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

[+OverSword]

8 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

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

No.  It's really not as asking to interview Putin is not against the law.

 

If you disagree tell us why do you think that someone in the NSA leaked this information?  I can tell you why.  Because it was an illegal act.  I'll bet they were fishing for info to discredit Carlson.

Edited July 26, 2021 by OverSword

[Tiggs]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

No.  It's really not as asking to interview Putin is not against the law.

And you know for certain that the conversation mentioned the word "Interview" because...?
 

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If you disagree tell us why do you think that someone in the NSA leaked this information?  I can tell you why.  Because it was an illegal act.

The only illegal act that appears to have occurred is leaking that information.

 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

The only illegal act that appears to have occurred is leaking that information.

Depending on which channels were exhausted first then we call it a whistle blower.  But not the only illegal act.  Spying on Carlson was also illegal, but good point otherwise. 

Do you really think that this went something like this:  

Quote

 

Guy one "Hey, there is someone asking for an interview with Putin via a Russian government official, all of whom we are monitoring"  

Guy two "Oh, well let's unmask the name to see if it's legit or part of a plot to destroy America"

Guy one "Turns out is was Tucker Carlson.  Totally legit for a talk show host to want to interview world leaders, move along"

Guy two  "Yep, nothing to see here"

 

If that's what happened I daresay that we nor Tucker would ever have heard about it. 

[Tiggs]

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Depending on which channels were exhausted first then we call it a whistle blower.  But not the only illegal act.  Spying on Carlson was also illegal, but good point otherwise. 

They didn't spy on Carlson.

And there are dedicated whistle blower channels within the NSA.

Whoever leaked it would be pretty easy to pinpoint, if they'd tried using those channels first.
 

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Do you really think that this went something like this:  

Quote

Guy one "Hey, there is someone asking for an interview with Putin via a Russian government official, all of whom we are monitoring"  

 

No -- because the context of it being an interview would be obvious from the conversation.
 

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If that's what happened I daresay that we nor Tucker would ever have heard about it. 

Seem to recall Carlson saying that the NSA was going to leak it, to make it look as if he was in league with the Russians.

Which would have been pointless if it was obvious the conversation was about an interview.

So -- makes sense that the context of that conversation made Tucker look bad, without the wider context of knowing it was an interview.

Suspect someone saw that, and tipped Carlson off that it would be damaging if the media got hold of it -- so that Carlson could get ahead of it.
 

[+OverSword]

29 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

They didn't spy on Carlson.

And there are dedicated whistle blower channels within the NSA.

Whoever leaked it would be pretty easy to pinpoint, if they'd tried using those channels first.
 

No -- because the context of it being an interview would be obvious from the conversation.
 

Seem to recall Carlson saying that the NSA was going to leak it, to make it look as if he was in league with the Russians.

Which would have been pointless if it was obvious the conversation was about an interview.

So -- makes sense that the context of that conversation made Tucker look bad, without the wider context of knowing it was an interview.

Suspect someone saw that, and tipped Carlson off that it would be damaging if the media got hold of it -- so that Carlson could get ahead of it.
 

We'll find out.  Possibly.

[aztek]

so he was right, again, lol,   but the left is still playing a denial card,  so what about the earlier  thread that was moved to conspiracy? will it be moved back here, where it belongs? 

[Tiggs]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

so he was right, again, lol,   but the left is still playing a denial card,  so what about the earlier  thread that was moved to conspiracy? will it be moved back here, where it belongs? 

The "Tucker Carlson Claims the NSA Is Spying on Him to Take Down His Show" thread?

I didn't move it there, but given there's still no evidence of:

1: The NSA spying on him, or
2: The NSA having any intent to take down his show

I think it's fine where it is.

Feel free to take it up with Saru, though, if you want a second opinion.
 

[psyche101]

14 hours ago, OverSword said:

Link

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

You don't have to. There's a movie.

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You don't have to. There's a movie.

 

Never saw it.  Was it good?

