Pompeo was Tucker Carlson's source

[Gil Jesus]

I believe Trump was Carlson's original source. I believe that Trump got his information from Pompeo. I believe that Carlson ( or his producers ) went to Pompeo and got confirmation of what Trump told him. That would put Pompeo on the hot seat. It coincides with what Trump told Judge Napolitano.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

You're going to find out in the long run that it was the CIA's Cubans who pulled the trigger. Of the Cuban groups, my main suspects are the DRE. Oswald was an FBI informant who tried to infiltrate their group in New Orleans and in retribution, they set him up as their "patsy".

The whole things smells of a CIA operation:

Create an atmosphere of hate. Arm the opposition group. Let the opposition group do their thing.

The CIA set it up, with help from their pals in the US Military and the Secret Service. In the aftermath, the Dallas cops arrested the wrong guy ( Oswald ) and the FBI and Warren Commission covered up the whole sordid affair.

The American government is run by the CIA. It started back after the second world war ended. The National Security Act of 1947 created the CIA. Truman thought when he signed the act into law that the CIA's purpose would be to collect information. He never thought it would be an operational arm of the US Government. But the CIA also became an operational arm of American business, creating changes in foreign governments who were not friendly to our corporations.

The CIA started by subverting governments in foreign countries in tha 1950s. On November 22, 1963, they brought their expertise home.

Kennedy's election in 1960 was a coup d'etat. The Joint Chiefs, who had taken orders from the Supreme Allied Commander of WWII for eight years, were now going to take orders from a PT boat commander.

The White House Detail, the most elite assignment in the Secret Service, would now become errand boys, babysitters and lookouts for Jackie whenever the President was engaged in infidelities with other women.

These were deeply degrading and depressing times for the military and the Secret Service. This BS had to end and in my opinion, when the opportunity presented itself, last minute changes were made to the motorcade route to make it easier for the gunman to hit the President. When the shooting started, the driver even slowed the limo down, not accelerating until after he saw the President's head explode.

They had intentonally taken the President into an ambush. Kennedy was a dead man in a matter of seconds.

JFK's assassination was a counter-coup to return the Presidency to the power elite that controlled it prior to 1960. In allowing the President to be killed, the pre-1960 status quo had been re-establshed and the Cold War continued. It meant billions for the military contractors and jobs for their employees.

Kennedy's doctors said he wouldn't live to the age of 45. When Johnson saw the doctor's reports, he changed his mind about taking the # 2 spot. Once JFK was elected, the CIA now had their man Johnson waiting in the wings. But Kennedy didn't die as his doctors had thought. He proved the doctors wrong and a 45th birthday party was given to him at Madison Square Garden in May of 1962, highlighted by Marilyn Monroe singing , "Happy Birthday to You ".

From the CIA to Soviet Premier Khrushchev, everyone thought they could push the young President around. They thought they could get him to do their will. They quickly found out different. Unable to control him, they had to remove him from office.

Kennedy was seen by the most extreme of his political enemies as a coward and a traitor. His desire to peacefully coexist with Communists was seen as an anathema. It was a departure from George Kennan's policy of "containment" which had been the foundation of American Foreign Policy since 1947.

They saw themselves as patriots. In their view, Kennedy's policies and his behavior while in office presented a serious threat to the securty of the country. He had to be removed from office.

 

[Robert Morrow]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I doubt Trump is Tucker's source because Tucker knows he isn't trustworthy.

 

I don't think that would hold Tucker back from using what Trump gave him. And, also, how many people HAVE ACCESS to those government documents that Trump authorized to keep secret? And who are the people that Tucker would have access to? Trump and Pompeo are at the top of the list.

Trump's unreliability is why I did not pay much attention to Tucker's "revelations" that he had spoken to an insider who saw the documents. I thought Trump said that and he is only saying that to throw dirt in the eyes of the CIA because of his own personal problems with the intelligence agencies.

Edited April 29 by Robert Morrow

[Roger Odisio]

19 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

 

19 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

My answers in italics.

 

This line of thought doesn't work, Keven, because in the first instance it contains no reason for Pompeo to push Trump to conceal CIA records, then, based their records he saw, tell Carlson they were in fact involved. Setting aside schizophrenia.

 

KH: I agree with you that such a scenario contains inconsistencies, and is not strictly logical, but human beings are often inconsistent and illogical, particularly when intoxicants are introduced into the picture, such as political power. It is not difficult for me to imagine a situation in which Pompeo dutifully executes his bureaucratic obligation to protect the reputation of his agency in his official capacity as Director of the CIA by discouraging Trump from releasing the records, then brags about it and the reasons why in an unofficial conversation with Tucker Carlson which he specifies to be "off the record." And indeed, "schizophrenic" may very well be an apt description of a CIA Director like Pompeo drunk off his ass on power.

 

RO: But to do what you suggest Pompeo did, he would have to really not care about the CIA or its reputation because he would be damaging it severely by telling Carlson he knows for a fact they were involved in the JFKA.

 

You've introduced the concept that the informant got Carlson to agree that what he was telling him was off the record. What does that phrase mean to you?  Does it mean the information is not to be repeated, but could be used by Carlson the further his understanding of the issues?  Or simply that the identity of the source will not be revealed. The latter is boilerplate procedure for a journalist and his source so I'm, assuming you mean the former, and that Carlson broke his promise. Do you have any evidence of that? 

 

If true that would be grounds for Pompeo's anger and could have justified the call from his lawyer trying to tell Carlson to back away.

