia.

Everything he does can be deduced from those simple facts.

Matt is telling us more about himself than Tucker, he sounds like Brian Stelter. 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Tom Gram Zaid is my attorny on my FOIA lawsuit which is different and distinct from the MFF lawsuit. Personally, I dont think trying to publicly shame or out the source will be productive.  there are other backchannels way to accomplish this but Jeff and Mark so loathe Carlson that the task has fallen to me.

Matt Allison- I understand your animus towards Carlson but on the JFK Assassination, he geninuely believes there was a conspiracy. It has nothing to do with "whiteness" or "rooting for Russia" which he is not doing. If you truly believe that, you're delusional.   

[Joseph Backes]

Freud said there is no joke. But the joke is on you Tucker Carlson lovers, because there is no source. 

He makes excrement up, you idiots.  It's called lying. It's what he does for a living. Get a clue.

John Judge once was worried about the people who come along every once in a while and basically take some part of the case that the community has uncovered through research or getting documents and sings our own incomplete songbook back to us as though something new has been found.  This happens over and over again, like a Ponzi scheme. People keep falling for the obvious crap scam. They don't teach who the hell Charles Ponzi was or anything about his scheme in schools, nor do journalists inform the public to beware. So, it's always new.  Bernie Madoff, Bitcoin, NFTs, all scams.  And now TC is going to be your champion on JFK assassination research. He claims to have a source. BS! I call shenanigans! Anyone can look at the extant DECLASSIFIED documents and come up with a far more interesting, far more compelling story than "D'uh, I think da CIA done did it."  

How f-ing stupid do you have to be to to take TC seriously? 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Joseph Backes

[Michaleen Kilroy]

27 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

Freud said there is no joke. But the joke is on you Tucker Carlson lovers, because there is no source. 

He makes excrement up, you idiots.  It's called lying. It's what he does for a living. Get a clue.

John Judge once was worried about the people who come along every once in a while and basically take some part of the case that the community has uncovered through research or getting documents and sings our own incomplete songbook back to us as though something new has been found.  This happens over and over again, like a Ponzi scheme. People keep falling for the obvious crap scam. They don't teach who the hell Charles Ponzi was or anything about his scheme in schools, nor do journalists inform the public to beware. So, it's always new.  Bernie Madoff, Bitcoin, NFTs, all scams.  And now TC is going to be your champion on JFK assassination research. He claims to have a source. BS! I call shenanigans! Anyone can look at the extant DECLASSIFIED documents and come up with a far more interesting, far more compelling story than "D'uh, I think da CIA done did it."  

How f-ing stupid do you have to be to to take TC seriously? 

Minus the insults, I agree with you. TC like the MAGA president he championed, as well as Hannity and the other Fox propagandists, are proven dissemblers and provocateurs. They don’t care about the truth and never have.

I separate this conclusion from Fox news reporters who generally do have journalistic ethics. It’s like separating the Wall Street Journal front page which is fact-based from the editorial page which is opinion.

And I have enough respect for Fox news reporters that if there was a scintilla of truth to TC’s claim, they’d be on it.

However if this particular propaganda finally loosens the last files out of the CIA’s grip, then who am I to complain? It’s a better outcome than the hateful speech he usually spreads.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Guys- this is my last post on this topic.

FDR broke bread with an evil man (Stalin) to defeat another very evil man (Hitler). It does not matter if Carlson has a source. what matters is we need his help to get an oversight hearing. EVERY NEGATIVE COMMENT YOU GUYS POST UNDERMINES THIS EFFORT. So how about being like FDR and hold your nose until May when it comes to TC. This is a strategic arrangement. 

All you are doing with these posts is indulging yourself while hurting the greater cause-which is to get an oversight hearing. 

 

[Joe Bauer]

In 1974 we had Nixon and his entire staff and their Plumbers perp crew convicted of the most serious executive branch constitutional crisis level crimes with mountains of solid, rock hard, heavy weight and beyond a reasonable doubt evidence.

