Tucker Carlson on the Kennedy Assassination

[Jon Banks]

Tucker has posted a lot of nonsense about UFOs and vaccines.  He is sometimes off the mark but I give him credit for questioning what he is told.  Something the mainstream leftist media never does.  They are foot soldiers for the Biden administration.  If a woman is arrested for silently praying by authoritarian goons, it is only someone like Tucker who comes to their defense. Tucker has one of the most highly rated shows on cable TV.  Why don't our contrarian CTers go to him with their evidence that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and Lifton's body alteration nonsense?  He is clearly not part of the endless conspiracy to cover up the JFK assassination.

Today the term "Conspiracy Theory" is applied to pretty much anything the mainstream media doesn't want to talk about. The problem with them doing that is that sometimes, the stuff that they label "Conspiracy Theories" are partially or mostly true.

As I said earlier, the only good thing to me about Tucker is that he covers topics that most of the mainstream media won't touch. And he occasionally allows Leftwing commentators like Glenn Greenwald to come on his show and speak out against the national security state and US foreign policies.

In the absence of any similar content in the so called "Liberal Media", I give Tucker credit for that even though I disagree with him most of the time on most topics.

[Tom Scully]

And they were vindicated...

Investigations proved that the FBI spied on Trump's campaign and that the "Russia collusion" stuff originated from Clinton campaign's opposition research. That stuff wouldn't have been exposed if Hillary won in 2016.

And we know that some in the media tried to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story despite the fact that the DHS confirmed in 2020 that it wasn't a product of Hacking or Russian propaganda.

I would enjoy watching you attempt to support your conclusion with links to credible sources. All you've done in your post is support that John Durham (and Musk's paid stooges)_accomplished their real purpose, right wing extremist disinfo history alteration, as opposed to non-partisan, evidence justified indictments and prosecutions. Opinions that Trump is anyone's victim are unfounded signs of extremist radicalization.

https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1204173871869571072

[Mark A. Oblazney]

I would enjoy watching you attempt to support your conclusion with links to credible sources. All you've done in your post is support that John Durham (and Musk's paid stooges)_accomplished their real purpose, right wing extremist disinfo history alteration, as opposed to non-partisan, evidence justified indictments and prosecutions. Opinions that Trump is anyone's victim are unfounded signs of extremist radicalization.

https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1204173871869571072

Prokop twittered that right before the pandemic.  Then it gets lost in the pancake.

[Jon Banks]

I would enjoy watching you attempt to support your conclusion with links to credible sources. All you've done in your post is support that John Durham (and Musk's paid stooges)_accomplished their real purpose, right wing extremist disinfo history alteration, as opposed to non-partisan, evidence justified indictments and prosecutions. Opinions that Trump is anyone's victim are unfounded signs of extremist radicalization.

https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1204173871869571072

Michael Horowitz, an Obama appointed inspector general, confirmed that the FBI went on a wild goose chase after Steele Dossier leads like Carter Page. He confirmed that the FBI omitted relevant facts from their FISA application, most notably, the fact that Page was a CIA asset:

...the FBI concealed that Page had been working with the CIA in connection with his dealings with Russia and had notified CIA case managers of at least some of those contacts after he was “approved as an ‘operational contact'” with Russia; the FBI lied about both the timing and substance of Page’s relationship with the CIA; vastly overstated the value and corroboration of Steele’s prior work for the U.S. Government to make him appear more credible than he was; and concealed from the court serious reasons to doubt the reliability of Steele’s key source.

Moreover, the FBI’s heavy reliance on the Steele Dossier to obtain the FISA warrant – a fact that many leading national security reporters spent two years denying occurred – was particularly concerning because, as the IG Report put it, “we found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications.”

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

The Horowitz report - https://oig.justice.gov/node/16547


The John Durham investigation confirmed that the Steele Dossier and the Alfa Bank conspiracy theories originated political consultants linked to the Clinton campaign or DNC:

These new disclosures suggest that Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the two former Wall Street Journal reporters behind Fusion, used the same strategy to publicize the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank pinging story. Along with others, they simultaneously funneled information about suspected collusion to journalists, the FBI, and lawmakers—and then told reporters that government officials were investigating the issue. The result was a feedback loop that convinced journalists who already abhorred Trump for good reasons to believe they were on the right track.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/alfa-bank-ping-russiagate/


So in short, consultants connected to Hillary's campaign used their connections to the DOJ and FBI to get the FBI to look into the Steele Dossier. The FBI concluded that the most explosive claims in the Dossier lacked corroboration yet they still referenced the Dossier in their FISA warrant applications.

Aside from the Carter Page issue, the FBI used undercover agents and assets to target George Papadopoulos. One example was described by the NY Times:

F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016

Ms. Turk went to London to help oversee the politically sensitive operation, working alongside a longtime informant, the Cambridge professor Stefan A. Halper. The move was a sign that the bureau wanted in place a trained investigator for a layer of oversight, as well as someone who could gather information for or serve as a credible witness in any potential prosecution that emerged from the case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html


Who is Stefan Halper?

The FBI Informant Who Monitored the Trump Campaign, Stefan Halper, Oversaw a CIA Spying Operation in the 1980 Presidential Election

Four decades ago, Halper was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush – got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration. The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering...

