Tucker: Media silent on the lies they spread

In this clip of the opening segment of last night’s show, Tucker Carlson does a good job illustrating the lies media told/tells about the Steele dossier and the FISA warrant fiasco.

To anyone who watched yesterday’s Senate hearing on the IG report, the technical legitimacy of the opening of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation is the least significant fact about it. However it started, the report details how the project evolved into an illegal conspiracy by which the rights of American citizens were trampled. The story is straightforward:

  • When it was opened, Crossfire Hurricane lacked authorization to spy on (surveil) anyone.
  • When investigators obtained the Steele dossier they presented it to the FISA court to get permission to spy on (surveil) American citizens. They used the dossier for this purpose before they had verified any of the information it contained.” From the start the FBI illegally misled the FISA court.
  • After discovering the Steele dossier was bogus, the FBI continued to use it as the primary excuse for renewing its surveillance warrant. They never told the FISA court that their justification for the warrant was no longer valid, as the law required them to do. Here the FBI persisted in illegally misleading the FISA court.

In all the IG report documents 17 substantive deficiencies, including one criminal act, in the FBI’s handling of the FISA warrant application, plus numerous failures to adhere to the related “Woods” procedures.

Thus the IG report provides the factual foundation for disputing many of the media lies we’ve been told these past three years, and Tucker Carlson is right to point this out. In combination with the Mueller report, we can now say without reservation that the Russian collusion narrative the media kept alive for so long was a complete fabrication.

20 thoughts on “Tucker: Media silent on the lies they spread

    1. Yes, the FBI was slipshod in its investigation. (Saw it discussed on CNN this morning.) However, the big lie that Trump and his minions spread is that there was that the investigation was opened for politically biased reasons. How much time was spent on that aspect? The investigation was NOT opened for political reasons, but the FBI screwed the pooch big time in how it was conducted.

      It is a lose-lose situation for both sides of the debate. But a big black eye for the FBI.

      Interesting was Comey taking responsibility on NPR the other day for those errors and omissions. It is what a leader does. Unlike some who claim to be leaders and blame everything on others.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Too his credit FBI Director Wray was all over investigating the FISA abuses to identify and correct them. They are too loose as a result of the changes made in response to 9/11.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Slipshod?

        17 major variances from the rules and every single one was to Trump’s disadvantage, but there was no bias?

        Slipshod would result in an approximately even distribution of errors.


        1. I apologize if you don’t like my adjective choice. Sloppy and,in one case, possibly criminal.

          But no evidence of political bias. Keep ignoring that point, if you can. Well, you can’t, but you will. Because you only want to believe that which you want to believe.


          1. Sloppy also produces an even distribution of errors.

            When every single instance of violated procedure is against Trump, that is as close to proof of bias as you can get short of a confession.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. “Slipshod would result in an approximately even distribution of errors.”

    Based on 17 instances? There are courses in statistical probability you my want to consider.

    Regardless, the “bias” issue was about the instigation of the investigation NOT the process errors.

    My confidence in your ability to read and pay attention are increasingly in question.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. About the same odds that Trump was just seeking justice from Ukraine rather than dirt on political rivals.

        But that is OK. It will set a new standard for presidential power. Next will be arresting rivals while “investigators” pursue them.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Based on what? Complete naivety? It’s not a coin toss.

        There is no evidence that the errors are independent, or even uncorrelated, only that they were not driven by political bias. That doesn’t mean that “process-wise” they were unbiased.

        If the cause of the third, error was, oh say, the first one, and then the 5th was related to the 2nd, and so on, then the probability that all errors went one way might be any number.

        BTW, is this how you treat the climate change probabilities?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. It is true that correlation between the willful rule violations(not errors) could reduce the improbability, but even so you’d be talking hundreds of thousands to one instead of billions to one.

          The IG did not say there was no bias, he said he did not have testimonial or documentary evidence of bias, That does not mean we cannot infer bias from the totality of the process.

          Again, ALL of the rule violations were to the President’s disadvantage, and that is not a random distribution.


          1. In order to make a statement on the stochastic nature of the “errors”, you would have to show that they are not fully deterministic. That the first “error” does not make some, or all, or the others inevitable.
            To show that the any of the errors have any direction, i.e., to the benefit of, or to the detriment of, the subject, you would have to examine the errors across a number of similar investigations, e.g., number of agents, warrants, etc.
            It’s entirely possible that these error have NO possibility of benefiting Trump, but worse, that they are not unusual in similar investigations… which is why Dir. Wray is correct in reviewing the procedure.
            But to treat it as 2^(-17) is the assumption of maximum ignorance. BTW, that’s not a slight, it’s sometimes a legitimate assumption in stochastic modeling.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Bias, yes, but not toward the specific subject, e.g. Trump.

            It’s the government of which we speak, so anything is possible, but let me give an example of an “error” that has a good probability of occurrence, always favors the investigation, and given the way the government works, is plausible, highly plausible.

            Let’s assume that the law states a FISA warrant is valid 30 days beginning midnight the day it is signed. Judges being good government employees sign warrants only on workdays. The judge’s clerk, being another good government employee, mistakenly extends the end date to Monday at midnight should the 30th day fall on a weekend. It’s the government.

            We now have a systematic error that affects 40% of the warrants issued – there has been more than 30,000 issued — and always goes against the subject of the investigation.

            Obviously, it’s an error, the effect is biased, but given the clerk ALWAYS makes the mistake, then there is no personnel bias toward a particular subject.

            You could if you want, identify any subject affected (evidence collected on the 1 or 2 days), but the courts are still reticent to toss evidence on “honest mistakes” when the police act in “good faith”.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Never ending story.
    2003 ALL networks including Fox were broadcasting how Iraq “kicked out” Butler and the WMD searchers to suck up to G.W. Bush so he could kill Iraqis.

    “… it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes.”

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s