Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
OverSword

Tucker Carlson’s ‘unmasking’ claim confirmed by NSA investigators: report

98 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
Quote

 

The National Security Agency has quietly admitted that the identity of Fox News prime-time host Tucker Carlson was “unmasked” and leaked as he alleged earlier this month, according to a report.

“For the NSA to unmask Tucker Carlson or any journalist attempting to secure a newsworthy interview is entirely unacceptable and raises serious questions about their activities as well as their original denial, which was wildly misleading,” a Fox News spokesperson told The Record, a cybersecurity news site.

Two sources told The Record Friday that, according to an internal NSA investigation, Carlson’s name was revealed after it was mentioned in “communications between two parties” that were under surveillance.

 

Link

Quote

But the host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was neither a direct nor an incidental target of the agency, the sources said.

Don't think I'll buy that at this point.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year

For the usual suspect on UM Dinner is served.

Crow-plate.jpg?w=400&ssl=1

Condiments upon request.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)

To be fair Carlson was not directly being spied on he was a secondary target because of who he was in communication with (trying to get an interview with Putin).  What the problem was here, once the NSA was confronted they used deceptive language to make it look like they had not spied on his communications.  That of course led to him being labeled paranoid at best and a liar at worst, as the rest of the media swarmed him like sharks with chum in the water.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Link

Don't think I'll buy that at this point.

It makes no sense.  What is Tucker Carlson doing that would be secret, much less how would he be invited or allowed to interview people who are being watched by the NSA.    What was the subject of his interviews that were being monitored and did he know that those two people were being monitored by the NSA?   The whole thing still seems like a non-story to  me.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

It makes no sense.  What is Tucker Carlson doing that would be secret, much less how would he be invited or allowed to interview people who are being watched by the NSA.    What was the subject of his interviews that were being monitored and did he know that those two people were being monitored by the NSA?   The whole thing still seems like a non-story to  me.

He was trying to get an interview with Putin.  He was talking to people in the Russian government who are being monitored by the NSA as part of that process so at that point he was being spied on second hand.  Usually the names of private US citizens are "masked" in cases like that so as to protect their privacy as the NSA is not supposed to be spying on them.  For some reason Tuckers name was unmasked and then the NSA used deceptive language to make him look like he was nuts or a liar when he investigated this unmasking.  Of course a good many of us (at least half anyway) are aware of who the real liars are when it comes to the government.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

He was trying to get an interview with Putin.  He was talking to people in the Russian government who are being monitored by the NSA as part of that process so at that point he was being spied on second hand.  Usually the names of private US citizens are "masked" in cases like that so as to protect their privacy as the NSA is not supposed to be spying on them.  For some reason Tuckers name was unmasked and then the NSA used deceptive language to make him look like he was nuts or a liar when he investigated this unmasking.  Of course a good many of us (at least half anyway) are aware of who the real liars are when it comes to the government.

Well, he should have expected something if he was trying to interview Putin.  But I know the NSA oversteps a lot.  In fact several US televsion FBI & other letter agency shows drama bring it into their plots all the time, like  poke at the NSA.  But I don't think they made it up, just used it to make their fiction 

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Just now, Desertrat56 said:

Well, he should have expected something if he was trying to interview Putin.

He should have expected that as a journalist his name would remain masked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Just now, OverSword said:

He should have expected that as a journalist his name would remain masked.

True, but like I said, the NSA (and others) overstep their rules all the time.   They must have been trying to keep him from his interview.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

True, but like I said, the NSA (and others) overstep their rules all the time.   They must have been trying to keep him from his interview.   

Or since it was leaked to him from who knows who, maybe the whole thing was a setup in an effort to make him seem paranoid and unreliable.  He is opposition journalism to the current administration after all.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Or since it was leaked to him from who knows who, maybe the whole thing was a setup in an effort to make him seem paranoid and unreliable.  He is opposition journalism to the current administration after all.

Well, what little I have seen of his diatribes I would not consider him a journalist, just an emotional network puppet, but he has his viewers so he is earning his keep for the network.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
15 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Well, what little I have seen of his diatribes I would not consider him a journalist, just an emotional network puppet, but he has his viewers so he is earning his keep for the network.

Yeah he's like a Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow.  More of an editorialist than a journalist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

For the usual suspect on UM Dinner is served.

Crow-plate.jpg?w=400&ssl=1

Condiments upon request.

Are you mad?! Serving crow with lime?!! Crow’s a white meat, it needs something tart, like lemon. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
32 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Are you mad?! Serving crow with lime?!! Crow’s a white meat, it needs something tart, like lemon. 

Not only that but they can wash it down with Budweiser. ^_^

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
2 hours ago, OverSword said:

That of course led to him being labeled paranoid at best and a liar at worst, as the rest of the media swarmed him like sharks with chum in the water.

I'll admit to not paying much direct attention to anything Tucker but it seems like there are multiple things going on here - Tucker is quite a talker after all.  First off he was labeled paranoid and a liar prior to any of this NSA stuff; the 'lying' part not even Fox's lawyers will attempt to defend him against and have essentially admitted in court already.

