Tucker Carlson Slams NSA’s Vague Denial It’s Spying on Him
“We can do anything. And there’s literally nothing you can do about any of it. We’re in charge, and you’re not.”
Tucker Carlson revealed on Monday night that a whistleblower at the NSA told him the agency is spying on his electronic communications.
The NSA denied the accusation. It’s a vague denial.
A statement from NSA regarding recent allegations: pic.twitter.com/vduE6l6YWg
— NSA/CSS (@NSAGov) June 30, 2021
Tucker pointed out the NSA did not deny the specific allegations. Remember, Carlson said the whistleblower repeated to him communications only someone with access to his emails or texts would know.
From Fox News:
However, Carlson said the statement did not directly address what he was asking when his team attempted to get an answer from [NSA Director Gen. Paul] Nakasone.
“Last night on this show we made a very straightforward claim: NSA has read my private emails without my permission. Period. Tonight’s statement does not deny that,” Carlson said.
Carlson called Nakasone a “highly-political left-wing four-star general,” and recounted that an NSA receptionist refused to connect his team to Nakasone’s office during a call on Tuesday morning.
The host added that “Tucker Carlson Tonight” tried again in the afternoon using a direct line, remarking that, “Nakasone’s assistant seemed shocked that someone whose email the NSA is reading would dare to call the director himself.”
“Shut up, citizen. Obey,” he remarked in characterizing the dynamic. “They claimed Nakasone wasn’t there.”
Then Carlson described another confrontation with the NSA:
“Did the Biden administration read my emails? NSA officials refuse to say,” Carlson said. “In a very heated follow-up conversation 20 minutes ago, they refused even to explain why they won’t answer that simple question.”
The message NSA was sending him, he said: “We can do whatever we want.”
“We can read your personal texts and emails. We can send veiled threats your way to brush you back if we don’t like your politics. We can do anything. And there’s literally nothing you can do about any of it. We’re in charge, and you’re not.”
“Orwellian doesn’t begin to describe the experience,” Carlson described.
Carlson added that the American people writ large will likely have to get used what he characterized as the federal government targeting dissidents ala China, noting that earlier this month, President Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland “classified tens of millions of patriotic Americans as potential domestic terrorists [and] White supremacist saboteurs.”
“We’re going to see a whole lot more of this.”
Press Secretary Jen Psaki provided a generic response when asked about Carlson’s allegations:
“The Biden Administration, for its part, ignored the story. They did not deny it. They can’t. They know it’s true. Today, the president’s flack was asked it on Air Force One,” he said.
“The NSA has, I think you are well aware, everyone’s aware, everyone on this plane is aware, I should say, is an entity that focuses on foreign threats and individuals who are attempting to do us harm on foreign soil. So that is their purview. But beyond that I would point you to the intelligence community,” Psaki said earlier Tuesday in response to a reporter’s question about Carlson’s allegation.
“Notice once again, no denial,” Carlson said in response. “She’s right that the NSA is chartered to spy on foreigners, not Americans. But it does spy on Americans, millions of them, sometimes for political reasons, and everyone knows it. In Washington, this is considered fine, but it’s not. It’s dangerous and wrong.”
“Some faceless hack in a powerful government agency decides he doesn’t like what you think, so he’s going to hurt you and there’s nothing you can do about it? That could happen to you. And when it does — trust us — NBC News will call you a delusional Q-Anon conspiracy theorist for complaining about it.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’d guess that they have no idea whether they’re reading Carlson’s emails or not.
rhhardin,
The NSA is analogous to a librarian. The librarian may not read a particular book. They do keep track of who checks out a particular book.
The data at NSA isn’t the biggest issue. The real issue occurs when the data goes to another agency. If the DoJ via a FISA process there are all sorts of procedural safeguards, which the DoJ got around by granting access to contract employees. These guys had no particular need to know but the set up allowed those with a particular level of access to view the information.
Same sorts of basic issues at IRS. Tax records are not supposed to be disclosed. No exceptions. These records have routinely been disclosed by partisan actors to advance an ideological agenda or simply to harm and attempt to embarrass their ideological opponents.
The NSA definitely knows whether Carson’s electronic communications were accessed and by whom. The know if that was a legitimate request. They know who they provided the requested data to.
