Report: Biden Administration Officials “Unmasked” Tucker Carlson

A few weeks ago, I testified in the House Judiciary Committee on the surveillance of journalists in a long series of scandals from the Bush to the Obama to the Trump to the Biden Administrations. These scandals have occurred with almost seasonal regularity. There was a rare sense of bipartisanship in the hearing as both parties called for investigation and new legislation to address this ongoing problem. However, there has been a notable silence among members and the media after Tucker Carlson went public with an allegation that his emails were not just intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA) but that they were shared with members of the press by intelligence officials. Now, there appears confirmation that the communications were mentioned on intercepts and, as some of us assumed early in the coverage, Carlson was “unmasked” by Biden Administration officials. Yet, the response continues to be crickets from the media and members of Congress.

When the story broke, I stated that it was likely that the communication was not a direct targeting but either an incidental interception (when targeting a foreign intelligence subject) or the gathering of the information when it was discussed by third parties on an intercept. It would then have to have been “unmasked” by an official with such authority. The latest coverage would suggest that it was likely the later circumstance of the communication was discussed or read during an interception and later unmasked.

This is once again an example of how bias continues to distort coverage. Many in the media dislike Carlson and the feeling is obviously mutual. However, what Carlson described on his show was extremely serious and concerning. He said that a journalist and a third party both contacted him to say that his emails were being leaked. He said that one email (where he was seeking to secure an interview with Russian President Vladimir) was literally read back to him.

That should have been sufficient to raise calls for investigation and transparency. Whether the email was intercepted directly, incidentally, or merely discussed in a different intercept is not determinative on why the information would have been circulated or why Carlson’s name was unmasked.

Now, Fox News (who I work for as a legal analyst) is condemning reports in The Record that Carlson was “unmasked” at the request of Biden Administration officials. The NSA had previously denied Carlson’s claims. Now, two sources are being cited as saying that Carlson’s communications were discussed in intercepts and then his identity was unmasked.

There remain very serious questions. Who unmasked Carlson’s name and why was there an unmasking? Moreover, how would such information be discussed with reporters or third parties, if the original allegations are true?

You do not have to like Carlson (any more than other media figures subject to such actions) to be concerned over such alleged unmasking and distribution. This should be part of the bipartisan inquiry discussed in the Judiciary Committee.

163 thoughts on “Report: Biden Administration Officials “Unmasked” Tucker Carlson”

  1. Admittedly it is difficult to really get a granular view of the unmasking process without knowing number and senders/recipients of emails screened during the unmasking process. Unclear if this was a single email or multiples in a chain of discussions. If the unmasking process involves multiple email addresses to various parts of the world and/or various sender/receivers; this is not unmasking- it is overt invasion of Tuckers emails.

    1. @Robert Durgin

      You miss the point.
      More than likely, the NSA monitors the communication of certain foreign officials. So too do the spy organizations of other countries.
      So Tucker’s folks reach out to Putin’s folks. Its going to get picked up by both the US and Russian spy agencies. Fair enough.

      With the NSA, its going to be recorded and the names / identities of the US individual is going to be redacted in the ensuing reports.
      Its then going to go to people who will review it. If they need to, they can request the unmasking. However, the justification has to be done for the right reason. Suppose they get the report… a US citizen who is a journalist is asking to interview Putin… do you really need to know who the reporter is?

      Then there’s the other issue… the leaking to the press.
      That’s actually a criminal act because the masked or unmasked document is classified… until it is declassified.

      -Gumby

      1. My point is Tucker may not have been unmasked. They may have just broke into his email server when became of interest. At the masking/unmasking issue is just a ruse.

        1. I can not make sense out of your remark.

          Government actors can not “break in” to the email servers of a US Person without a warrant.

          Masking is the duty imposed on foreign surveillance to prevent it from violating the constitution.

          Our government has nearly unrestricted powers to investigate non-US persons.

          Powers that violate our rights if used against US Persons.

          Masking is the technique that makes foreign spying constitutional when US persons are involved.

      2. You are mostly correct.

        The current legal standard for unmasking is far to low and there are no penalties for violating that standard.

        Unmasking is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
        It can not be done without a warrant PERIOD.

        Resrote the constitution and the rule of law and the complexity goes away.

    2. Unmasking is relatively simple.

      If the US can not collect data on foriegn actors without protecting the 4th amendment rights of US persons, then they can not collect data on foreign actors at all.

      Masking is a technique that exists to permit spying on foreigners without violating the constitutional rights of US persons.

      Unmasking is a violation of those rights and should not occur absent a warrant.

      Unmasking was routine during the obama administration and continues to be during the Biden administration.

      Rights have no meaning to those on the left.

      There is nothing complicated about this – you can not unmask the identity of a US person without a warrant.

  2. Bottom line is, Turley: you don’t have the facts, but that’s not the point of this piece, is it? Neither you nor Carlson knows whether he was spied on or how the e-mails got out, which could have been incidental t something else, now do you? But that doesn’t matter. What does matter is taking shots at Biden. It’s more red meat for the disciples. Keep stirring the pot.

    1. Absolutely, keep stirring the pot!

      You think Biden shouldn’t be questioned? He’s been getting an easy time of it from the corporate media, but my god, the man needs to be able to stand there as POTUS and take way more shots, and answer far harder questions, than he has had to thus far, don’t you think?

      You miss the point, as usual.

    2. Speaking of Biden’s easy time of it….

      Did you see this?

      “Biden Snaps at NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell for Asking About Veterans Affairs Vaccine Mandate: ‘You Are Such a Pain in the Neck’”

      https://www.mediaite.com/biden/biden-snaps-at-nbcs-kelly-odonnell-for-asking-about-veterans-affairs-vaccine-mandate-you-are-such-a-pain-in-the-neck/

      He can’t handle being questioned.

      Biden cannot take a legit question from a legit reporter who is undoubtedly on his side, in his corner, rooting for him to do well….nope….old Joe snaps. Every time.

      1. “Facebook kills people. Putin is a killer. The GOP wants to put blacks back in chains. Voting laws are Jim Crow.

        Biden without a script is reckless. He makes scurrilous, incorrect, race-baited, and exaggerated claims about his opponents.

        He’s a typical divisive politician.” @arifleischer

    3. @Natcha,

      Why the hostility against Turley.

      The issue isn’t that this is ‘spying’. I’m sure Tucker realized that anyone who communicates to Putin or his people is going to be picked up by the NSA.

      What is disturbing is that the unmasking occurred. (Looks to be partisan politics which makes the unmasking wrong.)
      Then the leaking of the email to the press, which AFAIK is illegal.