 

But I doubt that it is true.  Carlson knows that sources are his lifeblood.  Blatantly betraying one of them like that, in such a big case, would damage him in the eyes of other sources, probably severely.  Carlson is no Assange, who takes the position that even if a source is dead and his death  resulted from giving him the information, he will not reveal him as a source.  Carlson despises Pompeo, but I doubt he would betray him like that because it would redound on him.

 

Nor would Carlson, at the same time he is revealing what his informant (Tucker in your version) told him confidentially then invite the same person to talk to him about it publicly. The informant must have already requested confidentiality and both he and Carlson knew Carlson did not have to, and would not, reveal his source.  As well as anyone Carlson knows confidential sources are the lifeblood of journalism. 

 

KH: I agree with you that it would not be fully in keeping with the best principles of journalism, but again, we are dealing with the presence of the intoxicant of power influencing Tucker Carlson at the height of his ascendancy as the most popular host at Fox. Mix into that what I would characterize as Tucker's contempt for Pompeo, and you just might have the formula by which Tucker decided to skate along the margins of journalistic principles in the hope of scoring a big disclosure on his show. After all, Tucker had already made it clear that he was going to maintain the anonymity of his source, and Pompeo was a frequent guest on Fox at the time, so Pompeo could very well have accepted the invitation and made the decision for himself about whether or not to offer more than routine bureaucratic doublespeak on the show. 

 

RO: You've got that intoxication of power thing working overtime. I don't think there is any way Pompeo would have agreed to go on Carlson's show to answer Carlson's questions about CIA involvement. Pompeo knew that Carlson knew too much and would not be so easy to intimidate or slough off as other talking heads.

 

It's much more likely Carlson challenged Pompeo to come on his show in order to challenge him about the things his real source had said. Knowing Pompeo would refuse.

 

KH: I question why you are assuming that Tucker would expect Pompeo to refuse his invitation if Pompeo were not the source. That Pompeo refused to appear, and that Tucker made such a big deal out of Pompeo refusing to appear actually seems to me to be more logical if Pompeo were the source, than if he were not. It would not have otherwise been at all unusual for Pompeo to appear and recite the standard justifications for the CIA's position, but something was going on behind the scenes which motivated Tucker to put Pompeo's refusal in the spotlight, and that motivated Pompeo's lawyer to call Tucker to threaten him the very next day. Those two things make a lot more sense to me if Pompeo was the source.

 

RO: Whether or not Pompeo was the source, he would not go on Carlson's show. Carlson's highlighting of Pompeo's refusal was likely because he couldn't resist taking a shot at Pompeo when he had the chance.

 

Carlson did not need Pompeo to tell him about the vulnerability of confidential sources and Pompeo knew that.  That wasn't the reason for the call.

 

KH: If Pompeo was the source, then he obviously would have been very distressed by Tucker's story and the spotlight that Tucker had shined on his refusal to appear on the show. It makes perfect sense to me that he would want to communicate the gravity of the situation through his lawyer the next day, even if for no other reason than to get Tucker to lay off of him.

 

RO:  I agree this is plausible, whether or not Pompeo was the source.

 

Since I've already wasted so much time on this topic, which I think is of little importance, and to add another element to this, let me tell you what I really think.  I doubt that Carlson *had* a source claiming the CIA was involved in the JFKA. He had been covering the story off and on for a few years and knew quite a bit about it, including some of the players.  I think he concluded on his own the evidence indicated CIA involvement.  He indicated as much, quite subtlely, on the Rogan show by some of  his references to  evidence about what happened becoming clear to him.

 

Carlson knew claiming the CIA was involved would be a bit startling but could only have so much impact. He would be easily dismissed by the major news orgs and many pundits.

 

But claiming a CIA source had told him that the CIA was involved, based on his intimate knowledge of what is in the records being withheld, would pack a much greater punch, and get much more attention.  He was right about that.

 

He was actually taking little risk with this subterfuge.  He knew he wouldn't have to reveal his source.  In fact most of the corporate media want the story to go away; they don't want to stir it up further by robing it with questions.

 

The story heightened his star, and probably played a role in his firing by Fox. But he  has landed on his feet running around the world making news. He talks glowingly about the freedom he now enjoys out from under his Fox bosses.

 

Of course I can't prove any of this. But to me, who is Tucker's source is another useless puzzle distracting researchers from the real work of deciphering the JFKA.

[Joe Bauer]

People who don't believe the Warren Commission JFKA lone gunman finding are conspiracy kooks? They see conspiracies around every building, bush, tree and rock?

Do you realize how many conspiracies Huckster Carlson ( alone ) has been promoting in just the last year? 

His podcast should be titled "Conspiracy Central."

Here is a thought I ponder from time to time:

If the Alien/ET presence story is true, whoever holds and controls the complete folder on this subject / secret is truly the most powerful group on Earth.

They are able to keep this secret from anyone.

Their "need to know" access and clearance on this subject is higher than any elected ( or self-appointed ) leader on Earth.

It is not totally illogical to wonder if they might even have clearance to eliminate anyone ( no station exempted ) if they feel they would be a threat to their losing ownership and control of this particular secret.

In this regards...this group is higher in authority power and control than any world nation leadership.

Again, if the Alien/ET presence story is true...the content of it could change every aspect of human existence on this Earth to degrees ( good and bad ) the average human being might not be able to fathom or mentally handle.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29 by Joe Bauer