Once that data was sent to another agency the NSA might not be able to track access, but that receiving agency can and is required to do so.
Whether either agency will willingly inform Carlson of an unauthorized access or request for his data is another thing entirely. They won’t.
And, recently the NSA stated that the FBI was “illegally” using their data to Spy on 16,000
Americans. So, I guess Tucker is now 16.001.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/nsa-agrees-to-release-records-on-fbis-improper-spying-on-16000-americans_3865431.html
“Tucker pointed out the NSA did not deny the specific allegations” they quoted the allegations and sated they were untrue, that’s pretty specific. More TC bullshit.
Marxist311 is an outrageous liar, a paid communist party operative.
1) Can you point to a single lie and explain why its a lie
2) Can you define Communism and alongside this demonstrate a policy that I’ve advocated that would be Communist
3) Can you show any indication of your supposing that I’m ‘paid’ or part of a ‘party’
I have to support mark on this.
While you may disagree with his or other people’s point of view – making unproven accusations and personal attacks on this blog is NOT right.
We all benefit from a robust discussion. Personally, I like when people push back against my views. I learn from that. And, sometimes I’m wrong and I am glad to be corrected.
Let’s keep the dialog on this blog more civil and respectful.
“I have to support mark on this. While you may disagree with his or other people’s point of view – making unproven accusations and personal attacks on this blog is NOT right.”
You don’t know mark311 very well:
1) mark311 on Apr 26 8 pm: “That’s a pretty stupid answer , I asked if you could justify your position or in other words point out where my view is mistaken so why would review the trial footage when I can ask you a simple question. Since you fucking made the assertion. Idiot”
2) mark311 on June 25 6:42 am “Wow that’s an ignorant statement”
3) mark311 on May 4 4:52 am: “What a load of shit, how dishonest do you have to be to claim he fired them for undermining him.”
4) on another occasion mark311 attacked gonzotx so visciously I would rather not repeat it.
Moderator’s advice concerning mark311:
“@mark311 has said he joined the site in November 2020 to learn other viewpoints and to engage in debate. So, here’s a thought, let’s not respond to him and maybe he will go away.”
Thank you Ben, I appreciate that
My political opinions differ from Mark’s and he can sometimes make caustic statements. From what I see, it’s usually after someone has attacked him personally. I have also seen Mark agree with people on this forum and concede some points – so I believe he is not just pushing a third-party’s agenda.
In any case, calling him a paid communist operative is over the top. Maybe he is. I don’t know. If he is – he should disclose that his views are not his own but of a third-party. But unless you have evidence that he’s expressing a third-party opinion – the accusation is crossing the line.
We on LI frequently say that we are in favor of free speech. Let’s practice what we preach and be respectful in stating our opinions as well as in opposing others. Civil discourse
Hey Ben, you’re entitled to your opinion, wrong though it is. Marxist propaganda should be pointed out and pushed back wherever you find it. It’s your choice to become a slave.
This isn’t “robust discussion”, it’s nothing but lies form one end to the other. If you wish to be civil to your executionist that’s your business. I call them what they are, vile and corrupt murdering scum. They murdered in the neighborhood of 150 million people over the last 100 years.
“From what I see, it’s usually after someone has attacked him personally.”
You’re blind
“In any case, calling him a paid communist operative is over the top.”
“over the top” of what? Perhaps you’re such an innocent slave you don’t know the marxists employ people by the thousands to do exactly what marxist311 is doing here. It’s clear to anyone with an IQ above 75.
” – the accusation is crossing the line.”
crossing what line, I thought it was over the top. You need to open your eyes to reality.
“We on LI frequently say that we are in favor of free speech. Let’s practice what we preach and be respectful in stating our opinions as well as in opposing others.”
I didn’t call for prohibiting anyone’s speech. That does not mean I let the lies go or be nice to the teller of lies. It would be the mark of a slave to do so.
“I have to support mark on this.”
I sense a pattern.
“Let’s keep the dialog on this blog more civil and respectful.”
Yes, by all means, be nice to your executioner. You remind me of Mitt Romney.
@Barry,
Out of respect for Ben Kent’s comments I shall refrain from being caustic. I am guilty of that occasionally.