Shocking mind blowing tapes full of the most incriminating comments.

Directly involved staff turning on each other and confessing crimes ( live on national TV! ) to get plea deals.

Documentation regards "CREEP" and other illegal actions.

It took that mountain of evidence and public confessional testimony to prove the Watergate crimes and others and bring the guilty parties to jail term justice. All went to prison except Ford pardoned Nixon.

Here we have TC making a bunker buster bomb pronouncement regards JFK's assassination and the CIA that if true is a more important crime than Watergate. A crime that if investigated and proven true would rock our society more than Nixon and Watergate.

Since this charge ( if true ) is by far a more important American society effecting crime than Watergate...it is going to take Watergate level evidence and testimony to ever see justice done to the perps.. imo anyways.

Where is it?

So far we have nothing!    NOTHING!

Except TC's claim?

E. Howard Hunt made the same claim as TC ... on tape!

Yes, an end of life, barely able to speak and maybe son's interest helping circumstances one. Yet E. Howard Hunt was a true deepest imbedded insider!

And he gave names, dates, locations, motivations!

One other insider (Morita Lorenz) even corroborated some of Hunt's confessional story.

Phillips finally admitted to his brother he was in Dallas at that time. William Harvey had a weak excuse saying he wasn't. Hunt's own family could not verify Hunt's presence during that day. Frank Sturgis hinted JFK was taken out by more than Oswald. 

That's a heck of a lot of at least circumstantial evidence...more than we have here with the great and respected OZ ( I mean tv news commentator ) Carlson.

Decorated Special Forces Colonel Dan Marvin made a similar claim on video tape. He was ignored totally.

Long time LBJ mistress Madeline Brown told the world publicly and in her book that LBJ told her in a cursing rage that it was big oil and those damn intelligence renegades who did JFK... but, again she and her LBJ confessional story were simply made up as the spoutings of a financially scorned and attention seeking ex-mistress loon.

TC and his history shocking claim should be held to a standard of evidential verification as high and as strict as Watergate.

If it never comes to this or even close to this, do we then downplay this latest TC hugely redeeming praised, false flag, let down non-story? Where's the honesty and integrity line here?

Outside of TC's big news announcement...what do we have so far in evidence comparison?

The "one" whistle blower unknown and unwilling to show himself?

No tapes, no documents, no smoking gun hard evidence?

Now we're even having some here making sympathetic comments about TC's source never coming forward because he or she could be harmed? Career wise and physically?

This is all letting TC off the hook if nothing more comes to verify his shocking crime of the century claim imo.

I didn't get into all the immediate and over-the-top redeeming of TC of his decades of nation dividing and Trump defending democrat liberal bashing trash talk propaganda just over this one initial block buster news flash story regards JFK.

If TC's mind blowing, nationally reported JFK/CIA claim ends up being proven I would be shocked ...almost into silence which would be a first for me as a known inveterate non-stop talker and poster.

It all brings back to mind that old TV commercial..."WHERE'S THE BEEF?"

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Evan Marshall]

When you dismiss information out of hand because you don't like the source you are often are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let's not forget David Ferry or the alcoholic that worked at 544 Camp Street. I worked a number of informants over my 20 yrs with Detroit and I would have NEVER brought one to my home to meet my family.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I assume by virtue of the fact we're discussing this, that we've eliminated the idea that Pompeo was Carlson';s  source, because in that case he certainly wouldn't have a done a very good job of protecting him, would he have? Dropping his name, saying Pompeo knows and inviting him on the show, as if threatening to out him!