      -Gumby

    4. Natacha,

      Concerned American Loving People Demand to Know, Who is Wiping Joe Biden’s Buttt Today???

      **********

      The Illegitimate Presidency of Joe Biden

      Clips and Reports from Infowars crew on location for the Chicom Biden POTUS installation.

      Wake UP Sleepy Joe!

      69,350 views

      ·

      Jul 21, 2021
      37
      Share
      Download
      The Illegitimate Presidency of Joe Biden
      The Illegitimate Presidency of Joe Biden

      https://banned.video/watch?id=60f8abe8d9c33e0475936da3

    5. Actually Nutacha – you do not know the facts.

      The NSA has admitted incidental spying on Carlson.

      The emails “got out” because Carlson made them public – to head off the left wing nut media doing so with an idiotic spin.
      Carlson successfully turned the tables on the left wing nut media and the NSA

    1. There is no such thing as a legitimate parallel method or incidental means to “unmask” someone.

      A US person is automatically unmasked if they are the TARGET of the surveillance – that requires a FISA warrant and proof of probable cause. Have we learned nothing from the Cross Fire Hurricane debacle.

      Intelligence intercepts are by nature classified. The US intelligence gathering apartus is supposed to have a chinese wall between the raw intercepts and what is provided to inteligence consumers. Intercepts identifying US persons are not supposed to every leave the custody of those gathering intelligence without either a Warrant or a justified formal unmasking request. That request is supposed to require a compelling reason the US person needs identified to better understand the intelligence – NOT as a means of targeting the person.
      Any unmasking request that is for the purpose of exposing or prosecuting the US person requires a Warrant.

      Intelligence consumers are free to guess at the identity of US persons, but they are not entitled to know.

      And to be clear – while the law allows for unmasking without a warrant – it should not. That is clearly unconstitutional.
      It is ONLY because US persons are masked that data gathering does not constitute an unconstitutional search.

      One of the problems is that “unmasking” sound innoucuous. IT isn;t. Without rigourous masking the NSA and CIA are engaged in mass warrentless searches.

    2. @Mitchell Bupp.

      Pipe dream?

      Tucker identified by other means?
      How exactly?
      How did a reporter get a copy of the email from a government source?

      And the story isn’t that Tucker’s people wanted an interview w Putin, but that it was unmasked and leaked by the government.

      -Gumby

  3. One of the ways to spy that employs loopholes is the incidental interception method.

    Let’s say you want to spy on conservative journalists who report on global news. You spy on a legitimate target, and the moment that one of these journalists, contacts them for an interview, you unmask them.

    Backdoor warrantless searches under Section 702 of FISA.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls

    1. Tucker IS a liar. Turley doesn’t know what the facts are, and neither do you. Turley is hired to keep stirring the pot for disciples like you, Karen.

      1. If Carlson has lied about something – you should have no trouble proving that.

        With respect to the current claims – Tuckers allegations have been proven.

  4. Wait ’til Joke Buydem suspends habeas corpus like “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, to “save the Union” from “fake” insurrection.

    Not to worry.

    The global communist Deep Deep State is merciful and beneficent.

    But who’s gonna “Save the Nation?”

    President Donald J. Trump after the Arizona et al. state election audits.

  5. Turley says: “Many in the media dislike Carlson and the feeling is obviously mutual.”

    This is a contemptible remark. Many *don’t dislike* Carlson the man; they dislike what he *says.* Trumpists accuse Leftists of TDS. They accuse the supporters of BDS “anti-Semites.”These accusations are no different and just as bad as Liberals calling Trumpists “racists” for wanting to regulate immigration. I don’t hate Trump; I hate his inveterate lying. Hate the sin; not the sinner. We will NEVER have peace in this country until both sides cease accusing the other of hatred for opposing the fair criticism of their policy or conduct.

    1. Jeff:

      As long as the Left is willing to lie to achieve its aims, there will never be peace.

      As long as the Left targets dissenters for financial destruction, there will never be peace.

      This is how Fascism rises, with people claiming both sides are just as bad in defiance of the facts.

      Ex: Democrats are blatantly lying that election reform laws in GA and TX are Jim Crow laws. It’s easily disprovable. It is reprehensible to claim that any of those laws are racist or Jim Crow. Yet they do it, because that’s what they do to get votes. They lie and claim that Republicans are racist. Then when they read the polls, they ludicrously claim they never said voter ID was racist.

      Ex: The Left looted, burned, rioted, committed sedition when they seized entire city blocks and kept police out, even when there were rapes and murders. This happened for about a year, in Blue cities. ONE group of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol building one time. Democrats lie and claim that the entire conservative movement is violent, the party is equal to sedition, and they just ignore the facts about their own widespread rioting. Dems including Biden and Harris bailed out looters. Republicans denounced Jan 6. Democrat voting rioters were either not charged, or mostly diverted to counseling. The Jan 6 “illegal paraders” were kept in solitary confinement and charged with every crime possible. The Left blatantly mischaracterizes this, because that’s what they do. They lie to portray themselves as saviors when they’re the ones who have destroyed communities for generations.

      Ex: Hillary Clinton paid for Russian disinformation against Trump in order to meddle in the 2016 election, but Dems claimed it was Trump working with the Russians to meddle in the election.

      Ex: Cancel culture, in which political dissidents are targeted for impoverishment.

      Ex: Academia is now a Leftist institution, which discriminates against conservative students and faculty. There is no “both sides are doing the same” argument.

      Democrats will never demand change in their own party as long as they deny they have a problem.

      1. Not only are these election laws not “racist” or “jim Crow” they are LESS restrictive than those in most new england states.

        Worse still – they are NOT sufficient.

        If should be incredibly obvious to anyone paying attention that the 2020 election was:

        inarguably lawless. I am not sure what these states expect to accomplish with changes in election laws. In 2020 states did not follow their election laws. PA, GA, AZ, WI, and MI all have constitutional amendments requiring voting by secret ballot. Each of those states permitted and will permit in the future mailin voting. None of these states have changed their constitutions. Mailin voting is not a “secret ballot” and can not be made a secret ballot. Yet the supreme courts in these states – often acknowledging that they were acting outside the state constitution allowed mailin voting. Nor is that the most egregious lawless action. None of us should have been surprised when courts ruled against Trump after the election – they had gone lawless BEFORE the election. When they were confronted with the mess they had made – they covered their asses. The limited auditing that has thus far occured has confirmed several of the allegations made to the courts.