1) “it’s nothing but lies form one end to the other” none of which you’ve been able to relay or provide any proof that it is a lie. In other words you merely assert something is a lie without any basis for either the intent or that the fact or opinion is wrong. That’s pretty damning, your entire argument on numerous occasions isn’t to discuss the substance its to state ‘its a lie’ along with a silly ad hominem, again without basis.
2) “They murdered in the neighborhood of 150 million people over the last 100 years.” Who exactly because there is a distinction to be made between sub sets of ideology. Its not even clear to me that you even know what a communist actually is, I asked in good faith for you to define what it is and state how you know that I am a communist and as per usual you merely state I’m a liar without reference to any argument or rational though process. If I were to say something along the lines of the right is responsible for the holocaust you could rightly retort that it was specifically the Nazi’s that carried that out and not another subset of right wing thought, likewise you stating that 150m dead are due to what I presume you to mean as being communism is the same. Stalinism and Maoism are subsets of Communism and don’t actually represent most on the left, indeed id argue that both strands are pretty rare in context of left wing thought in the west. The position I ascribe to is a social democrat which is really quite different to a communist, a Stalinist or a Moaist etc
3) “marxists employ people by the thousands to do exactly what marxist311 is doing here”
Who exactly pays anyone to do that? Marxist are not a well funded group, nor have I endorsed a Marxist position so its a big stretch to sat that I am on some mysterious payroll. Can you cite any evidence that any Marxists pay people to comment on forums online? Is a pretty bizarre claim.
4) “crossing what line, I thought it was over the top. You need to open your eyes to reality”
Basic decency come to mind, do you talk to strangers in the street the way you talk on here?
“Can you point to a single lie and explain why its a lie?”
Mark311 said on June 29 at 9:25 am “Ha, all those investigations confirmed is the GOP is sucking Trumps dick.”
That is not only a vicious lie but that kind of vulgar talk that will get you banned here.
Go ahead. Answer this with something vulgar and see.
Mark311 is a troll. He says dumb things, never backing them up with citation.
Stop giving him so much air.
@The fine report
Well that’s a lie isn’t it, I regularly provide citations.
Is it a lie though I mean Republicans have bent over backwards to defend Trump even going so far as to lie about the contents of the Mueller report. At every turn where Trump has done something they defend the indefensible. A record number of lies to the point where you can almost assume that Trump has lied whenever he opens his mouth, a history of cheating on his wife and paying hush money, lying to the public about the severity of Covid, Lying about election fraud and all the while Republicans claim oh its just how he talks, its just the way he is. No matter that if a Democrat had done anything remotely similar they would be brandishing their pitch forks.
Even the way you frame the question is flawed UserP, I’m entitled to my view, you don’t get to claim that my view of Trump and the Republican party is an automatic lie based on nothing. Quoting back to me my opinion on a subject matter doesn’t tell you anything about its authenticity.
I don’t dance to your marxist propaganda. You are an evil liar, paid to spread the BS everywhere.
Barry,
When you argue with an idiot, you then have 2 idiots arguing.
Rarely do I argue with marxists, I just point out they are liars and yes, call them names. They deserve that.
Carlson stated that he directly addressed the following question to NSA ‘ did you read my email’?
Until the NSA responds with an unequivocal yes or no to that question then the question has not been answered.
IMO a better question or series of follow up questions would be:
Did the NSA provide his electronic communication (ec) to another agency?
What is the name of the agency?
Under what process was the ec provided?
For what purpose?
To which specific individual(s)?
Did those/that individual(s) disseminate the ec to others?
To which individuals in what agency for what purpose?
Are your actions and the actions of other individuals and agencies in compliance with the letter and spirit of the applicable laws or internal regulations and procedures?
Cite the laws, regulations and procedures and how they were applied in this instance.
Was the FISA CT involved? If not why not?
Name the specific examples of Congressional oversight applied in this and similar cases.
Is the record of oversight public or classified?
If not public then explain how Congress itself can be held to account by the electorate exercising it’s oversight over Congress via the franchise?
They did not they said Tucker wasn’t the target they never claimed they didn’t read his electronic communications, nor did they deny spying on him.
You’ve been “commenting” frantically on this issue marky mark. I guess your handlers at the boiler room you troll from are worried.