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/

Cambridge Prof With CIA, MI6 Ties Met With Trump Adviser During Campaign

Halper has links to the CIA stretching back decades. His late father-in-law was Ray Cline, a CIA legend who served as director of the agency’s bureau of intelligence and research. Halper also worked with a team of former CIA officers on George H.W. Bush’s unsuccessful 1980 presidential primary bid. Halper was reportedly in charge of a team of former CIA analysts who kept tabs on the Jimmy Carter campaign.

At Cambridge, Halper has worked closely with Dearlove, the former chief of MI6. In recent years they have directed the Cambridge Security Initiative, a non-profit intelligence consulting group that lists “UK and US government agencies” among its clients.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/05/17/halper-trump-page-papadopoulos/


So the evidence is overwhelming that the FBI (and possibly the CIA and MI6) spied on Trump's campaign. It's also clear now that the media narrative about Trump-Russia collusion originated from Clinton campaign operatives laundering uncorroborated Steele Dossier claims to the public via the news media.

Dirty politics isn't new, nor is it illegal. What's most concerning about the stuff was the role played by the intelligence community. It's scary when they meddle in domestic politics. I don't think that was the first time, nor the last that intelligence operatives have spied on domestic political campaigns.

[Andrew Mason]

Only true if you’ve forgotten their lack of critical reporting on WMDs during the run-up to the Iraq war and their frequent mistakes in reporting on Trump from 2016-2020.

I seem to recall the NY Times among others reporting that the leaders of all other countries except the U.K. were saying the evidence of WMDs is false. I am not aware of "frequent mistakes" in reporting on Trump while he was in office.  In any event, they were much more likely to report unbecoming verified facts concerning President Trump than were the Fox "News" and their like.

All news reporting contains some level of bias.

That is recognized by good journalists and that is why they go through an objective process to determine reliability of alleged facts before publishing.

The mainstream media tends to be biased in favor of the national security state and people within the US national security state were uncharacteristically rattled by Trump. I mean, hundreds of articles about Trump were published citing nothing more than anonymous sources as evidence.

There is nothing wrong with reporting anonymous sources so long as the reporter does the due diligence to verify the credibility and reliability of the source.  This was, after all, how Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story using the anonymous "deep throat" source.

The problem with Fox "News" and Trump using "anonymous" sources is that they either make them up or, if they exist at all, are not objectively vetted for reliability and credibility.

And regardless of whether it’s true or not, it’s newsworthy given the size of Carlson’s audience…

It is only newsworthy if it is very likely true.  That is the problem with Fox and other "news" services (Info Wars, National Enquirer etc.).  They don't care whether it is true.  There is not much difference between that and outright lying.

[Jon Banks]

There is nothing wrong with reporting anonymous sources so long as the reporter does the due diligence to verify the credibility and reliability of the source.  This was, after all, how Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story using the anonymous "deep throat" source.

Credible sources are sometimes wrong. Credible sources sometimes lie. It's not always clear what motivates someone to anonymously leak serious allegations. Sometimes they don't act in good faith. Citing people who are willing to go on record is always preferable to off the record quotes.

Still, I don't think it's always bad to cite sources who prefer to remain anonymous. But if they're not giving documents or other evidence to corroborate their claims, it's not a good journalistic practice to rely on them.

In the Trump years, there were dozens of anonymously sourced stories about him that turned out to be wrong. They got very sloppy with their reliance on those types of sources when it came to Trump. Sometimes reporters were held accountable for sloppy reporting but not always:

3 CNN Journalists Resign After Retracted Story on Trump Ally
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/3-cnn-journalists-resign-after-retracted-story-on-trump-ally.html
 

The problem with Fox "News" and Trump using "anonymous" sources is that they either make them up or, if they exist at all, are not objectively vetted for reliability and credibility.

Again, even credible sources and credible news outlets get things wrong from time to time. All I'm saying is that Tucker's use of an anonymous source isn't that uncommon in today's news media environment.

However, I don't think Tucker's reporting holds any weight if he's not willing to name his source. I just think it's significant to hear someone on a prime time news talk show discuss the JFK assassination in the way that he did (beginning with the factual story about Jolly West and Jack Ruby).

[Andrew Mason]

Credible sources are sometimes wrong. Credible sources sometimes lie.

If a source lies, the source is not credible.  There are established methods of verifying and continuing to verify credibility. See, for example, this paper.

However, I don't think Tucker's reporting holds any weight if he's not willing to name his source. I just think it's significant to hear someone on a prime time news talk show discuss the JFK assassination in the way that he did (beginning with the factual story about Jolly West and Jack Ruby).

Tucker's reporting does not hold any weight because he is not a journalist. He makes things up.  He doesn't care about accuracy.  He appears to care only about feeding his ego and keeping his audience. 

[Jon Banks]

If a source lies, the source is not credible.  There are established methods of verifying and continuing to verify credibility. See, for example, this paper.

I agree HOWEVER, throughout the Trump years, mainstream media outlets were burned by sources that they deemed "credible" dozens of times.

Hence why I continue to say that they shouldn't "rely" on anonymous sources. Sometimes those sources are wrong. Sometimes they intentionally lie.

Former MI-6 spy, Christopher Steele was considered a "credible" intelligence source by the FBI and the mainstream media until he was discredited by the FBI's Inspector General.

Tucker's reporting does not hold any weight because he is not a journalist. He makes things up.  He doesn't care about accuracy.  He appears to care only about feeding his ego and keeping his audience.

What he said about Jolly West and Jack Ruby is 100% true.

Without knowing who Tucker's CIA source is, I can't treat his claim about the classified documents as credible. But I give Tucker credit for at least addressing the issue of potential CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination and/or the coverup.