        Inarguably innept. myriads of consequential errors have been found in audits accross the country – some enormous some smaller, some serious but fortunately not altering outcomes – THIS time, some with a very high probability of impacting the election.
        The GA Audit – which is in its infancy – has ALREADY found that the recanvass was total crap. That the worksheets that were used to tally the votes have very poor relationship to the actual votes on ballots that they tally. There are already hundreds of vote errors after checking only a few thousand ballots out of millions cast. And nearly all errors go one way – against Trump. There are tallies of almost a thousand votes that show all Biden votes and no Trump votes – when the actual ballots show about a 60/40 split. The AZ audit has found 72,400 more ballots than voters, it has found tens of thousands of ballots that were not printed by the state. It has found almost ZERO audit trail for “duplicate ballots” – mailin ballots that were received damaged and could not be scanned. Election officials then purportedly carefully copy the original onto a new ballot. The problem is only a handful of the duplicates can be matched with the originals. There is therefore no way to tell if the duplicate is a real duplicate of an actual damaged ballot or just fraud by election officials. Yet, election law requires careful handling of damaged ballots and a clear audit trail – specifically because “duplicate ballots” are a trivial way to commit election fraud absent those checks. In Windham NH we not only found that the DVS systems voting machines used in 85% of NH falsely scanned the voting for ballots with folds on them – nearly 100% reproducably, but that election officials and DVS knew this BEFORE the election, and that it is likely a problem with ALL DVS scanners and possibly ALL voting scanners nationwide to some extent. Though this did not change the outcome of any race in Windham – it did alter the vote tallies by several percent. Further this problem is state wide atleast and has been arround for nearly 2 decades. And finally – nearly all real error tends to balance out. This is part of why Gore’s hanging chad argument was nonsense in 2000. MOST real errors are random – and effect both candidates proportionate to their actual vote. If machines miscount gore votes do to hanging chad they miscount Bush votes proportionately. Addressing hanging chad errors changes the totals but not the outcome.
        But the DVS fold error does not work that way. It will ALWAYS have a benefit for one candidate and harm the other and which will depend on the physical design of the ballot. I would again note that this is rare – nearly all forms of actual error have a proportionate effect.
        When errors do NOT have proportionate effect – the windham case is the exception – the rule is lopsided errors are strong indicators of Fraud. As early as the first GA recount the corrections made were nearly all favoring Trump. The odds of GA not having dignificant fraud are miniscule.

        Actual fraud.
        TX is currently prosecuting more than 400 cases of election fraud – most of which involve many ballots. One statistical analysis of TX indicates that as many as 700,000 Biden votes in TX are suspicious – these are votes in areas that Trump won in 2016 that Trump substantially increased his vote in 2020 and that he somehow lost. TX went 55:45 for Trump – the estimate is it was actually 60:40.
        Subsequent voting where democrats have lost purportedly safe seats in hispanic majority districts strongly suggest misconduct in TX.\
        And it is not like there is no history of large scale voting Fraud by democrats in TX – think LBJ who we are near certain tipped his Senate election with 80,000 votes stuffed into ballot boxes. The GA audit has also already found hundreds of “duplicate” ballots – ballots that are absolutely identical down to the pixel and down to curliques drawn on ballots.

        And I have covered only some of the now known problems.

        Raffensberger actually promissed a statewide Signature audit. Instead he conducted a random signature audit of Cobb county – just about the least likely democrat stronghold to have signature problems. Further the audit was limited to 5000 randomly selected ballots.
        Still the outcome was – a 6% rejection rate for ballots that had been accepted. This should not surprise – 6% is the standard rejection rate for mailin ballots based on data from states that have done this for years. If that Rate held for the entire state of GA – that is 120K-240K ballots that should not have been counted because the signatures did not even meet the low 20% match standard used for 2020.
        But this gets worse 0.6% of the audited ballots were refered to the GBI for Fraud prosecution. That is a 0.6% fraud rate – in a county were fraud was likely low in a state where the election was won by 0.25% of the vote. And these problems were known in Dec. 2020.

        We have enormous historical evidence regarding election fraud – in the US in the past and elsewhere in the world. There are something we KNOW with certainty – if it is possible to commit election fraud with a low probability fo getting caught – you WILL get large scale election fraud.

        If you are on the left would you trust Paul Manafort or Roger Stone not to commit large scale election fraud if they could get away with it ?
        Why should we trust ANY of these people ? Beyond the candidates and the parties – why should we Trust Soros or Goldman Sachs or any other powerful person or company that has billions of dollars at stake int he election outcome ?

        In a few minutes I was able to figure out several low cost means to flip elections in my state with zero possibility of getting caught if current election standards continue to be followed. Are those of you on the left not sufficintly intelligent as to figure out how to stuff 100K ballots into unattended ballot boxes ? or to start a fire in a ballot box destroying uncollected ballots ?

        2022 is coming. Republicans are not stupid. They have two choices – secure elections in their state or demonstrate once again that anything democrats do republicans can do better.

        I do not think that Republicans are universally and inherently moral or law abiding. But numerous factors make fraud particularly large scale fraud by democrats more likely. Democratic power is more concentrated in urban areas. It is just harder to committ large scale fraud in rural or suburban areas and much harder to do so without getting caught. Further democrats – particularly modern left illiberal woke democrats have disconnected from any moral authority such as a god. Leftism it their religion and in that religion right and wrong – morality is outcome driven. Put simply the ends justifies the means. We heard many democrats in 2020 tell us that Trump must go by any means possible.
        Why shouldn’t we beleive them ? As John Adams once purportedly noted our laws and constitution were only sufficient for a christian nation.
        Absent some sense of right and wrong, some moral foundations that preclude “the ends justifies the means” – it is trivial for anyone to self justify immoral conduct.

        When those on the left said “Trump must go, by any means necescary” – I beleive them.

      2. KarenS,

        As I have stated numerous times, I am more than willing to admit that there is some truth in the claims you make, PROVIDED that you will concede that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar. I have no intention of engaging in an argument with a Trumpist who denies this incontrovertible fact. You are wasting your breadth. I could have a rational argument with Turley because he does not deny that Trump is a liar.

        1. The truth exists or it doesn’t. Jeff won’t admit the truth unless others admit to things the others believe are lies. That means Jeff lies until one says what Jeff wants to hear.

          He’s a bit crazy. Jeff, did you learn that type of logic in law school?

          1. Turley wisely sums it up:

            “There are legitimate questions to raise about the FBI’s delayed response and even a possible need for new background investigation procedures for nominees. But the Senate declaring open season on a sitting justice would do great harm to both institutions.”

            As is his wont, Turley attempts to remain above the fray and dispense a fair-minded opinion by acknowledging the legitimate concerns of Democrats while defending the integrity of federal institutions from unwarranted attacks. It is heartening that a Professor of law would not subscribe to the “Deep State” false narrative pushed by Trumpists. Moreover, Turley, to his credit, does not overlook the fact that Trump is no better than some of the Leftists he criticizes:

            “Of course, Democrats are not the only ones keeping such speculation alive. In a recent interview, former President Trump said of Kavanaugh: “I saved his life. He wouldn’t even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him. … I saved his life, and I saved his career.”