Gawd, you are either a dolt or complicit. What Carls0n said.
“Last night on this show we made a very straightforward claim: NSA has read my private emails without my permission. Period.” Or as the NSA quoted him Carlson accused the NSA of “monitoring our electronic communications…
This is the NSA non-denial:
“Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the Agency.”
Dear moron: Tucker Carlson never wanted to know if he was an intelligence target. He wanted to know if the NSA was reading his emails, or if you prefer “monitoring (his) electronic communications.” How stupid do you have to be to realize that of course he’s not an intel target. He accused them of spying on him for very different reasons.
The NSA pretended Carlson had accused them of doing something entirely different than what he had accused them of. Then denied that they had never done what Carlson never accused them of.
Moving on to the second half of Carlson’s accusation:
“…and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air.”
The NSA’s non-denial:
“…the NSA has never had any plans to try to take his program off the air.”
Carlson never said they did. He said they planned to leak them to others that did have such plans. Again, reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it?
As a Naval intelligence officer of 20 years I got a belly laugh out of this whopper.
“With limited exceptions (e.g. an emergency), NSA may not target a U.S. citizen without a court order that explicitly authorizes the targeting.”
Suspicious boyfriends and husbands at NSA will use the surveillance tools available to them to monitor their girlfriends and wives to find out if they are cheating. Jealous ex-boyfriends will electronically stalk their ex-girlfriends. Everyone knows this. The agency doesn’t try to stop it and they sure won’t make a fuss about it because then everyone knows how common it is in practice.
Which is why it’s a hoot that the NSA clutches its pearls and says, “Heavens to Betsy NO! Carlson is accusing us of doing something illegal.”
As if the NSA would just come out and say, “Yeah, people at our agency are breaking the law like they do a hundred times on every day ending in ‘Y’. You caught us Tucker. We’re turning ourselves in.”
Is your nickname wedge. Because that’s the simplest tool in the shed. Or are you something much worse?
Also a word of advice. If you’re single and meet someone who works at NSA the best plan is to head for the exits. If you decide to stick around assume every word you say on the phone, every text, every email, is being monitored.
The truth from Arminius.
Jesus Christ Arminius, how on earth as a Naval intelligence officer of 20 years did you manage to cherry pick the quote to make such nonsense. The full quote is this:
“On June 28, 2021 Tucker Carlson alleged that the National Security Agency has been ‘monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off this air’ this is untrue. Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the Agency and the NSA has never had plans to take his show off the air.”
Let me spell it out real simple, stating that the original allegation is untrue covers all aspects of what Tucker Carlson claimed. That’s simple straight forward English.
Even your statement reflect the tension in what you claim. “He said they planned to leak them to others that did have such plans.” Note the words ‘they planned’. The NSA explicitly denied having plans so duh that’s pretty clear to me that its a catch all including planning for leaking to others.
You are cherry picking quotes to reach an unsubstantiated conclusion. Its pretty obviously bullshit since all the evidence he has cited has never been presented. Until he does ill remain cynical.
“On June 28, 2021 Tucker Carlson alleged that the National Security Agency has been ‘monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off this air’ this is untrue. Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the Agency and the NSA has never had plans to take his show off the air.”
Let me spell it out real simple, stating that the original allegation is untrue covers all aspects of what Tucker Carlson claimed. That’s simple straight forward English.”
Arminius is correct. Carlson is stating the NSA is collecting and releasing his private communications for POLITICAL purposes, not as a part of legitimate intelligence collection. The NSA response is that Carlson is not a target of intelligence collection and completely avoids the substance of the allegation.
The NSA denial about having “plans” to remove Carlson from the air is more direct, but if Carlson’s private communications are being illegally unmasked and distributed, the actual rational of the NSA is not all that relevant as it is still improper and illegal. An investigation and subsequent prosecution could get to the bottom of the why,
In any event the NSA did not actually deny Carlson’s accusation about being spied upon for political purposes or having his private communications being illegally accessed and distributed.
The substance of the claim is that the NSA is reading TCs emails that’s covered by the statement. Assigning a purpose to it makes no difference. Again you are asserting that these things are happening without evidence. It’s a wild speculative claim with base. Until such time that someone presents some actual evidence I’ll treat it as the usual TC bullshit
More damn lies from marxist311. Normal people wpuld have shame at the lies they spread, but marxists do not.