[+OverSword]

7 hours ago, Tiggs said:

The "Tucker Carlson Claims the NSA Is Spying on Him to Take Down His Show" thread?

I didn't move it there, but given there's still no evidence of:

1: The NSA spying on him, or
2: The NSA having any intent to take down his show

I think it's fine where it is.

Feel free to take it up with Saru, though, if you want a second opinion.
 

I'm of the opinion that if this were to be looked into we would discover there was much more into this intrusion of privacy than a simple unmasking of his name and then moving along when they see it's simply member of the press doing his job.  Were that the case the whistleblower would not have felt a need to act on it.  

[Tiggs]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I'm of the opinion that if this were to be looked into we would discover there was much more into this 

Something like an internal investigation, perhaps?

Like the one in your article, which didn't find the things you're speculating about.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Something like an internal investigation, perhaps?

Like the one in your article, which didn't find the things you're speculating about.

No.  Something like the Justice Department.

edit: was there an investigation or did they just figure out what line they were going to feed us?

Edited July 27, 2021 by OverSword

[Tiggs]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

No.  Something like the Justice Department.

You'll need evidence of a crime first, for the DOJ to get involved.

And preferably from a witness that hasn't committed a crime themselves, very recently.

 

[+OverSword]

Then start there.  Why hasn't the leaker been charged?  I have a theory....

The NSA listen to everything so it's not like they don't know who it was.

Edited July 27, 2021 by OverSword

[aztek]

22 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

You'll need evidence of a crime first, for the DOJ to get involved.

 

nope, the bull you've been hosting for years, aka Russian collusion, says otherwise. did you already forget?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Then start there.  Why hasn't the leaker been charged?  I have a theory....

The NSA listen to everything so it's not like they don't know who it was.

It will go nowhere. Obama spied on members of Congress and the result was <crickets>

[Tiggs]

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Then start there.  Why hasn't the leaker been charged?

What makes you think they've been caught?
 

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I have a theory....

A theory about a conspiracy. Hmmmm.
 

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The NSA listen to everything so it's not like they don't know who it was.

I'd assume someone from the NSA would know how to avoid being detected by them,

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

I'd assume someone from the NSA would know how to avoid being detected by them,

Only if they went over to Tuckers house late at night.

[+OverSword]

Isn't it funny how people will tolerate government corruption if it's their percieved side that is corrupt?  Whether it's Obama, Trump, or this you can pretty much pick a persons response by how right or left of center they are.  If a trump era NSA did this to a CNN talking head I predict Tiggs would be outraged and the rest of us would excuse it until the cows wandered home.

[Tiggs]

5 minutes ago, aztek said:

nope, the bull you've been hosting for years, aka Russian collusion, says otherwise. did you already forget?

"We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication." -- IG Horowitz

[+OverSword]

Just now, Tiggs said:

"We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication." -- IG Horowitz

That's like using the bible to prove your religion is the right one.

[aztek]

Just now, Tiggs said:

"We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication." -- IG Horowitz

so this means exactly what?  your refusal to admit your double standards?

[Tiggs]

17 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Isn't it funny how people will tolerate government corruption if it's their percieved side that is corrupt? 

Isn't it funny how people will perceive government corruption, if it's in their political interests to do so.
 

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's like using the bible to prove your religion is the right one.

Who else were you expecting to investigate the Federal government?
 

15 minutes ago, aztek said:

so this means exactly what?  your refusal to admit your double standards?

It means that an independent investigation by an inspector general found that there was sufficient evidence of a crime for the investigation to proceed.
 

[Tiggs]

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Only if they went over to Tuckers house late at night.

That's one way. I'm sure there are other non-electronic methods of communication, too.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Isn't it funny how people will perceive government corruption, if it's in their political interests to do so.

That too 

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Who else were you expecting to investigate the Federal government?

Like I said, the Justice Department, possibly the FBI since I assume this information may have crossed state lines or be within the confines of the District of Columbia?

2 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

It means that an independent investigation by an inspector general found that there was sufficient evidence of a crime for the investigation to proceed.

???  You have any proof of that or do you assume it?