Thread by @sethjlevy

I’m going to try to break down my issue with how Tucker rolled out the NSA story.

First of all, Tucker broke his own story.

Supposedly because he was approached by an NSA whistleblower. 1/

This meant he had total control of how the story was “reported”.

When he told his audience the story that NSA was collecting his coms he also gave a why. He said they were targeting him specifically with the intent of destroying him, “take my show off the air”. 2/

At the time he was breaking “news”, he withheld a key piece of information that his audience should’ve been told because it would’ve affected their understanding of the story and undercut the claim he was making. It’s like a prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence. 3/

He was setting a narrative. Which he accomplished by withholding pertinent information that he knew because he was reporting on himself.

That’s the manipulation that I’m referring to. 4/

The impact of choosing to withhold information he knew at the time he broke the story is that it forces a neutral observer to question his motives.

You can’t break a story on yourself and then also claim the details of that story are no one’s business. 5/

He engineered this whole cascade of events. Knowing both how the government works and how his audience was likely to respond.

It was his initiating act of attempting to set an interview with Putin that started the cascade of events. 6/

And then his breaking the story that further triggered the subsequent events.

He wanted this. This way. With the entire right wing hooked into it.

The question is why. 7/

On the point of known recent IC abuses. When team Trump was in communication with Carter Page there was no reason for him to think he would be spied on by the IC. However, when Tucker reached out to Putin intermediaries he had every reason to believe he would be collected. 8/

These two things are completely distinct. But the right sees them as the same. And Tucker knew he could, if he had full control of the story, engineer that exact response from us. 9/

How can one ignore the story in the NYT on 6/20 as a preceding event that is connected to the 6/28 “breaking news”?

Again if Tucker cared about a Russian collusion narrative, which I don’t believe, then contacting Putin intermediaries was the last thing he should’ve done. 10/

But if instead you wanted a NSA is trying to destroy me narrative then contacting Putin intermediaries is exactly what you would do.

As has been pointed out, it’s similar to team Hillary pinning the DNC hack on the Russians. “NSA leaked it!” discredits revealed information. 11/

“But the government shouldn’t leak on journalists!!!”

Well yes of course that is true but it wasn’t the government that started this story. Tucker did. And you have to believe that without the NSA whistleblower story that the NSA was going to leak anyway. 12/

Meaning you have to break apart the cause affect linkage and claim the same results would’ve happened without the triggering events. Is that true? Maybe. Possible? Sure.

13/

To analyze all of this while ignoring that clearly there were news stories about to break exposing that Tucker engaged in communication with other media personalities where he was expressing very different views than the way he presents himself on air is a mistake imo. 14/

We will see what happens in the days and weeks to come.

I’m happy to admit I’m wrong if that’s what becomes clear.

No this isn’t a defense of the IC that I detest.

But I do not appreciate our side being messed with.

Using our righteous anger for personal benefit.

/end