They are the murderers of 150,000,000 +
“Jesus Christ Arminius, how on earth as a Naval intelligence officer of 20 years did you manage to…”
Survive? A lot better than you could ever hope to do. I’ve seen sycophants like you attempt to attempt to defend Admirals with the same willful blindness you are attempting to defend the NSA and its non-denial diversion of TC’s claim. Soon the Admiral views you with the same contempt as his detractors.
You couldn’t even get into the same ring with me. Literally as well as figuratively. Literally, three three minute rounds are a lot harder to do than it sounds. Figuratively, I lasted twenty years.
But you go ahead and disgrace yourself pretending you know something I don’t.
Carlson works for Fox, the folks that helped steal an election. And Carlson ignores the truth.
Carlson is owned by these people.
A minute ago you called me a liar for saying that TC is full of shit and now you make the exact same claim. That’s impressively stupid.
You are a freaking dumbass. And a liar 100%.
I’ve made no claims remotely like yours unless you are stating here that Fox and Carlson helped steal the 2020 presidential election.
Barry,
That comparision is an insult to dumbasses all over.
@Barry
“mark311 | June 30, 2021 at 9:18 am
“Tucker pointed out the NSA did not deny the specific allegations” they quoted the allegations and sated they were untrue, that’s pretty specific. More TC bullshit.
To which you reply
“Barry in reply to mark311. | June 30, 2021 at 9:32 am
Marxist311 is an outrageous liar, a paid communist party operative.”
Then later
“Barry | June 30, 2021 at 9:33 am
Carlson works for Fox, the folks that helped steal an election. And Carlson ignores the truth.
Carlson is owned by these people.”
It seems abundantly clear that you think TC isn’t reliable and yet still called me on liar when I said the same thing
Very simple, idiot. Tucker did not lie about the NSA.
He has lied about the election results by omission.
Not only are you a marxist fool, you’re an idiot.
@Barry except my quote had nothing to do with the election and your quote makes a generalisation about Carlson ignoring the truth. Learnt to write more clearly.
Yet again you don’t know what a Marxist is, have never demonstrated any knowledge about the various political positions on the left or indeed any of my own positions. Your ignorance is truly astounding. Calling someone an idiot when you cant address a single substantive aspect in any regard is pretty pathetic.
“Learnt to write more clearly.”
I learnt quite well. You are just a low IQ marxist whore, paid to lie.
Sounds like someone needs to perform a setup…..
That didn’t seem vague to me.
Could careless about Carlson and wondering if it is planned. ……but speaking of set ups and Carlson source
Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open
https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-missing-link-fbi-unindicted-co-conspirator/
I don’t know if what Carlson is saying about this is true or not. I have no way to evaluate the veracity of his source.
That said, why is it so damn hard for some people to believe that a fedgov intel agency could be doing something like this? Even a cursory look at history shows that federal law enforcement and intel agencies routinely engage in unconstitutional shenanigans and routinely deny it. If you want to say that Carlson can’t prove his allegations I’ll go along with you. But don’t start waving the flag (the one you’re usually turning your back on or burning anyway) and swearing that I’m “unpatriotic” to question the trustworthiness of the NSA.
I think that’s a fair comment, for clarity my position is simply that I find TC to be utterly untrustworthy. Until he has evidence or another source (which is reliable) confirm ill maintain my cynicism. For sure the NSA isn’t necessarily an innocent actor.
What is untrustworthy about him? That he doesn’t go with the fascist narratives like RUSSSIIIAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
He spins limited information into conspiratorial nonsense
Why didn’t the NSA deny reading Carlson’s email marky mark? What does your boiler room have to say about that?
@FOAF,
Id say that the NSA might have better things to do than write a robust response to a narcissistic Fox opinion piece pretend journalist.
Actually reading the NSA response they recite back the allegation which is “monitoring electronic communications”. It seems pretty clear that’s a catch all for mobile, email etc
Peddle your gaslighting trash elsewhere, troll.
