Tucker Carlson reacted on Wednesday to news developments that essentially confirm the National Security Agency had intercepted his private emails. Even worse, it had illegally “unmasked” him.
The confirmation came out indirectly via an Axios “scoop” from reporter Jonathan Swan.
“Tucker Carlson was talking to U.S.-based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Vladimir Putin shortly before the Fox News host accused the National Security Agency of spying on him,” sources told Axios.
“Those sources said U.S. government officials learned about Carlson’s efforts to secure the Putin interview,” Axios said. “Carlson learned that the government was aware of his outreach — and that’s the basis of his extraordinary accusation, followed by a rare public denial by the NSA that he had been targeted.”
“An NSA spokesman declined to comment and referred Axios back to the agency’s earlier, carefully-worded, statement,” Swan wrote on Twitter. “In other words, the NSA is denying the targeting of Carlson but is not denying that his communications may have been incidentally collected.”
This essentially confirms that his communications were intercepted or else the NSA would flat-out deny it. However, since no one can access the NSA to verify if this happened, this may be the closest we get to safely inferring it.
Tucker Carlson reacted to the reveleations on his prime time cable news show.
“Last week, last Monday, we told you that the Biden administration’s largest intelligence gathering agency, the NSA, has been reading my private emails,” Carlson said at the show opening. “Even saying that out loud is weird. It is one of those segments we never thought we would do ever. But the country has changed that much, that fast.”
“And honestly, the whole thing was kind of shocking,” he continued. “The government was spying on us? Come on. It seemed crazy.”
“But it’s true,” Tucker went on. “And no one in Washington appeared to be shocked in the slightest. In fact, the usual shills, right after our segment, had a ready explanation for it.”
“Either, ‘it never happened at all,’ they said, ‘just a cable news show lying for ratings,’ or there must have been a good reason it happened,” he said. “Then, they began furiously making excuses for why the NSA did it.”
“A powerful, heavily politicized spy agency surveilling journalists who had been critical of the regime?” he said. “No problems. Perfectly normal. Just don’t call it ‘spying.'”
“But it’s not normal, at all,” Tucker added. “It is Third World. And as we told you repeatedly, it did happen. Now, that has been confirmed.”
“Yesterday we learned that sources in the so-called intelligence community told at least one reporter in Washington what was in those emails, my emails,” he said.
“There was nothing scandalous in there, thank God, we are happy to report that,” Tucker said. “Late this Spring, I contacted a couple of people I thought could get us an interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin.”
“I told nobody I was doing this, other than my executive producer Justin Wells,” he continued. “I wasn’t embarrassed about trying to interview Putin, he is obviously newsworthy. I am an American citizen, I can interview anyone I want. And I plan to.”
“But still, in this case, I decided to keep it quiet,” he said. “I figured that any kind of publicity would rattle the Russians and make the interview less likely to happen.”
“But the Biden administration found out anyway — by reading my emails,” he said. “I learned from a whistleblower at the NSA that they planned to leak the contents of those emails to media outlets. Why would they do that? Well, the point, of course, was to paint me as a disloyal American. A Russian operative! I’ve been called that before. A stooge of the Kremlin! A traitor doing the bidding of a foreign adversary.”
“And of course, I am hardly the only person to be accused of those things in the last several years,” he said. “You’ve seen this movie several times now.
Tucker Carlson then continued to put the spying in context for all Americans, before discussing how the NSA had illegally “unmasked” him. It turns out that Tucker was right. Once again.
"*" indicates required fields
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.