            Turley rejects Trumpism, and yet so many Trumpists on this blog believe that he encourages them. They need to read between the lines. He doesn’t.

            1. Asserting there are legitimate questions – which is an assertion not an actual fact, and not one Turley has actually established, is NOT the same as reaching a conclusion.

              Kavanaugh had myriads of background checks prior to this. There was no reason to do anything differentl;y here.
              Further when this nonsense arrose the FBI interviewed every person that FORD claimed had possible knowledge of this and they all denied Ford’s story completely.

              There is no further the FBI can legitimately go.

              This is a common problem with the left. You seem to beleive that the tools of govenrment are there for you to use against your enemies as you please. Preventing this is precisely why we have a constitution and a bill of rights.

              Regardless, if there are legitimate questions – what are they ? If there are changes needed to procedures – what are they ?

              I will be happy to listen to concrete proposals that are consistent with the constitution.

              Do you have any of those ?

              You are actually complete wrong about Turley here – Turley has erred logically.

              You can not presume there are legitimate questions – you must actually raise them.
              You can not presume there are changes necescary – you must actually demonstrate them.

              We saw this with Turley on the impeachments. he was constantly criticizing democrats for going about impeachment in the worst possible way – while pretending that had they done so properly – they would have made their case.

              Democrats rejected the rules of due process and conducted the impeachments improperly – because there was nothing legitimate about them.

              The left does this all the time. The Mueller report is full of this horse$chiff.

              Oh, Woe is me, if only we did not have that pesky constitution I would have found the misconduct I was looking for – Because Trump is evil and there MUST be something there.

              Neither you nor Turely, nor democrats are free to presume an outcome without evidence.

            2. “Turley rejects Trumpism”

              More nonsense.

              What is “trumpism” ?

              What is it that turley has “rejected” ?

              All this is, is stupid word games on your part.

              Turley is like all of us one point on a multidemensional space of political posistions – some of which are actually congruent with reality.

              You are not at the same place as turley, nor is Trump, nor am I nor are all of those you call “trumpists”.

              Turley differs with Trump on some things and agrees on others.

              Each of us is an individual – some of us share more in common than others.

              “and yet so many Trumpists on this blog believe that he encourages them. ”

              More mind reading drivel. Turley is quite often but far from universally correct – particularly on constitutional and legal issues.

              Sometimes – in fact quite often in modern conflicts the constitution and law tend to favor those on the “right” – “Trumpists” as you are wont to call them.

              If course that should “encourage” those who hold a legally and constitutionally correct view.

              It should also discourage those such as yourself who quite often do not.

              Though in the end what matters is the facts, the law and the constitution – Turley’s oppinion is valuable especially to the extent it is correct. It is valuable because it is frequently correct. But it is NOT inerrant.
              As an example Turley fought vigorously and correctly against the baseless and due process free way that democrats proceeded with impeachment.
              But he was constantly holding up a highly implausible olive branch that if they had just proceeded correctly they would have found something.

              There was nothing there. PERIOD.

              There was not even “reasonable suspicion” of something.

              I would note that YOUR first impeachment rests on the idiotic presumption that the powers of the US govenrment can not be excercised for political advantage

              That is complete idiocy. That would make every single thing Biden has done impeachable.

              That argument – which turley unfortunately failed to reject, would mean that the very effort to impeach Trump was itself a hypocritical politically motivated criminal act.

              That is nonsense. Democrats impeachments efforts were immoral, and unethical, without basis in law and fact, they were politically motivated.

              BUT THEY WERE NOT CRIMES. They were neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

              An actual criminal abuse of power requires a PERSONAL benefit – not merely a political one.

              For a political act to be an abuse it must be unlawful or unconstitutional on its face.

        2. “As I have stated numerous times, I am more than willing to admit that there is some truth in the claims you make, PROVIDED that you will concede that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar.”

          Very odd argument – Truth is not conditional, nor is morality.

          If Karen’s claims are true – they are true. They are true regardless of her views on Trump.

          Whether Trump is a chronic or habitual liar is also either true or false based on the FACTS.

          I can list dozens of lies that Biden has been caught in.

          What are the list of consequential lies you think Trump has made ?

          I judge whether someone is a liar based on the facts.

          And when you accuse someone of a moral failure – the burden of proof is on YOU.

          “I have no intention of engaging in an argument with a Trumpist who denies this incontrovertible fact.”
          Again – if “Trump is a chronic and habitual liar” you should have little difficulty demonstrating that.

          “You are wasting your breadth.”
          We all likely are with you.

          You make claims of the moral failures of others but refuse to prove them.
          Hence the moral failure is yours.

    1. OMG, Karen wants to talk about lies, but only lies she claims come from Democrats. Let’s start with just one of the GA voter suppression laws. Prior to the runoff that gave Warnock and Ossoff victories, under GA law, a voter could register to vote in a runoff right up to shortly before runoff election day. The GA Republicans, sore over losing these two seats (after Trump campaigned for the Republican candidates), changed the law. Now, if you weren’t registered for the prior election, you can’t register to vote in the runoff because the new registration deadline kicks in AFTER the runoff date. That’s because thousands of voters who hadn’t been previously registered decided to register, and many of them were black.

      The mythical, evil “Left” who engaged in riots in the past, are NOT Democrats, nor were they instigated to riot by Democrats. Stop writing this, Karen, because it’s a lie. Another lie you keep telling is equating Trump Cultists with conservatives. Real conservatives dislike Trump as much as the majority of Americans. The Cult of Trump started the Insurrection after Trump exhorted them to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, based on the Big Lie. Hundreds of them broke into the Capitol–not to protest–but to abduct and hang Mike Pence to prevent him from performing the ceremonial duty of accepting the certified vote totals, to intimidate and harm members of Congress and to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Trump keeps on telling the same tired lies over and over again. I watched a little of the pathetic “rally” in Arizona, in which your hero kept repeating lies that have been disproven over and over again, including the myth about dead people voting, more ballots returned than voters, mysterious suitcases of ballots magically appearing after a water main break (that never happened), vote counting machines that changed votes (not possible) and that Pence was wrong for accepting the certified vote totals, citing Thomas Jefferson. With Jefferson, there was a page missing from the certified totals from Georgia, but Jefferson accepted the results anyway because Jefferson had the totals and the results WERE NOT IN QUESTION. After this incident, there were 2 statutes passed that make abundantly clear that the VP’s role is ceremonial and not discretionary. Some dumbass lawyer told Trump that this provided authority for Pence to refuse to accept the certified vote totals, which is not true. But, he keeps lying, and the Karens of his Cult keep bellieving.

