Tucker Carlson on the Kennedy Assassination

[Jon Banks]

that's the new schtick by the Trumpian right (they complain that it was behind the promotion of the Russian collusion story and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story)

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.

Is it really this easy to shut up an otherwise pathetic loudmouth?

Just ask him to substantiate his bogus claims and he falls to pieces. Hilarious!

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

Sorry, that isn't a "deep state", not as I see it. That was a handful of anti-Trump people in the FBI and in the Clinton campaign working with reporters to get him. And they believed what they had. And of course all of it was exposed.

Stuff like this has gone on for decades. There were people in the FBI - Mark Felt/Deep Throat - who were leaking to the media about the investigation in order to undermine Nixon. Lots of example. In the US and elsewhere. It's called politics. Is it a problem? Yes, but its not some "deep state" apparatus that is manipulating the country.

Question: You don't think there would be people in this "deep state" who would leak to the media about their plans to kill JFK? And cover it up?

[Richard Smith]

Is it really this easy to shut up an otherwise pathetic loudmouth?

Just ask him to substantiate his bogus claims and he falls to pieces. Hilarious!

Personal commentary - check.  Insults - check.  No substance - big check on that one.  The usual Martin contribution.  It makes me miss Otto.  How are things in "Europe"?

[Jon Banks]

Sorry, that isn't a "deep state", not as I see it. That was a handful of anti-Trump people in the FBI and in the Clinton campaign working with reporters to get him. And they believed what they had. And of course all of it was exposed.

Stuff like this has gone on for decades. In the US and elsewhere. It's called dirty politics. Is it a problem? Yes, but its not some "deep state" apparatus that is manipulating the country.

"The Deep State" is described broadly as 'unelected bureaucrats who influence public policies or manipulate politicians and the press'. I would extend the definition to include people outside of government like defense policy Think-Tanks and National Security contractors. But the broad understanding is that there are people in the foreign policy establishment who have a disproportionate level of power to manipulate the government to their own Ends. 

I think that describes the high-ranking FBI officials who overreached in their investigations of Trump's campaign in 2016. And they thought they could get away with it because they assumed that Hillary would win in 2016.

Question: You don't think there would be people in this "deep state" who would leak to the media about their plans to kill JFK? And cover it up?

I don't think the 'Deep State' is a monolith or a conspiracy. People can have similar interests and move towards achieving those interests without making any agreements. So in short, might there have been people in the 'Deep State' who opposed murdering JFK? Possibly. I don't think everyone in the national security State hated Kennedy but he didn't have many friends in that group either.

[Walt Cakebread]

If you are up and coming in the news media and want to be successful, you know that there are certain topics that you can't touch. It's a form of self-censorship. What part of that is difficult to understand?

Do you remember how the mainstream media trashed Oliver Stone's 1991 'JFK' film months before it was released in theaters?

A few years ago, Secretary of State John Kerry was publicly bullied by the mainstream media for simply hinting that he thinks there might've been a conspiracy. Do you remember that?

Shot - 'To this day, I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone,' Kerry told NBC's Tom Brokaw in an interview timed with the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2492911/John-Kerry-doesnt-believe-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-shot-President-Kennedy-says-government-investigation-didnt-the-assassination.html


Chaser - Secretary of State John Kerry is declining to further elaborate on his belief that the assassin of President John F. Kennedy was part of a broader conspiracy.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2013/11/kerry-wont-talk-about-kennedy-conspiracy-177167

What CIA or FBI abuses has the media exposed recently? Like in the past decade?

I recall CIA director, John Brennan, getting a slap on the wrist for spying on the US senate but it wasn't exposed by the news media and it didn't get wall to wall coverage.

The CIA plot to assassinate Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, got little to no media coverage in the US.

No manipulation or conspiracy is required.

It's a combination of "Group Think" (among mostly smug Liberal elites) and the fact that most editors and producers support the US National Security State. They don't have an adversarial relationship and they don't want to lose their access to government sources.

Meaning, if you rely on sources inside the CIA or FBI for your coverage of foreign affairs or national security, wouldn't you hesitate to write articles that might embarrass those agencies? This isn't limited to the JFK assassination. Lots of stories that implicate the CIA or FBI in abuses of their power barely get covered by the mainstream media.

And I'm not arguing that people "know the truth and are covering it up". But I am agreeing with Carlson's view in this instance, that they don't even cover stuff that's factual but makes the CIA look bad like the Jolly West story he referenced.

It's a combination of "Group Think" (among mostly smug Liberal elites)

[Martin Weidmann]

Personal commentary - check.  Insults - check.  No substance - big check on that one.  The usual Martin contribution.  It makes me miss Otto.  How are things in "Europe"?

So predictable.....

What has happened to Otto?  Do you see him in the mirror?

When everything else fails.....     

A dead giveaway for Richard getting stuck.... Hilarious!

What's next? The "Europe" thing again?

[Andrew Mason]

Everyone knows the intelligence community influences and manipulates the news media but few will admit it publicly.

I have strong reason to believe that Fox "News" is not affected by anything resembling intelligence.