Also, there's another thread here along the lines of the NSA is 'spying on' Tucker to get his show off the air.  That's quite a bit different than this 'unmasking' thing and yea, sounding pretty paranoid.  If a target has their phone tapped and they call and order a pizza on a call that spies hear, I wouldn't phrase it as the pizza joint is being 'spied on' or is a 'secondary target'.  Even if we later find out the name of the pizza joint.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
2 hours ago, OverSword said:

To be fair Carlson was not directly being spied on he was a secondary target because of who he was in communication with (trying to get an interview with Putin).  What the problem was here, once the NSA was confronted they used deceptive language to make it look like they had not spied on his communications.

Because they hadn't.

From your link:

Two sources told The Record Friday that, according to an internal NSA investigation, Carlson’s name was revealed after it was mentioned in “communications between two parties” that were under surveillance.

But the host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was neither a direct nor an incidental target of the agency, the sources said.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
18 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If a target has their phone tapped and they call and order a pizza on a call that spies hear, I wouldn't phrase it as the pizza joint is being 'spied on' or is a 'secondary target'.  Even if we later find out the name of the pizza joint.

And yet they are supposed to protect the identity of that pizza joint even from themselves if all the pizza place did was conduct their usual business which is pizza.  Where this becomes more concerning is if the NSA or other government agency is spying on a member of the press when there is no indication that they are involved in treasonous conduct.  Very slippery slope.  That's why they didn't just come out and admit that there had been some overlap is because they did not protect the identity of the member of the press's identity as they are supposed to do.  Why not is now a very legitimate question and I'm sure is being looked into by the justice department or soon will be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Because they hadn't.

From your link:

Two sources told The Record Friday that, according to an internal NSA investigation, Carlson’s name was revealed after it was mentioned in “communications between two parties” that were under surveillance.

But the host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was neither a direct nor an incidental target of the agency, the sources said.
 

Yes.  Friday.  How many days after the initial allegation. Almost a month.  That's an issue.  They used deceptive language to cover the fact they were breaking their own rules.  To people like you and I it may be difficult to see why this matters but to a member of the press this is very bad.  Watch the video in post two.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yes.  Friday.  How many days after the initial allegation.  That's an issue. 

It's the first time in the entire of the NSA's history that they've made a statement on the record of who they've targeting.

No response at all would be the normal.
 

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

They used deceptive language to cover the fact they were breaking their own rules.

Which rule do you believe they broke?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

It's the first time in the entire of the NSA's history that they've made a statement on the record of who they've targeting.

No response at all would be the normal.
 

Which rule do you believe they broke?
 

The rule against unmasking a US citizens name in their report if they are not suspected of espionage.  A member of the press seeking an interview with a world leader is not against the law, unusual or suspicious.  Apparently someone in the line of knowledge knew it was jenky and leaked it for that reason. 

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The rule against unmasking a US citizens name in their report if they are not suspected of espionage.

That's not a rule. Anyone can be masked in a report as US-National-1, and then unmasked on request. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

That's not a rule. Anyone can be masked in a report as US-National-1, and then unmasked on request. 

Nope.  Peoples names not under investigation not involved in the investigation that come up due to peripheral investigation are supposed to be redacted to protect their privacy.  Just watch the video above it is explained clearly.  It is part of the supposed mechanism to protect US citizens from being spied on by the government.  They can be unmasked at request if they are suspected of being complicit with what's being investigated.  Carlson trying to get an interview with Putin would not fit that by any stretch of the imagination. Why does it seem OKAY to you that the NSA break this rule in this instance?

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Just now, OverSword said:

Nope.  Peoples names not under investigation not involved in the investigation that come up due to peripheral investigation are supposed to be redacted to protect their privacy.

And it was.

And then someone asked for it to be unmasked, so they could assess the importance of the conversation.

All entirely legal, and exactly how unmasking is supposed to occur.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

And it was.

And then someone asked for it to be unmasked, so they could assess the importance of the conversation.

All entirely legal, and exactly how unmasking is supposed to occur.

You don't need to unmask the name to read the conversation.  First you determine the conversation is against the law (which it was not) THEN you request the unmasking.

edit: In no way is any US citizen, even if they are not the top opposition member of the press, requesting an interview with a world leader illegal.  This should be investigated and someone should be reprimanded and probably fired.  We do not need people in our government who violate the rights of the citizens just for ****s and giggles.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
19 minutes ago, OverSword said:

You don't need to unmask the name to read the conversation.  First you determine the conversation is against the law THEN you request the unmasking.

The NSA rules re:unmasking is that the unmasking can occur when it is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information, or assess its importance.

For example -- if the conversation is:

"Have you made the arrangements for US-National-1 to meet with Putin, yet?"
"Nyet."


Then knowing who US-National-1 is necessary to assess the importance of that conversation for National Security purposes.


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.