The official NSA statement is in this story. Where, you are correct, they recite back the allegation, and then proceed to NOT deny it, instead going with a classic liar’s deflection of denying a claim that HE DID NOT MAKE, By stating Carlson was ‘never a target’, and then doubling down on it with pointless BS about citizens never being ‘targets’.
We know exactly how this works, jackass, they intentionally ‘target’ people that he communicates with, in order to read all of his communication without ever being a ‘target’ himself.
I bet you believe the crap that Republicans are responsible for defunding the police, too.
No he doesn’t, and the NSA did not deny what was actually alleged it took time and effort to avoid denying it.
@danny,
With respect he does, he made a claim about the FBUI being on the ground in the Jan 6th Riots based on a reference to two unidentified individuals on a charge sheet. he didn’t say well maybe they are FBI he full blown said that they were FBI false flag operatives without any evidence at all.
You are aware that Tc has been sued for defamation and that the legal defence was that none takes him seriously? That was after he was sued by Karen McDougal for falsely claiming she tried to extort Trump.
There are numerous other examples of his dishonesty.
@Danny
With respect to the NSA statement it says very clearly that the allegations are untrue. I don’t know how much clearer they could be given they recited back the specific allegations.
Mark311, again I point out that either your reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff or your lying skills are atrocious.
Those individuals are not unidentified. They are identified. As unindicted co-conspirators. In order to be an unindicted co-conspirator an individual has to be known to the FBI and DoJ. Pray tell, genius, why weren’t these known individuals indicted when they did exactly the same things or worse than the individuals who were indicted? Why are they getting a pass?
Can you say “confidential informant?” Or possibly “undercover agent?” I knew you could.
If they were unknown to the FBI they wouldn’t be unindicted co-conspirators in the court documents. They would be suspects who remain at large, peaches.
@arminius
“In order to be an unindicted co-conspirator an individual has to be known to the FBI and DoJ”
Known to us, or more importantly Tucker Carlson, he merely asserts that they must be FBI. On what basis exactly, the onus is on him to show that’s the case. Not on everyone else to take him seriously and at his word, Indeed I can go further its already been debunked, the redacted documents Tucker cites actually refers to the man in questions wife. Its also the case that the term used is highly unlikely to refer to an FBI agent or informant since they ‘wouldn’t have the mental state to commit the crim’ in other words if they were FBI then there intentions were never to have committed any crime but inform on it.
The onus is on TC is provide evidence, he hasn’t and indeed he took a hedged revolver article to make explicit claims going much further than the original article which was framed as questions not stating an actual answer.
I’m surprised at you Arminius, I went to uni with an intelligence officer (he was sent over to the UK to do a masters in politics). He was thoughtful, intelligent and understood nuance in argument as well as understanding sources and there reliability. Clearly you don’t which is even more surprising with TC given he has evaded lawsuits precisely because his lawyers argued that no one takes him seriously. That’s evidenced by the fact that the rest of the Fox network didn’t bother with the story, and lets face it the run a lot of really badly researched stories.
@ollinser
They specifically say the allegations quoted are untrue, I’m not really sure how you’ve managed to miss that given you agree with me regarding reciting of the original allegation.
My position is stated elsewhere on defunding, I’m not going to repeat myself given its a nuanced position.
Mark when did the NSA state that they had not ‘read his email’?
That was the question Carlson states that he directly posed to the NSA. You are conflating an allegation by Carlson as to intent of the NSA with a simple direct question.
A ‘lengthy response’ isn’t required to say no.
Based on my experience in government service, when the bureaucracy provides lengthy, unresponsive, acronym laden, jargon filled statements…you should be very nervous.
When they go to the effort of a ‘non denial’ it usually means that they are not only guilty but unrepentant. Moreover you have now pissed them off even more than they prior to that.
At that point grab your wallet and put your back to the wall with your head on a swivel looking for the next blow to fall.
@Commochief
As I’ve said before they repeat back the allegation and say its untrue. That allegation covers reading of electronic communication which clearly includes emails.
Its a perfectly clear statement, whether its true or not is another question but from where I’m standing its patently obvious that they reject the allegations in there totality.
And as we’ve pointed out, and you POINTEDLY refuse to answer, the ‘allegation’ they claim is untrue IS NOT what Carlson as accused them of doing.