      I don’t know which alt-right media you are repeating when you try to blame Hillary Clinton for causing the Russian investigation, but you still haven’t read the Mueller Report. Hillary’s campaign took over an investigation started by a Republican opponent of Trump’s. I know they keep telling you that Russia didn’t help Trump cheat, but the evidence is there, the guilty pleas are there and the guilty verdicts are there. Read the Mueller Report, which is based on actual evidence. Dan Coats, head of American Intelligence agencies, said Russia helped the Trump campaign cheat. He was fired for telling the truth.

      There is no evil “Left” in academia that is tormenting “conservative” students and faculty.

      1. nutacha.

        GA’s laws are less restrictive than those in all of new england including new york.

        If GA is practicing voter supression – then so is most of the country.

        Regardless, this is an idiotic argument – GA seeks to supress votes – ILLEGAL votes.

        Why should people be able to register right up to the day of the election ?

        Why should they be able to vote by mail ?

        Why should they be able to vote any day but election day ?

        Our government is no one continuous never ending election.

        We have elections at discrete points in time.

        Of Warnock and Ossoff actually won – great. But it appears increasingly likely they did not.

        Only a few thousand Fulton County ballots have been audited so far – but hundreds of duplicates have been found.

        Even Raffensburger – who claimed the election was secure and fraud free in November now seeks to decertify the Fulton County election board as hopelessly corrupt.

        Slowly we find the claims made in affadavits presented tot he courts to challenge the election are turning out to be TRUE.

        In Marricopa county AZ there were 72,400 more votes than voters. And that is just one of many problems found.

        In AZ the dept of state has finally admitted the voter registration database was hacked before the election.

        We also have tens of thousands of “duplicate ballots” – these are ballots that were copied bhy election officials because the original was damaged and could not be scanned.

        The Problem – there are no damaged originals for most of the “duplicates”.

        When election officials duplicate a ballot – absent a rigid chain of custody there is no way of knowing if the duplicate is a fraud created by the election offficials.

        You ask why should all these things you call “supression” exist ?

        Because the easier it is to vote, the easier it is to commit fraud and not get caught. ‘

        Based in what we are seeing so far with the audits – it is possible but unlikely that we will ever be able to establish for certain whether Trump ro Biden won. But the amount of error – and likely fraud is staggering.

        Regardless, if I could i would require that elections accross the country only be held in person during huricanes. If you are not willing to go out in a storm to vote – you should not vote.

      2. Nutacha – absolutely there were repulicans doing OPO research on trump.

        Just as Clinton actively sought to drive Biden from the race.

        The Ukraine story started with Clinton – specifically Sydney blumenthal – not republicans – as did the Obama birtherism.

        But the effort to sell the steele dossier to the DOJ, State and FBI was exclusively Clinton’s

        Regardless, the fault is NOT with Clinton – we expect political rivals to demand government go after their oponents.

        The CRIME was that the FBI actually DID what Clinton asked.

      3. nutacha – just to be clear you are saying the riots last summer, the BLM riots, the George Floyd riots, the arson the tearing down of statues, the $2B in destruction – this is not the left ? It is not democrats ?

        So you fully support long jail terms for people who burn down stores of police stations or throw rocks at police ?

        Regardless of whether they are on the left or right ?

        Then why has the DOJ and democrats mayors and AG’s ended nearly all prosecutions associated with the riots last summer ?

        If you are opposed to violence, rioting, arson – then prosecute it.

      4. “There is no evil “Left” in academia that is tormenting “conservative” students and faculty.”

        Of course there is – and they are losing court case after court case.

        Regardless, there are leftist idiots in academia calling not merely for the murder of conservatives – but any who disagree with them.

        Are you blind ? Berkeley burned buildings down to prevent Milo Yanopilis from speaking.
        They were forced by courts to spend 600K on security for a Ben Shapiro speech.

        J K Rowling gets death threats for seeking to protect the lives of biological women. And she is not anywhere near the right.

        Is Martina Navrotolova a “right wing nut” – well she has been canceled for opposing allowing anatomically male atheletes to compete as women.

        Of course there is an evil and bat$hit crazy left in academia – just as the sun will rise tomorow.

  6. I knew it was true as soon as I heard the NSA’s denial. It said that Carlson was not a target. Never said that Carlson was lying nor denied they read his email.

  7. Carlson’s a bright spot in an ocean of pathetic woke losers all across the punditry board. That he was targeted is as expected as it is chilling. I hope he sues the pants off them.

  8. The Unbearable Stupidity Of ‘Facist-Communist’

    Trumpers Deny Well-Known History

    When the Nazi party was born, the term ‘socialism’ was considered positive in Germany. Germans still like the term. Currently, two of Germany’s 3 biggest political parties have ‘Social’ in their name.

    But a German’s concept of ‘socialism’ is not ‘Stalinism’. Hitler rose to power because he was perceived as ‘strong enough’ to stand in Stalin’s way. Great Britain and France tended to view Hitler as a ‘necessary evil’.

    Hitler would obviously short-circuit Germany’s shaky democracy. But he kept radical leftists from taking over Germany and striking an alliance with Stalin. Once in power Hitler persecuted leftists. Many future leaders of East Germany were jailed during the Nazi years.

    Hitler came to power with support from German industrialists. They saw Hitler as a ‘necessary evil’ to thwart communists. Germany’s biggest manufacturers would thrive during most of Hitler’s rule. Many of those corporations are thriving today!

    During the early Cold War years, the United States supported and, or, tolerated several facist-like regimes. The CIA installed the Shah of Iran to overthrow a leftist-leaning government; a still-simmering grievance in Iran today.

    During much of the Cold War, South Korea and Taiwan were ruled by right-leaning regimes. And right-leaning Marcos ran The Philippines. They were all U.S. partners in holding the line on communism.

    In 1959 President Eisenhower visited Spain to be greeted by former Hitler ally Francisco Franco. The optics were peculiar. But Franco, like so many U.S. partners, was seen as ‘tough on communism’.

    Eisenhower tolerated quasi-fascist regimes all over Central and South America. And even the Nixon administration helped engineer a rightwing coup in Chile when that country went too far left.

    Here, today in the United States, Trump supporters regard their leader as ‘tough on communism’. Most must sense, however, that Trump is not too concerned with Democratic norms. But that’s okay, in the minds of supporters. Trump is seen as a ‘necessary evil’ to thwart a Venezuela-style meltdown.

