The Biden Administration is Spying on Tucker Carlson

 

The corrupt Biden administration is spying on Americans.

The CIA spied on Congress and John Brennan lied about it. He was not fired. FISA was abused to spy on the Trump campaign. Opponents of the Iran deal were certain that they were being surveilled. One person said on the John Batchelor Show that the Obama administration responded too quickly to their press releases. The Deep State has become the Stasi. We need to throw the bums out in Congress and fire everyone in the top three layers of the FIB, CIA, etc. Let the good ones apply for reinstatement.

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 84 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    If you’re an American who believes in our Constitutional republic and you don’t the NSA isn’t on you like white on rice in a snow storm?  Then you haven’t been paying attention.

    • #1
  2. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    Reminiscent of Sharyl Attkisson’s experience when she was investigating the “Fast and Furious” operation during the Obama administration.

    • #2
  3. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    This story seems plausible (if not probable), and the whistleblower’s story of monitoring and selectively leaking fits a familiar pattern.

    “Throw the bums out” is appealing as a sentiment, but I don’t think Democrat voters would go along with this so the only bums potentially tossed would be Republicans.

    My sense is that we need to vigorously pursue all these corruption stories so as to embolden more whistleblowers. These stories highlight the corruption endemic to “the swamp” and that highlighting is a good thing. In that respect this OP parallels your previous post which I hope even more members will read (701 views as of now) – https://ricochet.com/991702/whats-a-conspiracy/

    • #3
  4. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    It was Biden/Obama State Dept. holdovers that “kept a file” on reporter John Sullivan.    

    • #4
  5. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):

    This story seems plausible (if not probable), and the whistleblower’s story of monitoring and selectively leaking fits a familiar pattern.

    “Throw the bums out” is appealing as a sentiment, but I don’t think Democrat voters would go along with this so the only bums potentially tossed would be Republicans.

    My sense is that we need to vigorously pursue all these corruption stories so as to embolden more whistleblowers. These stories highlight the corruption endemic to “the swamp” and that highlighting is a good thing. In that respect this OP parallels your previous post which I hope even more members will read (701 views as of now) – https://ricochet.com/991702/whats-a-conspiracy/

    Until some people get long prison sentences, the Deep State won’t take this seriously. The CIA spied on Congress. Brennan lied about it. When caught, he apologized. Big whoop. He wasn’t fired. He lied at the end of the Obama administration about Trump and Russia. There have been no consequences for these people. I’m going to scream to my Congresscritter. He’s a R and there maybe something he can do. But I’m not optimistic. I’ll call my Senators but they’re both Dims.

    • #5
  6. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Name names and sources, please Tucker.  You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    • #6
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard. 

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying. 

    • #7
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The Department of Justice needs a new name, seeing as how so many of them are fugitives from it.

    Or will be.

    • #8
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    I’m surprised there isn’t a “Defund the NSA” movement . . .

    • #9
  10. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

    It depends on who he’s talking to. If his intended audience is all Americans, he can’t expected to be trusted. If his audience is die-hard viewers, he can. 

    The journalistic norm should be to name sources. We are all better off if whistleblowers stand for public scrutiny. Otherwise, we end up in the present position where journalists pose as a privileged class and citizens argue over shadows.

    • #10
  11. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Anonymous sources can be disregarded no matter who uses them. There is no proof that the source actually exists. If the source does exist then that source may be trying to control the story. If the source doesn’t exist then the journalist is trying to control the story. Anonymous sources means hearsay, a polite word for gossip. Gossip that is used to spread misinformation, or worse a disaffected employee who has delusions of grandeur.

    • #11
  12. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    The problem now is this, anonymous sources or not, such a claim today is credible.

    • #12
  13. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Perhaps the whistleblower(s) will reach out to Project Veritas.  You’ve got to be willing to risk your own livelihood nowadays to be heard above the fray.

    • #13
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

    It depends on who he’s talking to. If his intended audience is all Americans, he can’t expected to be trusted. If his audience is die-hard viewers, he can.

    The journalistic norm should be to name sources. We are all better off if whistleblowers stand for public scrutiny. Otherwise, we end up in the present position where journalists pose as a privileged class and citizens argue over shadows.

    IF the source had information that he or she should not have had, then that seems pretty damning. 

    Either Carlson thinks the source is real, or he does not. Either he is lying or he is not. 

     

    • #14
  15. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Perhaps the whistleblower(s) will reach out to Project Veritas. You’ve got to be willing to risk your own livelihood nowadays to be heard above the fray.

    Whatever happened to people being interviewed is shadow and having their voiced distorted?  Is this good enough?  ‘Cause even I can do that.

    • #15
  16. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

    It depends on who he’s talking to. If his intended audience is all Americans, he can’t expected to be trusted. If his audience is die-hard viewers, he can.

    The journalistic norm should be to name sources. We are all better off if whistleblowers stand for public scrutiny. Otherwise, we end up in the present position where journalists pose as a privileged class and citizens argue over shadows.

    IF the source had information that he or she should not have had, then that seems pretty damning.

    Either Carlson thinks the source is real, or he does not. Either he is lying or he is not.

    I feel a David St. Hubbins quote coming on.

    • #16
  17. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    This is a very serious charge – cited sources needs to be used. 

    It would not be he first time part of the permanent bureaucracy attacked a citizen.

    J Edgar Hoover career was based using blackmail 

    IRS/tea Party

    Obama’s DOJ and James Rosen

    The FISA abuse circa 2016

    The entire Russian Collusion scheme

     

     

     

     

     

    • #17
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    I don’t think Carlson is just complaining or reporting.  He says he was told the NSA wants to take him off the air.  I think Carlson is insuring himself against a propaganda blitz or false accusations of wrong-doing.  This is the same thing as Epstein saying “I’m not going to kill myself”, or McAfee’s tattoo.