They claim he is not an ‘intelligence target’, which is a VERY SPECIFIC legal term.
They are POINTEDLY refusing to answer the ACTUAL allegation – that the NSA is reading all of his communications.
Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. Nobody’s buying it here.
@ollinser
“ACTUAL allegation – that the NSA is reading all of his communications”
As I’ve said several times, that’s been addressed. They state that the allegation that they are intercepting electronic communications is untrue. I’m not really clear what you are trying to say with regard to ‘intelligence target’ having a specific meaning. What are you trying to say here?
The statement from the NSA is straightforward and to the point. It addressed the substantive claim. I don’t know how anyone could be clearer on communicating that they don’t give a damn about Tucker Carlson. He is not a person of interest according to that statement. I honestly don’t know how it could be any clearer, it’s meaning and intend is pretty obvious.
Mark,
Just so I am clear about this, you contend that because the NSA issued a statement that narrowed the scope of their ‘answer’ to one qualified by their intent, that the NSA has not interpreted Carson’s electronic communication(s)?
Believe that if you wish. The NSA ‘scrapes’ all sorts of electronic data. People do not have to be the ‘target’ of the investigation in order for the NSA to do this.
Let’s use a much simpler example. If you are a Mafia figure and the FBI obtains a warrant for a wiretap on your phone and your lawn care guy calls to schedule a leaf pick up that electronic communication will be intercepted.
The lawn guy isn’t a ‘target’. His communication was still intercepted. FISA warrants work similarly.
Your defense of the NSA and the over militarized state long after the wake of 9/11 and past any reasonable need for these authoritarian policies is surprising.
Carlson and his theatrics are immaterial. The deliberate use of the intelligence services domestically is the issue. Perhaps it was justified in the first few years, I didn’t care for it then either, but any justification has ended.
Believe it or not many on the right called me and my libertarian outlook ‘liberal’ for my opposition.
And now you are outright lying. As I said, peddle your crap elsewhere, troll. The NSA most certainly HAS NOT answered the allegation that they are intercepting his communications. Which is why you are a liar.
They VERY SPECIFICIALLY said he wasn’t a ‘target’. Again, a word with VERY SPECIFIC MEANING.
It’s quite simple to understand. By targeting OTHER PEOPLE that they know Tucker is communicating with, rather than Tucker himself, they can give themselves access to ALL of Tucker’s communications without ever him being the ‘target’. And depending on the FISA warrant, they can actually get TWO jumps by targeting a foreign national communicating with people that are THEN communicating with Tucker, and still ‘legally’ read ALL of his communications.
By denying that he is a ‘target’, while SPECIFICALLY REFUSING TO DENY that they are reading his communications, is them admitting that yeah, they’re reading them with exactly this kind of procedural bullshit.
And you trying to lie and claim that they’re saying something that they are very, VERY carefully NOT saying, is not going to fly in a blog filled with lawyers who are well versed in exactly this kind of weasel word crap.
As I said, your crap is not being bought here, go peddle it somewhere elase.
@commochief
I appreciate that, but treating TC’s allegation as gospel just isn’t plausible. I want evidence not a statement from a opinion piece speaker with no credibility.
Id agree that the NSA etc have had issues but I’m not willing to take TC on face value
@ollinser
If you hadn’t notices I think TC is full of shit so I’m far more inclined to give credit to the NSA than him. I appreciate the point about scraping of other folks data but I’m not sure the statement is particularly evasive given TC’s claim is that the NSA were looking to take his show off air, that directly implies that TC considers the NSA to have targeted him directly not through an association.
Mark,
You state you are ‘unwilling to take TC’ at face value. Ok fair enough.
Why are you taking a very qualified response from the NSA as a comprehensive answer?
IMO, you are allowing your personal bias against TC to cloud your judgement. The NSA and the broader IC have near unlimited powers.
Congress doesn’t conduct any meaningful oversight of their actions nor when abuses have been validated in the past take action to limit those powers and increase oversight or allow the Citizens to view these actions and judge for themselves.
You are a smart guy so either you are being naive or deliberately obtuse in this instance. When people, even good and decent people, are provided tools they tend to use them. When no one is in a position to oversee and monitor them they tend to misuse the tools at their disposal for petty and partisan ends. That’s human nature.