Mark Zaid goes back a ways here. Jim Di and Oliver Stone were super pro Putin at the time and defended Putin's taking over Crimea and Jim wrote an article that was sort of a dual villification  of Zaid, tying by innuendo Zaid's involvement with Trump's first impeachment trial with his opposition to a new  JFKA trial in the early 90's. First he first smeared Zaid for for being part of the whistle blowing of Trump  in his first impeachment trial, where Trump was withholding previously authorized military aid  to Ukraine,and decided if he has  to run contrary to the wishes of Putin, he might as well at least get dirt from Zelensky  on his political rival's son, Hunter Biden. Of course Trump was impeached but not convicted  because although many Republicans disapproved, they didn't think the crime rose to the level of removal from office. Jim's second smear was  because of a conversation Jim had with Zaid's lawyer where he  told Jim, that although they did feel there was a JFK conspiracy, there wasn't sufficient evidence back in 1992 to open a new trial on the JFKA, but Jim found out later, he had consulted with Posner. I understand Jim would feel betrayed, but he sort of implied Zaid could have government "deep state" connections.

During that thread, a similar piece to  what Matthew has brought out about Zaid  was used as a scurrilous allegation of Zaid being a pedophile by a poster here who later charged that Hunter Biden and no less than Joe Biden were pedophiles and when asked by the mods here to retract the statement, refused and was kicked out of the forum.

When the thread ran out of dirt,  it was eventually hijacked and lasted quite awhile when in the end we were making jokes about what happened to Mark Zaid? 

heh heh

 

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Matthew Koch]

20 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I assume by virtue of the fact we're discussing this, that we've eliminated the idea that Pompeo was Carlson';s  source, because in that case he certainly wouldn't have a done a very good job of protecting him, would he have? Dropping his name, saying Pompeo knows and inviting him on the show, as if threatening to out him!

Mark Zaid goes back a ways here. Jim Di and Oliver Stone were super pro Putin at the time and defended Putin's taking over Crimea and Jim wrote an article that was sort of a dual villification  of Zaid, tying by innuendo Zaid's involvement with Trump's first impeachment trial with his opposition to a new  JFKA trial in the early 90's. First he first smeared Zaid for for being part of the whistle blowing of Trump  in his first impeachment trial, where Trump was withholding previously authorized military aid  to Ukraine,and decided if he has  to run contrary to the wishes of Putin, he might as well at least get dirt from Zelensky  on his political rival's son, Hunter Biden. Of course Trump was impeached but not convicted  because although many Republicans disapproved, they didn't think the crime rose to the level of removal from office. Jim's second smear was  because of a conversation Jim had with Zaid's lawyer where he  told Jim, that although they did feel there was a JFK conspiracy, there wasn't sufficient evidence back in 1992 to open a new trial on the JFKA, but Jim found out later, he had consulted with Posner. I understand Jim would feel betrayed, but he sort of implied Zaid could have government "deep state" connections.

During that thread, a similar piece to  what Matthew has brought out about Zaid  was used as a scurrilous allegation of Zaid being a pedophile by a poster here who later charged that Hunter Biden and no less than Joe Biden were pedophiles and when asked by the mods here to retract the statement, refused and was kicked out of the forum.

When the thread ran out of dirt,  it was eventually hijacked and lasted quite awhile when in the end we were making jokes about what happened to Mark Zaid? 

heh heh

 

 

TIL Pedophilia dosent' bother Kirk 

[James DiEugenio]

Look, about Mark Zaid, just ask John Kirakou.  Who was a former CIA agent.  Ask him what Zaid did for him.  Look it up.

And then you are going to tell me that a CIA deep source should feel comfortable with Zaid???  😗 

As I mentioned earlier, its not just that Mark Zaid was buds with Posner. 

He made a speech about Oswald in Dallas saying LHO was not at all an intel asset or agent.

He then screamed at the top of his lungs about the efficacy of that hack scientist Alvarez on the JFK case, you know, Mr. Jet Effect?

At this same conference, Mark Zaid then went down to Dealey Plaza where some of the witnesses were arrayed, and handed out literature saying why they were not credible.

And this is the guy demanding cred and calling the witness he never met "garbage".

I guarantee you if this witness said "I saw the files and there is nothing in there incriminating the CIA", Zaid would have a grin on his face.

I need no one to tell me about Mark Zaid and the JFK case.  I saw it firsthand.

Edited December 27, 2022 by James DiEugenio