Spying?

[George K]

Tonight TuCa asked the NSA if they read his private emails.

They refused to deny, or admit.

Or for that matter explain why they couldn't deny or admit.

[Jolly]

Which means they're reading them.

That's intolerable.

[George K]

@jolly said in Spying?:

Which means they're reading them.

That's intolerable.

That Strange NSA Non-Denial

Yesterday, Tucker announced that the National Security Agency had been collecting his communications in order to take him off the air. He has now provided a brief update..(video at link).

Tonight, the NSA responded to Tucker Carlson’s allegations. In particular, the NSA wrote:

Tucker Carlson alleged that the National Security Agency has been “monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air.” This allegation is untrue.

This is a carefully drafted denial by the NSA (likely coordinated by NSA leadership), as there are three separate “allegations” within Tucker’s quote. To this we ask a key question: which “allegation” is untrue?

*Is it that the NSA has been “monitoring [Tucker’s] electronic communications”?
*Is it that the NSA “is planning to leak” Tucker’s communications?
*Or is it that the NSA will try to take Tucker’s show “off the air”

Here the NSA is using vague language is used to mislead the public. The press will run this as a wholesale denial, and many in America will agree.

Those who look closely will see something else: that the NSA, while stating that Tucker “has never been an intelligence target,” does not categorically deny having his electronic communications.

Something is up.

[Jolly]

Them's weasel words.

[Horace]

It's all so petty. I was once naive enough to have assumed the FBI or NSA would be above this stuff. But the Trump administration and how it was treated by the intelligence community taught everybody a lot.

[Doctor Phibes]

Back when Dick Cheney was patriotically bugging everybody's phone we were told not to worry, everything would be fine.

Obviously, there was nothing terrifying whatsoever about Dick, Liz is far scarier.

[Copper]

I can't imagine that there is a cell phone, or any communication device, anywhere in the world that NSA cannot listen to.

The question is only, how do they use it?

In the days of extreme TDS, I assume the usage has evolved.

[Loki]

@horace said in Spying?:

It's all so petty. I was once naive enough to have assumed the FBI or NSA would be above this stuff. But the Trump administration and how it was treated by the intelligence community taught everybody a lot.

I’m so naive I remember a time when liberals went ape shit crazy over this kind of stuff.

[Doctor Phibes]

@loki said in Spying?:

@horace said in Spying?:

It's all so petty. I was once naive enough to have assumed the FBI or NSA would be above this stuff. But the Trump administration and how it was treated by the intelligence community taught everybody a lot.

I’m so naive I remember a time when liberals went ape shit crazy over this kind of stuff.

In a huge coincidence, that pretty much coincides with the time I was referring to when the Bush/Cheney fans told us it was all ok.

[George K]

@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:

when the Bush/Cheney fans told us it was all ok

Anyone on this forum?

Asking for a (former) friend.

[Doctor Phibes]

@george-k said in Spying?:

@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:

when the Bush/Cheney fans told us it was all ok

Anyone on this forum?

Asking for a (former) friend.

There's hardly anybody left here, and I honestly can't remember.

The point, that abuse of power and invasion of privacy is certainly not restricted to those on the left, who I refuse to call liberals, stands.

[George K]

Here you go:

Tucker Carlson sought Putin interview at time of spying claim

Tucker Carlson was talking to U.S.-based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Vladimir Putin shortly before the Fox News host accused the National Security Agency of spying on him, sources familiar with the conversations tell Axios.

Why it matters: Those sources said U.S. government officials learned about Carlson's efforts to secure the Putin interview. Carlson learned that the government was aware of his outreach — and that's the basis of his extraordinary accusation, followed by a rare public denial by the NSA that he had been targeted.

Axios has not confirmed whether any communications from Carlson have been intercepted, and if so, why.

So, how did Swann find out about this?

Someone at NSA leaked it to him.

And if communications were "incidentally" seen, why is Carlson's name being leaked? How did the "whistleblower" know to contact Carlson. My understanding of these intercepts by NSA is that any american is designated "Citizen #1" or something like that. His/her privacy must be maintained.

Unmasking the name of the citizen (as Obama did with the incoming Trump administration) requires some serious moves.

[George K]

Link to video

[Doctor Phibes]

@george-k said in Spying?:

Here you go:

Tucker Carlson sought Putin interview at time of spying claim

Tucker Carlson was talking to U.S.-based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Vladimir Putin shortly before the Fox News host accused the National Security Agency of spying on him, sources familiar with the conversations tell Axios.

Why it matters: Those sources said U.S. government officials learned about Carlson's efforts to secure the Putin interview. Carlson learned that the government was aware of his outreach — and that's the basis of his extraordinary accusation, followed by a rare public denial by the NSA that he had been targeted.

Axios has not confirmed whether any communications from Carlson have been intercepted, and if so, why.

So, how did Swann find out about this?

Someone at NSA leaked it to him.

And if communications were "incidentally" seen, why is Carlson's name being leaked? How did the "whistleblower" know to contact Carlson. My understanding of these intercepts by NSA is that any american is designated "Citizen #1" or something like that. His/her privacy must be maintained.

Unmasking the name of the citizen (as Obama did with the incoming Trump administration) requires some serious moves.

So, essentially they weren't spying on Carlson - they were spying on the Russians that Carlson was in contact with?

But they leaked Carlson's name.

[George K]

@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:

But they leaked Carlson's name.

Not only leaked, but unmasked. That request comes from high up.

Who did it? For what reason? What national security issue was addressed by unmasking Carlson?

There is should be a high standard for this. But, of course, that went out the window with Susan Rice and others in the waning days of the Obama administration.

[George K]

Former NSA Director Mike Rogers explained how the unmasking process works in a 2017 congressional testimony.

“Number one, you must make the request in writing. Number two, the request must be made on the basis of your official duties, not the fact that you just find this report really interesting and you’re just curious. It has to tangibly tie to your job,” and “the basis of the request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence you’re reading,” Rogers testified.

So, how does that work with Carlson?

[Doctor Phibes]

Presumably, being really annoying isn't considered sufficient cause.

[Loki]

It sounds really major but for some reason it isn’t. We are missing a big puzzle piece. When I see moderate GOP leaders express alarm and demand an investigation I will know this is the real deal.

Of course I think it’s awful but maybe just maybe TuCa is frothing up his base knowing that it won’t go anywhere? He knows he will soon have another shiny object?

[Copper]

This is an attack by the government on a private citizen.

As far as we know the motive is purely political.

It is a dangerous game, there will certainly be retaliation.

Maybe this is retaliation.

[George K]

@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:

Presumably, being really annoying isn't considered sufficient cause.

Yeah, assholes have rights too.

@Loki said

It sounds really major but for some reason it isn’t. We are missing a big puzzle piece.

The question is who authorized the unmasking, and to what end. You can bet Carlson's people are filing a FOIA request.