NSA review reportedly finds Tucker Carlson wasn’t even incidentally collected on—they picked up Russians discussing his interview request. therecord.media/nsa-review-fin…
Which, incidentally, I wrote a while back was the most likely explanation. cato.org/blog/tucker-ca…
If that report is accurate, then (a) NSA didn’t do anything obviously improper here, and (b) Tucker has (presumably inadvertently) provided Russia with valuable intelligence about which of their communications facilities NSA is actively monitoring.
I am not, to be clear, suggesting Tucker did any kind of grave damage to national security. But it’s a pointless disclosure, and a little funny given his outraged claim that NSA was planning to paint him as a Russian stooge for requesting an interview.
Remember, he didn’t tell his viewers at the outset what the subject matter of the intercepts was. But *he* knew it was the Putin interview request, so… did it really not occur to them NSA might know about it because they spy on the Russian government?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The thread is sort of fascinating because you can tell McNally knows Forrest is indefensible—he just falls back on “…but they’ll come for Washington next!” Also sort of a sad admission that everyone else the state venerates is repulsive. Maybe you need new heroes.
FWIW, the “redemptive arc” is that at the very, very end of his life Forrest made a speech that contradicted the racist ideals he’d fought for his entire life. But all the actual achievements he’s honored for were in service to slavery and white supremacy.
If the best defense someone can offer of you is: “Well, on his deathbed he seemed to recognize that his entire life’s work had been devoted to evil,” maybe… you don’t get a statue for that?
NSO’s own denial is internally incoherent. If they don’t have access to client data, how could they know whether or not this is a list of Pegasus targets?
I mean, unless I’m missing something… you have to pick one. If you’re claiming you don’t have visibility on targeting & these numbers have “nothing to do” with NSO, then for all you know it might be a list of targets.
You can’t be all: “I know nothing of this murder or the victim. Also I was nowhere near 327 Spruce Street at 8:57 on the night of the 12th, and have never purchased Mapes brand 13.5 piano wire.”
There is literally a Supreme Court on precisely the question of whether the First Amendment protects the right to use the word “fuck” in a publicly visible political slogan. They said it does. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._…
Cohen v. California was actually a closer call, because it involved wearing a “Fuck the Draft” jacket into a public courthouse, where the government has some extra latitude to set rules of decorum. The sign in this case was on the woman’s own property.
(1) Quite apart from the merits, the White House should stop presuming to tell private companies how to moderate user speech. (2) On the merits, that’s an incredibly dumb idea on multiple levels.
Specifically: It assumes real identities are tied to accounts and/or massive sharing of personal user data between platforms. And it assumes it’s desirable for every online community to have the same standards of conduct, which apart from some very basic stuff, it is not.
Trump: “Twitter and Facebook are state actors! They violated my rights! Waaaah!”
Every competent lawyer: LOL.
White House: “No, hang on, we can make this plausible…”
“Nobody serious thinks this, but a bunch of readers are hungry to believe it, so can we find someone shameless enough to make a case that will sound superficially respectable to people who don’t know any better?” Click goldmine.
Call me quaint, but on topics where a normal reader can’t easily evaluate the seriousness of an argument, I think running pieces like this is an abrogation of editorial duty. It’s like running flat-eartherism or “sovereign citizen” nonsense.
You’re signalling, “this is one among several credible positions, where there’s reasonable disagreement among specialists.” Which is a lie. You’re running it because it will get clicks, and MORE clicks because other respectable outlets are unwilling to lie to their readers.
This is an inadvertently perfect reductio ad absurdum of demands for “political neutrality” (whether from social media platforms or other institutions). Because obviously there are tons of odious political views nearly everyone thinks OUGHT to be romantic dealbreaker.
I assume that if the students also said they weren’t interested in dating ISIS fighters, anti-Semites, or admirers of Joseph Stalin, the author wouldn’t think that was “discriminatory” (let alone “authoritarian”)—he’d be worried if those things WEREN’T dealbreakers.