“As I’ve said before they repeat back the allegation and say its untrue.”
No – they said he has “never been an intelligence target of the Agency” which is not Carlson’s claim at all. So quit saying the NSA denied Carlson’s claim they are collecting and reading his electronic communications.
@commochief
Why wouldn’t I take the NSA at face value onna retort to TC? I need more than just hacks hear say to form an opinion on a criminal action.
“Congress doesn’t conduct any meaningful oversight of their actions”
That’s a separate and distinct question. The claim I’ve made for clarity is in essence that I don’t trust TC and until he presents evidence that’s compelling I won’t trust what he says.
With respect to oversight on the NSA that may well be a fair comment, I would certainly agree that government and security apparatus should have adequate oversight but that has to be on the bases of genuine motives and evidence.
Mark,
So in other words your bias v Carlson clouds your judgement?
Please recall that the NSA and IC broadly have intercepted the electronic communication of journalists in the very recent past.
If Carlson’s was the first allegation then your position would be more understandable. It isn’t the first allegation, or second or third.
In addition the FISA CT itself has called out the NSA for failure to prevent access to collected data. Admiral M Rogers, who conducted an internal review testified about this to Congress.
I would simply submit that when an agency refuses to provide an unequivocal yes or no and instead issues statements that have qualifying conditions that effectively render their statement meaningless…that they are at minimum being evasive and at worst untruthful.
marxist311 has been directed by it’s employer to discredit Tucker Carlson, because in many things Carlson is effective.
The fact that the NSA is playing cutesy word games about how Carlson ‘has never been an intelligence target’ is them admitting that his accusations are absolutely true.
If they weren’t reading his emails and texts, they WOULD SAY SO and he would look like a fool.
Those of you that think you are reasonable conservatives and at the same time believe the NSA is possibly being truthful –
You are as responsible for the decline as the marxist communist cabal that is now in control. There is no federal agency that acts on behalf of the American people. Every agency is corrupt to the core. No “benefit of doubt” should be given to anyone from the federal government. It should be assumed they are lying until proven otherwise.
Are you people of such shallow memory that you have forgotten the entire federal government went after a president for 4 years on false pretense, spending tens of millions of dollars to “investigate” him?
What would wake you from your slumber? Do you need a personal pitchfork before you get it?
Umm, Barry. The only one here who believes the NSA’s horse shit is mark311.
What I believe is that when idiot RINOs Sessions and Barr were too goddamn weak to hold a single person responsible for the rampant FISA abuses, they sent the green light to Democrats that they could do whatever the hell they wanted and never face consequences.
And now we are seeing the utterly predictable results.
They have been doing this for a long time. Sessions/Barr are worthless and corrupt, but they didn’t start this.
Sorry Arminius but that is not true. Just read some of the early comments.
Oh, and marxist311 doesn’t believe it either, it’s just what he’s paid to say. marxist311 has no clue what is true/untrue. That requires a brain.
Are you able to actually answer any question posed to you?
Who is more credible the NSA or Tucker Carlson?
Mark,
Since we can view the actions and statements of Carlson publicly for accuracy while the NSA operates behind an impenetrable curtain of secrecy hidden from public view……..
The NSA and IC more broadly has a history of this sort of thing; James Rosen ECT.
Hoover and the FBI and on, and on and on……
Yeah I totally appreciate that but it’s important to have a minimum standard of evidence, otherwise people can say anything and it’ll be treated with undeserved respect.
Mark,
An answer like this provided in CT would likely be ruled ‘unresponsive’ and possibly ‘argumentative’.
@commochief
I assume you mean court when you mean CT.
Well this isn’t court nor does that make a whole lot of sense. The same problem arises what evidence does TC have. The answer remains none at this stage. People or organisations are innocent until proven guilty.
I’m not clear that you understand the implications of what you say. Basically you are endorsing the Alex Jones of this world saying any old rubbish. There is a responsibility for media figures to at least try and ensure that what they say is reasonably based in fact. That’s not been demonstrate by TC. I’m not clear what’s unresponsive about saying what is in effect that TC is all talk and no substance
@arminius
My position isn’t that I believe the NSA it’s that I need evidence to give credit to the allegation.