    Hitler, The Shah, Augusto Pinochet and now Donald Trump; all are right-leaning ‘strong men’ perceived by supporters as crucial bulwark against communism.

    Therefore it is insultingly stupid when supporters of Trump try to hyphenate ‘Facist-Communist’. Those aware of history know that every right-leaning strong man, in the last 100 years, was embraced as ‘tough on communism’.

      1. Hitler, and the German socialists branched off from the radical conservatives, in other words the elites, during the Wiemar. And he definitely was seen as a way to blunt the influence of Russian communism. Socialism and communism were on very different pages

        eb

        1. You do realize that Marx didn’t differentiate between socialism and communism?

          Do you know the basic difference between nationalism and the ideologies?

          You seem to be lost.

            1. Bug, you are talking ignorance and confusing yourself.

              Marx didn’t state how or what country would follow his lead. He had predictions, but he wasn’t good at predicting. Marx was a failure. It’s hard to understand why so many people buy his garbage and don’t even understand it.

              Look at you. You don’t understand the basics of Marxism, nor do you recognize the lust for power. You are just a boob who should be placed in front of a TV set and left there.

              1. Whatever you wish to make of the differences between communism, socialism and fascism, they are minute.
                Alcolytes of each were unfamiliar with the differences.

                Regardless, all were permutations of the same collectivist tree and all bore poisonous fruits that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions.

        2. “Hitler, and the German socialists branched off from the radical conservatives, in other words the elites, during the Wiemar.”

          This idiotic argument destroy’s any meaning to the word “conservative”.

          Musollini is the roots of facism. Politically Hitler was merely an alcolyte.

          Musollini’s roots were inarguably socialist.

          German socialists did NOT “branch off from radical conservatives”.

          All fascists are socialist, They are also inherently anti-capitalists.
          There is very little that is conservative about them.

          Absolutely Hutler, Musollini and otther fascists used “the elites” – just as left wing fascists today use the “elites”.

          Would you call blm a branch of radical conservatism ?

          Can you make an argument that is coherent has atleast some basis in fact and is not bat$hit crazy ?

          “And he definitely was seen as a way to blunt the influence of Russian communism.”
          NO. Hitler sought to destroy all Communism – not just Russian communism. Communism was a direct political threat to Nazism.
          They were in direct competition for power and they had substantial common principles and values.

          “Socialism and communism were on very different pages”

          There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

          Ayn Rand

    1. “Once in power Hitler persecuted leftists.

      According to you, Stalin would never want to kill his fellow Marxist, Trotsky, but he did.

      Poof, there goes your argument.

      You say so much in error, that to correct would lead one to run out of electronic paper and ink. To see where your argument fails, all you have to do is look at the similarities and differences between the ideologies.

      Start with individualism vs. collectivism. Compare America’s Constitutional Republic and that of all the others you mention.

      1. Leftists electively, proacrtively abort leftists for fear of shared depraved minds, principles of political congruence, and often single/central/minority complexes (e.g. deference to mortal gods and goddesses, experts, etc.). Then there is the totalitarian-anarchist, left-right nexus that is leftist. There can be only one Marxist (e.g. diversity [dogma] or class-based judgments and labels), communist, socialist, fascist, democratic/dictatorial leader, etc. #HateLovesAbortion

    2. From Nazis braying Jew privilege to neo-Nazis braying White privilege. From selective-Jew to selective-child under the Pro-Choice religion that denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a property. Social justice, political congruence, and redistributive change, too.

    3. A final solution, a wicked solution, to purportedly hard problems, veritable “burdens”. Deplorable.

      But let us not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment). Baby Lives Matter Principles matter.

      Left-wing ideology is authoritarian, tolalitarian at its extreme. Right-wing ideology is libertarian, anarchist at its extreme. The center is conservative or moderate. In America, the center is Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, without diversity [dogma], including: racism, sexism, ageism, political congruence, and other special, peculiar, and class-based bigotries.

    4. Apparently, WWII did not fit into your “narrative,” so you chose to ignore “Well-Known History.”

      The U.S., partnered with GB and the SU (a communist country), to defeat the *fascist* Nazi government and the *fascist* Italian government.

      More importantly, you are woefully ignorant about political philosophy. Fascism and communism are two peas on a pod. They are both types of radical statism — where government power is unchecked, and the individual’s life belongs to the state.

  9. Very interesting indeed. The NSA denies that Tucker Carlson is an intelligence target but they don’t deny that they have seen his emails. Another thing that didn’t deny is that they unmasked him. They published a non-denial in the wording of their denial. Looks like their lawyers spent a lot of time writing their cover their butts response.

    1. The NSA routinely monitors actual foreign sources – we expect that and have no problem with that. All communications was between two parties and frequently one party in a communication with a legitimately monitored foreign source is a ‘US Person”.

      Conforming to the requirements of the 4th amendment requires either getting a warrant for the communications of THAT US Person or distributing that communication with the identity of the US Person “masked”

      The left has been trying to pretend that “unmasking” is not a big deal – it is a very big deal.

      It is a constitutional violation. It is an abuse of power.

      There are supposed to be procedures that must be followed for unmasking – a government official requesting the identity of a US person in an intelligence communication is supposed to be able to provide a justification for doing so – a reason that the US Persons identity will help better understand the intelligence.

      Frankly they should be REQUIRED to get a warrant. But they are not.

      Unmasking was supposed to be rare, but as we have found in the collusion delusion investigations – it was commonplace under Obama, and as Biden was one of the lead unmaskers then – we should not be surprised that it is common now.

      Politicians have always been of dubious morality – but modern leftism inherentlyu is without any moral foundations.

      It should not be surprising that we find democrats, the left, the media, engaged in bad conduct that is justified by claims that the ends justify the means – and that without moral foundations many of us buy that.

  10. I am not at all surprised that Tucker was spied on by one of our intelligence agencies. If you don’t think we live in a nation where we should fear our intelligence agencies you should listen to a wise man of the left. Chuck Schumer let us know that we better not step out of line. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community. What’s amazing is he thought that it was a good thing. When they tell you who they are believe them.

  11. Jonathan: Now you would think Tucker Carlson would be safe from criticism when he visited Dan Bailey’s fishing store in Livingston, Montana. this week. This is a state controlled by the GOP where the population is almost entirely white and Trump won the state last year by 16 points. Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat, is the only exception to the rule. So when Carlson entered Bailey’s he expected to be heartedly welcomed. Instead, he was confronted by another Dan Bailey (no relation to the owner) who called Carlson “the worst human being” to his face. On a post Bailey said of Carlson: :”This man has killed more people with his vaccine misinformation, he has supported extreme racism, he is a fascist and does more to rip this country apart than anyone that calls themselves an American”. Whoa! Now if you watch Carlson on a regular basis it is clear he has a “bias”–something you complain about in the mass media. I suppose we should give Carlson some license because he id definitely not a journalist. He is a purveyor of conspiracy theories and unfounded claims in an agenda to undermine the Biden administration’s efforts to get more people vaccinated. Carlson has called for a criminal investigation of Dr. Fauci for allegedly lying about the origins of Covid-19. Dutifully following Carlson’s lead, Senator Rand Paul also called this week for a criminal investigation–calling Fauci a “liar”.

