PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

74OA said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

74OA said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

74OA said:

---

Putin laughs at Tucker after the "interview".

SOFTBALL

---

You put interview in quotes for some reason. I'm curious, what would you call it?

---

Based on Tucker's minimal participation in it, a lecture?

---

What were you expecting? Did you Think Tucker flew all the way to Moscow to listen to himself talk?

---

A professional interview includes Q&A and probing/challenging the responses, not just sitting there and listening to a nonstop history lecture--the accuracy of which has been repeatedly debunked in recent years.

As the article points out, even Putin laughed at Tucker's passivity.

---

Agreed, but it's childish to try to say it wasn't an interview because it hurtz feelz.

---

I appreciated the lack of too many interruptions or questions from Tucker. So often, journalists, in the name of whatever bias they represent, don't allow interviewees to answer questions fully because they have a narrative to push.

Step outside that narrative means the reporter must immediately push back, according to western journos.

I wish many more interview were conducted in this way so that we could hear full responses and make our own decisions on the content

74OA said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

74OA said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

74OA said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

74OA said:

---

Putin laughs at Tucker after the "interview".

SOFTBALL

---

You put interview in quotes for some reason. I'm curious, what would you call it?

---

Based on Tucker's minimal participation in it, a lecture?

---

What were you expecting? Did you Think Tucker flew all the way to Moscow to listen to himself talk?

---

A professional interview includes Q&A and probing/challenging the responses, not just sitting there and listening to a nonstop history lecture--the accuracy of which has been repeatedly debunked in recent years.

As the article points out, even Putin laughed at Tucker's passivity.

---

Agreed, but it's childish to try to say it wasn't an interview because it hurtz feelz.

---

All you got is "hurtz feelz"? That's childish. <eye roll>

---

Unfortunately for you, it's also accurate.

Tucker Carlson says that the experience of shopping at a Russian grocery store, recognizing their high standard of living and low costs, all supposedly in the “heart of evil” has radicalized him against Western leaders. pic.twitter.com/glBZQdpUIO

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 15, 2024

Propaganda.. misinformation.

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

---

Odd that Tucker would act like he supports the 2nd amendment and then simp for Russia, who has draconian gun laws by most red state standards.

Dan Scott said:

---

Tucker Carlson says that the experience of shopping at a Russian grocery store, recognizing their high standard of living and low costs, all supposedly in the “heart of evil” has radicalized him against Western leaders. pic.twitter.com/glBZQdpUIO

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 15, 2024

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/tucker-carlson-discovers-american-tourists-are-rich

Quote:

---

Tucker Carlson makes two classic American-tourist mistakes in his recent video from a Russian grocery store. He sees things in a foreign country that he hasn't seen in the U.S. and concludes that those things are therefore unique. And he mistakes the purchasing power of an American tourist with the purchasing power of a Russian.

---

Teslag said:

---

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

---

Odd that Tucker would act like he supports the 2nd amendment and then simp for Russia, who has draconian gun laws by most red state standards.

---

He does support 2A, and he probably hasn't thought much about russian gun laws for russians. who cares?
What is a "draconian gun law"?

You now worried about the gun deprived russian? does that fit the simp?

So you're daring to say life isn't better in Russia?

Teslag said:

---

So you're daring to say life isn't better in Russia?

---

I'm saying I don't think Tucker is a russian "mouthpiece," silly.

I'd say your agenda is more well defined than his.

Oh good grief! How in the world is that a sanctions violation?

aggiehawg said:

---

Oh good grief! How in the world is that a sanctions violation?

---

Because somebody who shall not be named didn't get their 10%.

Oh good grief, how in the world are we just taking randos on X at face value?!?

nortex97 said:

---

So…Tucker to be thrown in J6 gulags by the Xiden regime? Will he face a Tanya Chutkan judge?

Today’s Democrat Party will not tolerate dissenting views. https://t.co/bsik8wAJEW

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) February 28, 2024

Never, ever vote for a democrat.

---

How very Putin of them

Old Army Metal said:

---

Oh good grief, how in the world are we just taking randos on X at face value?!?

---

Randos??

You post here daily and don't know who Rick Grenell is? Maybe try learning something while you're here trolling.

Old Army Metal said:

---

Oh good grief, how in the world are we just taking randos on X at face value?!?

---

Incredibly oblivious and emotional explains every post you make.

Randos. Really?

Yeah I have that one out of site but if you click through/around this you will reach the video of Tucker discussing himself what his legal counsel told him/was received. But maybe I am the 'rando' referenced, whatever, some people just don't want to see the pervasive attempts to stifle political speech that are happening daily from our weaponized government and that includes the DoJ/FBI obviously.

If he was honest he'd give the newest Lex Fridman podcast episode a listen but we all know that ain't happening.

Whatever your feelings about Tucker, the BS our government is pulling should enrage you as an AMERICAN…right or left.

