False. The article Davis links to says so (no one captured Tucker's comms; someone under surveillance mentioned his name).
Start with a politically convenient conspiracy theory. When facts disprove it, lie that they proved it, and trust that your audience won't bother to check.
Start with a politically convenient conspiracy theory. When facts disprove it, lie that they proved it, and trust that your audience won't bother to check.
This isn't buried in the article Davis cites. It's the opening paragraphs.
Also, for those unfamiliar with intel processes, they can't target someone for unmasking, because they don't know who it is until after. That's what unmasking is: Revealing a name.
therecord.media/nsa-review-fin…
Also, for those unfamiliar with intel processes, they can't target someone for unmasking, because they don't know who it is until after. That's what unmasking is: Revealing a name.
therecord.media/nsa-review-fin…
Tucker's claims smelled like BS from the jump. Intel and NatSec experts were suspicious, and even Fox wouldn't defend him.
But that's what makes these "post-truth" moves so insidious: The accusers and their target audience don't care if it's real; they care how it makes them feel
But that's what makes these "post-truth" moves so insidious: The accusers and their target audience don't care if it's real; they care how it makes them feel
One might say Carlson, Davis, etc. are trying to motte-and-bailey this, backing off their original false claim to something milder but more defensible. But that's not the case.
The original claim is blatantly false, and milder versions of it are false too.
The original claim is blatantly false, and milder versions of it are false too.
https://twitter.com/JO_clever_KE/status/1419009910503837698
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