    Now as a Fox paid legal contributor, it is no surprise you would want to defend Carlson in his unproven claim that the NSA intentionally spied on him as part of Biden administration plot to get his show cancelled. Carlson deals in “shock and awe”–making spurious claims about plots against him without offering any evidence– all in an effort to provide red meat for his viewers. It’s good for ratings. But you seem to think Carlson’s claims are “serious and concerning”. It appears you also have been sucked into Carlson’s orbit of conspiracy theorists. Doesn’t seem like an endeavor an academic and attorney would want to join. You are big on “objectivity” and “neutrality” in the media so why the sudden support for Carlson’s ravings about plots against him? You should know about Carlson’s MO–misinformation and exaggeration. That is Carlson’s stock in trade. Take for example the slander case brought by Karen McDougal against Fox and Carlson–who falsely claimed her suit against Trump was “a classic case of extortion”. In dismissing McDougal’s suit US District Judge and Trump appointee Mary Ann Vyskocil said Carlson was not “stating actual facts” but engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary”. Vyskocil agreed with the Fox lawyers : “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes”. Fox latter made the statement that “a reasonable viewer would not conclude the contested statement [by Carlson] implies objective fact”. You should read about what Fox said about Carlson and read Judge Vyskocil’s entire opinion before joining Carlson’s contested claims about the alleged plot by the NSA!

    1. I would guess that you are following the news as broadcast by CNN, MSNBC, Bing and other leftist media outlets. Tucker has most recently questioned why the CDC, Biden Administration and other bureaucratic agencies in the Federal Government will not release all the data available to the public. Oh such shame on Tucker. He has consistently stated he has had the vaccine protocol. He has had various doctors and scientists on to discuss issues with the vaccines quoting available CDC data. He leaves the questions about the vaccines to the viewer. Alex Berenson has made many appearances on the show, and Mr. Berenson has done more research on the Virus and Vaccines then any of the leftist media. I appreciate that Tucker stands for truth, good, bad and ugly and I certainly do not agree with him on all occasions.

      1. The NSA is collecting all electronic communications in this country. Not the country I was born into.

      1. Here is the video. One can see how trashy leftists are and how willing they are to invade another’s space. The leftist doesn’t care about the child. The leftist is rude and obnoxious and trying to start a fight. Tucker was polite and walked away. It is not an atypical encounter between a pig on the left and an intelligent polite individual on the other side.

        http://thetruereporter.com/man-who-heckled-tucker-carlson-is-connected-to-foundation-that-was-founded-by-the-cia/

          1. You are welcome.

            I imagine that you would find Bailey’s offensive attack around children to be appropriate. Bailey tried to start a fight but failed. Tucker remained cool and deescalated the in-your-face actions of that idiot. Tucker then appropriately stepped away.

            It was probably a good lesson of how adults should act and defuse things. Does that method work as well in basketball?

            SM

            1. Nothing Tuck ’ems does defuses things. He’s built a career around using inflamed rhetoric to drum up ratings. He’s a hack and a punk.

              eb

              1. The video shows you are either ignorant or lying. Tucker responded quietly and then turned away and went on with his business. That ended everything proving you wrong. Tucker acted the way one should when an offensive leftist tries to start a fight.

                1. Thanks. Glad you could pry yourself away from the Tucker altar long enough to lie about him like you lie about everything.

                  There’s something to be said for consistency.

                  eb

                  1. Once again you say something that isn’t true. Can you state the lies you are thinking of? Of course not! You can’t state very much of anything much less prove what you utter to be true.

                    It probably hurts a lot to be so ignorant. Find yourself a bar, get drunk and spill your guts to the bartender.

                  2. The rest of us are not fixated on Tucker – as YOU are.

                    We are outraged by the malfeasance and incompetance of government.

                    Or the idiocy of this guy who attacked someone he disagreed with in a fishing shop.

                    This is typical of the deranged left.

                    You need not merely disagree vigorously with your opponents, you must destroy them and their lives.

                    You are intolerant and hate filled.

              2. As is typical – you make everything about attacking people you do not like.

                It is OK for you for the NSA to be spying on journalists AND sharing their identity withing government AND leaking that identity ?

                There are so many problems here.

                But as is typical of those on the left – not only are you only outraged when your oxe is gored, but you are incapable of grasping that your own rights are not secure unless those who you hate the most have the same rights.

                And I find it amazing – wwhether lawful or fraudulent the 2020 election is over. Biden is president.

                While we are SLOWLY starting to see the media cover his disasterous presidency – for the most part, you, the left, democrats and the media remain focused on Trump.

                Trump is not president. He only has a meaningful voice because YOU continue to fixate on him.
                Trump remains the staple of left wing nuts – because otherwise you would have to face up to your own failures.

                Regardless, if Biden had succeeded – even half what you promised. If he had merely been little better than Trump – no one would be paying attention to Trump.

                But banned and scorned and derided by you – Trump still has a very loud megaphone – one that GROWS as YOUR failures increases.

                You are in control – all you need to do to make Trump irrelevant is succeed.

                You can not manage that.

    2. ” was not “stating actual facts” but engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary”.

      I believe a judge said something similar about Rachel Maddow’s show and essentially described it as entertainment television meant to get ratings, which is what it is.

    3. what a ludicrous claim: “So when Carlson entered Bailey’s he expected to be heartedly welcomed.” Carlson was there to shop like anyone else. Only a leftist CNN-vomit watcher would think that Carlson expected anything other than to be left in peace (or waited on when he was buying his items).

    4. Dennis,

      If you watch Carlson’s show as I sometimes do, you may notice that his guests are primarily non-journalists like himself as well as radio talk show hosts who function largely as entertainers. The great deception in the media industry is willful blindness. If Turley were forced to watch any given Carlson telecast, and asked in real-time what he thought about each and every outlandish statement and sneering insinuation of a “Deep State,” we would witness Turley criticizing Tucker’s view because they are indefensible. Turley, however, would never allow himself to put on the spot like that. He will pretend that he is oblivious of Tucker’s hateful commentary though, as I pointed out to earlier, Turley found the time to apprise himself of Farrakhan’s disgusting vaccine commentary and condemn it on this blog.

