Spying?
-
All interesting convo but until Fox gets on board
They gave him millions of dollars worth of air time to tell the story
I believe that is a lot like being on board
So they are turning down a massive scoop for some other news source? So many leaps of faith one has to take to get there.
-
As George would say, it's all about the Benjamins.
-
Isn’t there a way to interview the whistleblower to see what actions should be taken next? I know Congress has a history of fishing expeditions and man did we witness that for the past four years especially but it doesn’t make fishing expeditions right. There should be a threshold and it seems to me the whistleblower holds all the relevant cards right now.
Also a news organization who has actually seen Tucker’s emails would be helpful.
-
So reporters are trying to validate Carlson’s claims and provide interesting new details that would be relevant.
Carlson is holding his cards close to what he is alleging. He’s got a humdinger of a case if he has the smoking gun. No one has seen it yet.
-
a shred of evidence
He has a shred of evidence
I maybe be missing his evidence. As far as I can tell he says a whistleblower told him but I haven’t seen any corroborating evidence. What am I missing? He didn’t share any emails, he didn’t have anyone else talk to the whistleblower, right?
Do you really just get to make an allegation? I’ve been fighting that with TDS for 5 years now.
-
a shred of evidence
He has a shred of evidence
I maybe be missing his evidence. As far as I can tell he says a whistleblower told him but I haven’t seen any corroborating evidence. What am I missing? He didn’t share any emails, he didn’t have anyone else talk to the whistleblower, right?
Do you really just get to make an allegation? I’ve been fighting that with TDS for 5 years now.
What is Mr Paul's motivation? Political tribalism?
When we saw the investigations into Cavanaugh, that was clearly tribalism. What about Mr Paul?
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
So every fishing expedition must be responded to?
This thread is full of wordy words….and no evidence.
Let me repeat…NO evidence. He said he/she said. Seriously. Kafkaesque to demand so much with no evidence to be followed up on.
-
a shred of evidence
He has a shred of evidence
I maybe be missing his evidence. As far as I can tell he says a whistleblower told him but I haven’t seen any corroborating evidence. What am I missing? He didn’t share any emails, he didn’t have anyone else talk to the whistleblower, right?
Do you really just get to make an allegation? I’ve been fighting that with TDS for 5 years now.
What is Mr Paul's motivation? Political tribalism?
When we saw the investigations into Cavanaugh, that was clearly tribalism. What about Mr Paul?
I think Mr. Paul is not unreasonable to ask, it’s better than the poo flung at Trump by the likes of Schiff, but still there should something other than Carlson’s word.
Carlson, where’s the beef???? Show us what you got.
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
So every fishing expedition must be responded to?
This thread is full of wordy words….and no evidence.
Let me repeat…NO evidence. He said he/she said. Seriously. Kafkaesque to demand so much with no evidence to be followed up on.
We're all treating this as something more than a random person making an accusation. Maybe we're all deluded, but our priors about Mr Carlson and what he has to lose if this is made up, are a form of evidence.
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
So every fishing expedition must be responded to?
This thread is full of wordy words….and no evidence.
Let me repeat…NO evidence. He said he/she said. Seriously. Kafkaesque to demand so much with no evidence to be followed up on.
We're all treating this as something more than a random person making an accusation. Maybe we're all deluded, but our priors about Mr Carlson and what he has to lose if this is made up, are a form of evidence.
It’s his word Horace. Have the whistleblower talk to someone and I am fine with a full investigation.
Jesus, you really want an MSM journalist to pull this shit with ZERO evidence?
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
So every fishing expedition must be responded to?
This thread is full of wordy words….and no evidence.
Let me repeat…NO evidence. He said he/she said. Seriously. Kafkaesque to demand so much with no evidence to be followed up on.
We're all treating this as something more than a random person making an accusation. Maybe we're all deluded, but our priors about Mr Carlson and what he has to lose if this is made up, are a form of evidence.
It’s his word Horace. Have the whistleblower talk to someone and I am fine with a full investigation.
Jesus, you really want an MSM journalist to pull this shit with ZERO evidence?
I don't think there's a reasonable chance he's just making it up. Stronger chance he's deluded or being intentionally misled, stronger chance still that there's something to the story. Something that falls short of him being an intelligence target per se, but which is still interesting. I'm glad Mr Paul wrote the letter, and I hope the NSA responds.
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
So every fishing expedition must be responded to?
This thread is full of wordy words….and no evidence.
Let me repeat…NO evidence. He said he/she said. Seriously. Kafkaesque to demand so much with no evidence to be followed up on.
We're all treating this as something more than a random person making an accusation. Maybe we're all deluded, but our priors about Mr Carlson and what he has to lose if this is made up, are a form of evidence.
It’s his word Horace. Have the whistleblower talk to someone and I am fine with a full investigation.
Jesus, you really want an MSM journalist to pull this shit with ZERO evidence?
I don't think there's a reasonable chance he's just making it up. Stronger chance he's deluded or being intentionally misled, stronger chance still that there's something to the story. Something that falls short of him being an intelligence target per se, but which is still interesting. I'm glad Mr Paul wrote the letter, and I hope the NSA responds.
And if they don’t it’s a conspiracy. Woo hooo. The simplest way for this to come to a head would be for the whistleblower to talk to someone. But you know the rational and reasonable thing to do doesn’t matter anymore.
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
So every fishing expedition must be responded to?
This thread is full of wordy words….and no evidence.
Let me repeat…NO evidence. He said he/she said. Seriously. Kafkaesque to demand so much with no evidence to be followed up on.
Mr. Carlson clearly has verbal and written evidence.
Repeating over and over that he doesn’t won’t change that.
-
The NSA was eager to respond when this story first broke, with their non-denial denial. "Mr Carlson has never been an intelligence target". Will they be as eager to respond to Mr Paul's four questions? If not, why not? I bet they will not answer those questions, at least not without an investigation.
Of course, recent history shows us, as Mr Paul notes, that it is far, far from an "implausible conspiracy theory" that the NSA might employ people with security clearance and political axes to grind, and without the requisite honor as human beings to not grind those axes.
When pop culture welcomes such tribal righteousness with open arms, who can blame them? They are only human, operating as humans always have, and always will. That's why they need to be held in check. I respect Mr Paul's attempt to do so.
So every fishing expedition must be responded to?
This thread is full of wordy words….and no evidence.
Let me repeat…NO evidence. He said he/she said. Seriously. Kafkaesque to demand so much with no evidence to be followed up on.
We're all treating this as something more than a random person making an accusation. Maybe we're all deluded, but our priors about Mr Carlson and what he has to lose if this is made up, are a form of evidence.
It’s his word Horace. Have the whistleblower talk to someone and I am fine with a full investigation.
Jesus, you really want an MSM journalist to pull this shit with ZERO evidence?
I don't think there's a reasonable chance he's just making it up. Stronger chance he's deluded or being intentionally misled, stronger chance still that there's something to the story. Something that falls short of him being an intelligence target per se, but which is still interesting. I'm glad Mr Paul wrote the letter, and I hope the NSA responds.
And if they don’t it’s a conspiracy. Woo hooo. The simplest way for this to come to a head would be for the whistleblower to talk to someone. But you know the rational and reasonable thing to do doesn’t matter anymore.
Is anybody saying that the whistleblower shouldn't? If you would like to treat the absence of the whistleblower coming out to someone other than Carlson as evidence that Carlson is making this up, that's fine. It does tip the scales slightly towards that. Not nearly enough to make me think it's the most likely situation. You give substantial credence to the notion that Carlson concocted this as a publicity stunt. I do not.