Old Army Metal said:

---

Oh good grief, how in the world are we just taking randos on X at face value?!?

---

Not to mention it doesn't even so who's legal counsel. It may have been Tucker's...

Teslag said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

Oh good grief, how in the world are we just taking randos on X at face value?!?

---

Not to mention it doesn't even so who's legal counsel. It may have been Tucker's...

---

As usual you didn't bother to click through to understand anything posted, just another emotional response.

Quote:

---

U.S. journalist Tucker Carlson said on Tuesday that his lawyers warned him that the United States could arrest him on sanctions violations for conducting an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
"My lawyers, before I left … said you're going to get arrested if you do this by the US government on sanctions violations," Carlson said in an interview with podcaster Lex Fridman.

---

So no one in the administration actually threatened this....

I don't think people appreciate what a scandal this is. People talk about "Putin gave an interview to Tucker but not CNN" but here the CIA gave an exclusive invite to the NYT to enter top secret CIA bases so NYT could pen a funding pitch for them

Would the CIA let Tucker in? https://t.co/lce8OzMiFi

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) February 28, 2024

Good discussion.

LOL, I am done trying to help you today. Good luck.

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, I am done trying to help you today. Good luck.

---

Did the administration, or anyone in the US government notify Carlson he could be arrested for sanctions violations?

It's like people have lost all sense of critical thinking these days

Agreed. My natural inclination when I see something that sounds ridiculous or far fetched is to check the article against the headline. For any news now, left or right, the headline rarely matches the content.

Seriously.

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-sanctions-eu-putin-interview-1867655

Quote:

---

Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin could see the conservative pundit targeted by European Union lawmakers, current and former members of the European Parliament have told Newsweek.

---

Charpie said:

---

It's like people have lost all sense of critical thinking these days

---

I think you are right, but likely inadvertently of course.

The $5 billion for the "Maidan" revolution protesters from Nuland in 2014 after Yanukovich rejected the trade terms demanded and installation of the new Nuland government matter. We have one guy trying to stop the additional funding for these 12 CIA bases directing operations at risk of conflagrating into a greater war.

Quote:

---

1. "The CIA invited the New York Times in." They specifically say in the NYT article that many of the NYT's 200-some interviews were done inside the physical building of one the 12 secret CIA bases in Eastern Ukraine -- which means this wasn't a scoop, it was an invitation & base tour from the CIA invited them in for the express purpose of getting that piece published.

2. "This is a dirty trick by our Central Intelligence Agency to use the New York Times as its own personal mouthpiece, to protect its own personal piggy bank." This is the selective leaking of intelligence just to get short-term funding. The key paragraph in the NYT piece gives away the game that the bases are all praying for more funding. The whole article is about how important these CIA bases have become and what catastrophe will befall them if Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson vetoes the hotly contested new Ukraine funding bill.

3. The NYT article reveals those CIA bases are not just defensive -- they are for offensive scouting of targets to hit within Russia proper. That's not defending Americans or even Ukrainians: long range missiles are for killing Russians. Beyond such offensive operations not being mission critical, they're a provocation to war. And they were set up **years before** 2022.

---

This is all blatant, dangerous, un-American, un-democratic, propaganda from our own intelligence folks.

nortex97 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

It's like people have lost all sense of critical thinking these days

---

I think you are right, but likely inadvertently of course.

The $5 billion for the "Maidan" revolution protesters from Nuland in 2014 after Yanukovich rejected the trade terms demanded and installation of the new Nuland government matter. We have one guy trying to stop the additional funding for these 12 CIA bases directing operations at risk of conflagrating into a greater war.

Quote:

---

1. "The CIA invited the New York Times in." They specifically say in the NYT article that many of the NYT's 200-some interviews were done inside the physical building of one the 12 secret CIA bases in Eastern Ukraine -- which means this wasn't a scoop, it was an invitation & base tour from the CIA invited them in for the express purpose of getting that piece published.

2. "This is a dirty trick by our Central Intelligence Agency to use the New York Times as its own personal mouthpiece, to protect its own personal piggy bank." This is the selective leaking of intelligence just to get short-term funding. The key paragraph in the NYT piece gives away the game that the bases are all praying for more funding. The whole article is about how important these CIA bases have become and what catastrophe will befall them if Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson vetoes the hotly contested new Ukraine funding bill.

3. The NYT article reveals those CIA bases are not just defensive -- they are for offensive scouting of targets to hit within Russia proper. That's not defending Americans or even Ukrainians: long range missiles are for killing Russians. Beyond such offensive operations not being mission critical, they're a provocation to war. And they were set up **years before** 2022.

---

This is all blatant, dangerous, un-American, un-democratic, propaganda from our own intelligence folks.

---

Unfortunately, this is actually very American.

nortex97 said:

---

This is all blatant, dangerous, un-American, un-democratic, propaganda from our own intelligence folks.

---

how's it un-American if the cia been doing this **** since at least the 70s?