Tucker Carlson on the Kennedy Assassination

[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.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.


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.

I mostly agree with your observation about the lack of skepticism by the media in uncritically reporting damaging allegations about Trump, about the alleged collusion, the Steele Dossier, the Hunter laptop story, and other matters. You don't have to be a Trump supporter - I'm certainly not one - to recognize that a lot of the media, for ratings reasons and for political ones, were repeating allegations without fully or even partially vetting them.

I don't think that was due to any sympathy towards the FBI or CIA; it was due to their dislike of Trump and to feed their audience. Sure, Carlson feeds his viewers what they want to hear but he's an opinion host. We had supposed straight reporters on the other networks promoting these stories without any skepticism at all. CNN was the worst at this.

But, again, I don't see any pro-national security state type motivation behind this. Which is why I don't see any relationship to these latest claims about the CIA and the JFK assassination. There's nothing there. If there was some serious revelations about the CIA being involved I'm sure they would jump on it. The fact that they may be too close to the CIA today doesn't mean they would defend the CIA of 60 years ago.

What's to report, Jon? Morley's claims? Based on what? He makes a lot of very specious allegations that are based on little more than his imagination. He throws out a lot of claims - Joannides here and AMSPELL there and Veciana over here and Operation Northwoods there - and to people not versed on the matter it sounds like there's something of significance. But there isn't. Or at least he hasn't presented any evidence of one; it's why he's asking for the release of Joannides files. As I said before, I can't see any reason why Angleton/CI would want to embarrass the FPCC in New Orleans using Oswald. For what purpose? Oswald? The FPCC's support was in the north, in New York and other cities with liberal communities (the late Norman Mailer was a member). Why do this where it had no support?

[Jon Banks]

I don't see any pro-national security state type motivation behind this.

Are you saying that you don't believe there are current or former intelligence and/or military officials who believe there was a conspiracy and coverup in the JFK assassination? I can think of several off the top of my head.

I don't know of any who have publicly pointed the finger directly at the CIA but most of the few individuals that I'm thinking of acknowledge that there was an intelligence coverup and probable conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination (some of them point the finger at Castro).

How numerous those types are or how common that sort of speculation is within the national security community, I have no idea. But it doesn't seem far-fetched that Tucker, who was raised in a wealthy politically connected family and has friends in the Intelligence Community, would know an insider or two who would tell him that.

Which is why, despite my skepticism, I'm not going to assume that Tucker is lying. He or his source could be wrong but it doesn't mean Tucker made the whole thing up. Until Tucker provides more than hearsay from an anonymous source, I don't think anyone should view Tucker's allegation as credible.

But I still think the fact that the allegation was made on a prime time cable TV show (one of the highest rated prime time cable news shows) is as newsworthy as Tucker's unfounded allegation in 2021 about the NSA spying on him. The mainstream media covered Tucker's NSA allegation in-depth back in 2021 but crickets from them in 2022 after his CIA-JFK claim. 

Which is why I don't see any relationship to these latest claims about the CIA and the JFK assassination. There's nothing there. If there was some serious revelations about the CIA being involved I'm sure they would jump on it. The fact that they may be too close to the CIA today doesn't mean they would defend the CIA of 60 years ago.

I'm NOT sure that they would given the fact that the mainstream media often ignores or buries scandals involving the CIA. Not just JFK assassination related stories. I can think of a number of other embarrassing and scandalous stories about the CIA in the last decade or so that were buried in the news headlines. How many Americans know about the CIA's death squads in Afghanistan and Syria? Or the CIA getting caught spying on the Senate's torture investigations? The most recent scandal that I'm aware of was the revelation that the CIA, under director Mike Pompeo, plotted to kill or assassinate Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. The information about the plot originated from a case in a Spanish court involving one of the contractors the CIA used to spy on Assange but 30 former CIA officials confirmed aspects of the allegation. Outside of Yahoo News, I don't think any major news outlets in the US covered that story.

Link - https://news.yahoo.com/cia-pitched-trump-officials-plans-130727657.html

Is the mainstream Press making a judgement that the public doesn't care about holding the CIA accountable? Or are they intentionally burying those types of stories for "other" reasons? It's difficult to know why they do it but it's a familiar pattern now.

Hence why I have doubts that they would seriously cover any credible JFK assassination news unless they were forced to in the event that a "Smoking Gun" surfaces.

What's to report, Jon? Morley's claims? Based on what?

You seem to be giving these intelligence agencies the benefit of the doubt, which is fine but I believe Morley is a good faith actor who is just seeking the truth. And I appreciate his effort to keep this stuff in the news in the mainstream Press. Morley is a Liberal, anti-Trump guy so moderate and liberal media will be more receptive to him than Tucker Carlson.

I don't assume that the secrecy proves that the CIA was involved with the plot against JFK. But they're running out of excuses for not making public the files that Morley has requested. I also don't think it's fair to call people "conspiracy theorists" or "crazies" for demanding that the files be declassified after almost 60 years.