    • #18
  19. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Our intellectual betters.

    And

    • #19
  20. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

    It depends on who he’s talking to. If his intended audience is all Americans, he can’t expected to be trusted. If his audience is die-hard viewers, he can.

    The journalistic norm should be to name sources. We are all better off if whistleblowers stand for public scrutiny. Otherwise, we end up in the present position where journalists pose as a privileged class and citizens argue over shadows.

    IF the source had information that he or she should not have had, then that seems pretty damning.

    Either Carlson thinks the source is real, or he does not. Either he is lying or he is not.

    It’s not that simple.  The fact that Tucker thinks his source is real does not mean it is real.  One can certainly wish for something more concrete in the way of corroboration without intimating that Tucker is lying.

    • #20
  21. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    While that was a compelling story by Tucker, for some reason, I was just as interested in his lead segment on how the Progs are manipulating the nation’s infrastructure to clobber the suburbs.

    Cabrini-Green coming to your neighborhood….

    • #21
  22. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

     I ‘get’ both positions on this. Maybe before naming any sources, I’d like confirmation that the “whistblower” has actually g0ne through process and is legally considered an actual “whistleblower”.

    I don’t doubt that government agencies are doing this but I’m getting worn out on ‘anonymous sources’ and ‘can’t comment on an ongoing investigation’ techniques.

    • #22
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    WI Con (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

    I ‘get’ both positions on this. Maybe before naming any sources, I’d like confirmation that the “whistblower” has actually g0ne through process and is legally considered an actual “whistleblower”.

    I don’t doubt that government agencies are doing this but I’m getting worn out on ‘anonymous sources’ and ‘can’t comment on an ongoing investigation’ techniques.

    If the leftist press gets to do it, then it is acceptable.

    You people are just nuts. We are at war, and you fight wars to win, not lose noblely. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Frankly, if I were rich, I’d pay PIs to follow high profile leftists and dig up dirt to publish. Pay people to rat them out. Go through their trash. Pay for leads. Do whatever I could to tarnish their reputation and standing, with truth and innuendo. That is the playing field of this war. The Right should fight it with nukes. 

    You don’t win wars by holding back. You win by destroying the enemy.

     

    • #23
  24. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    WI Con (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

    I ‘get’ both positions on this. Maybe before naming any sources, I’d like confirmation that the “whistblower” has actually g0ne through process and is legally considered an actual “whistleblower”.

    I don’t doubt that government agencies are doing this but I’m getting worn out on ‘anonymous sources’ and ‘can’t comment on an ongoing investigation’ techniques.

    If the leftist press gets to do it, then it is acceptable.

    You people are just nuts. We are at war, and you fight wars to win, not lose noblely. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    How does making an unsourced claim that many people will disbelieve help win a war?  Tucker is an important conservative voice–the more credible (i.e., sourced) his claims, the better it is for “the war.”   Speaking only for myself, I’m not asking Tucker the gander to do anything I don’t expect of the MSM goose.

    • #24
  25. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Percival (View Comment):

    The Department of Justice needs a new name, seeing as how so many of them are fugitives from it.

    Or will be.

    I have been using “The Department of InJustice” to great effect.

    • #25
  26. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    WI Con (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Name names and sources, please Tucker. You are held to the same standards as the MSM.

    That is unacceptable. He is using the same standard.

    Basically, you are accused him oh lying.

    I ‘get’ both positions on this. Maybe before naming any sources, I’d like confirmation that the “whistblower” has actually g0ne through process and is legally considered an actual “whistleblower”.

    I don’t doubt that government agencies are doing this but I’m getting worn out on ‘anonymous sources’ and ‘can’t comment on an ongoing investigation’ techniques.

    If the leftist press gets to do it, then it is acceptable.

    You people are just nuts. We are at war, and you fight wars to win, not lose noblely. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    How does making an unsourced claim that many people will disbelieve help win a war? Tucker is an important conservative voice–the more credible (i.e., sourced) his claims, the better it is for “the war.” Speaking only for myself, I’m not asking Tucker the gander to do anything I don’t expect of the MSM goose.

    You can ask the MSM goose for whatever you want, but they won’t do it. 

    “I hold them all to the same standard!”

    Just does not work. They will continue to lie and lie. They will do whatever it takes to keep their masters in power while we, we, will not fight and will go down, oh, so, so noble and honest and pure. 

    And dead. 

    • #26
  27. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Our intellectual betters.

    And

    How would Jonah know that. Andy McCarthy was constantly surprised at how thoroughly the FISA process was corrupted. The Mueller investigation was another example of a situation where they quickly knew there was no Russian collusion and used it as a weapon to attack Trump supporters. America today has a Stasi like process where the losers persecute the winners if they’re Republicans.

    • #27
  28. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Some of Sharyl Attkisson’s articles about government spying are in the links.

    • #28
  29. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Our intellectual betters.

    And

    How would Jonah know that. Andy McCarthy was constantly surprised at how thoroughly the FISA process was corrupted. The Mueller investigation was another example of a situation where they quickly knew there was no Russian collusion and used it as a weapon to attack Trump supporters. America today has a Stasi like process where the losers persecute the winners if they’re Republicans.

    Jonah doesn’t know. He has changed from a thinking person to a feeling person. He is a nice guy who needs a cold reboot to his operating system.

    • #29
  30. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Stad (View Comment):

    I’m surprised there isn’t a “Defund the NSA” movement . . .

    Why? It answers to the Left so it is good.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.