      It’s probable that Turley will never work for CNN or MSNBC again. People who work for Fox usually never do. And when they are jettisoned from Fox, they are on their own or resign themselves to working for Newsmax. I occasionally look at Newsmax, and Eric Bolling, formerly of Fox, will be hosting a show in which he hopes to unseat Fox in his time slot. What is fascinating is watching him lump Fox into the same media landscape as CNN and MSNBC. Newsmax is claiming it is “Real News for Real People.” Newsmax is doing to Fox what Fox did to the MSM! Fox is being hoisted by its own petard. While Fox vilifies the MSM, it is completely silent on Newsmax’s attacks in hopes that its viewers won’t notice that Newsmax exists- to get the idea that Newsmax may have a point.

      It will be interesting to watch how Fox will eventually deal with the threat posed by Newsmax especially if Trump completely forsakes Fox to throw his weight behind Newsmax and OAN. Fox is in a precarious position facing the same “media bias” attacks it made against the MSM in building its audience.

      1. Tucker has a brain, something you and the left-wing talking heads do not. He can defend his point of view and does it well. one need not agree with him to recognize his superb abilities. Those who criticize without proof are showing their ignorance to everyone that bothers to read what they say.

        “People who work for Fox usually never do.”

        Two, off the top of my head, are Megan Kelley and Shepard Smith.

        So much for listing to anything you say.

        1. This post smells of SM. If you are not S.Meyer, forgive me for not replying. After I had showed my psychologist a smattering of SM’s typical incoherent replies to my posts, he strongly advised me to ignore him for the sake of my mental health. In the future, please be advised that I will not reply to anonymous posts. If there is an anonymous response to this post, we will know for certain it was SM because if we all know one thing about him, he cannot resist the temptation of getting in the last word…

          1. “After I had showed my psychologist a smattering… he strongly advised me to ignore him for the sake of my mental health.”

            This dude is in real trouble. He needs the aid of a psychologist to preserve his mental health.

            The cheap and straightforward solution would be to dump the blog. LOL

          2. Dear Jeff: I need not use an anonymous post. I am an attorney who infrequently posts here. Your pseudo-intellectual persona is quite laughable, as is your writing skill ( more correctly: “After I had SHOWN my psychologist a smattering of SM’s TYPICALLY incoherent replies…”). Moreover, your constant use of “trumpism” and “Trumpists” tells me that you try so hard for validation that you step on your own two (very) left feet…Usually I just smile when I read your nonsense, but this time I felt compelled to call you out. Please use this site more maturely…And take my comment to you “psychologist.”

            1. Hello Lin,

              I appreciate your comments as you strike me as both educated and intelligent. Instead of smiling at my commentary, I trust you will call me out as I have grown very weary of the general level of discourse on this blog. Your contributions would be a welcome addition which would induce me to continue following this blog rather than throw in the towel as I’m often tempted to do.

              1. “rather than throw in the towel “

                Throw in the towel. We have had enough of your blind hatred and narcissism.

                SM

        2. Megyn spells her name with a ‘y’ and left Fox on the heels of a sexual harassment suit against Roger Ailes. . And Shepard Smith quit Fox to work at CNBC. For what it’s worth, as reporters, Shepard has much more integrity than Megyn but both made solid career choices when they realized the true nature of the lying hell pit they were working in.

          eb

          1. You are displaying your ignorance again. The statement made was, “People who work for Fox usually never do.” You don’t know what the word, never, means. I provided two names, and there are more. Jeff makes these crazy black and white statements that are easily proven wrong. You double down on them, sucking up to him without knowing what his sentence was saying. That is OK. We all know that when it comes to knowledge, you suck, but when using the spell-check apparatus, you sometimes get it right.

            1. Sounds like you don’t know what the word ‘usually’ means. You’re an idiot.

              eb

          2. WE have seen sexually abusive conduct in the media without reference to politics.

            In fact much of the misconduct in places like CNN and MSNBC has been worse than that in Fox.

            Regardless, after “metoo” no sane person has any basis for drawing political conclusions regarding allegations of sexual misconduct.

            We have seen true claims of misconduct and false ones and many where we can not tell.
            We have seen them by those on the left and those on the right.

            There is no clear political signal to workplace sexual misconduct – and to the extent there is, it appears worse from the left.
            Bill Clinton is not a republican. Nor is Harvey Weinstein, or Sen. Franken. The complaints against those in the media on the left are numerous.

            Absolutely Fox has allowed conduct it should have put a stop to – and should be judged accordingly – as should CNN., MSNBC, ….

            You seem to think that what occured at Fox was unique – it was not even close.

            However harshly you choose to judge Fox – you are morally obligated to judge the left wing nut media by the same standard.
            But you do not.

            That is hypocracy.

            Megyn can work where she pleases, as can shepard, for whatever reasons either choose.

            Kelly left Fox, she also subsequently left NBC.
            She identifies as independent – not republican or democrat.

          1. So ?

            There are far more women on Fox with prominent roles than the left wing nut media.

            There are plenty of claims of workplace sexual misconduct by left wing media pundits.

            Only a left wing nut would presume a political spin to an issue that at best is worse on the left.

  12. It is certainly interesting that Tucker Carlson’s emails with Russians were the subject of scrutiny by the NSA. The obvious motivation for the unmasking of his name was for the purpose presenting him as a Russian stooge. There were also other news networks that had communications with the Russians for the purpose of obtaining an interview with Putin. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/transcript-nbc-news-exclusive-interview-russia-s-vladimir-putin-n1270649. We must then ask if the email accounts of NBC reporters were also used in a spying operation to find any dirt on them. NSA is required to destroy data on an American citizen received in the course of investigating a foreign nation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/716942-exhibit-b.html#document/p3/a106756. Why destroy such information? So that a false accusation of cooperation with a nation considered an adversary to the U.S. will not be made. This was an attempted smear campaign against Tucker Carlson by the boot lickers at the NSA to make the Biden administration happy. I thought good ole Joe was all about stopping misinformation. Over at CNN they were saving the Tucker Russia conspiracy for the right time. Luckily someone tipped Tucker off so that he would be ahead of the story. A Russia story got Trump out of the White House. Because it worked so well why not use it to get Tucker off the air. The socialist plan has always been the same. Make sure that no opposing voices will be allowed.

      1. I’ve seen white supremacists in action, unfortunately they were in black face.

        1. I have to disagree – the most dangerous and numerous racist woke wing nuts are straight white eductated elites.

          It is shocking that someone who works in a body shop knows the world better than a harvard graduate.

          The entire left wing nut ideology is rooted in the central premise that minorities ARE actually inferior – otherwise why do they need help ?

Leave a Reply