Tucker Carlson's NSA Claims Prove We Must Bring Back Curiosity

Last week, Tucker Carlson accused the National Security Agency of spying on his emails. Carlson says a whistleblower tipped him off that the NSA has in its possession emails that Carlson sent only to his executive producer. Following Carlson's accusation, the NSA sort of denied spying on him.

Despite the predictably dismissive reaction from the media, it appears once again that the blue-chip outlets were wrong. How could that be?

In a report on Wednesday, multiple sources told Axios that U.S. government officials learned about Carlson's efforts to secure an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin shortly before Carlson accused the NSA of spying on him a week ago.

"Carlson learned that the government was aware of his outreach — and that's the basis of his extraordinary accusation," the report states.

Axios says it has not confirmed whether the NSA had intercepted any of Carlson's communications. However, the Daily Caller reminded its readers yesterday that leaking intercepted communications is a felony by way of 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code, which states that an offender "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Here's an explanation I can buy: Carlson's identity was unmasked and illegally leaked to the media in retaliation for requesting an interview with Putin.

"ources in the so-called intelligence community told at least one reporter in Washington what was in those emails, my emails," Carlson said as he addressed the topic Wednesday night.

Carlson says he told only his executive producer, Justin Wells, that he had contacted a couple of people in the spring to assist in getting a sitdown with Putin. Meaning, someone else has access to the emails Carlson exchanged with Wells.

"I didn't mention it to anybody else, including my wife," Carlson went on.

The whistleblower that Carlson referenced told him that the NSA planned to leak his emails to media outlets 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."

"By law, I should have been identified internally merely as 'a U.S. journalist' or 'American journalist.' That's the law," Carlson claimed. "But that's not how I was identified. I was identified by name. I was unmasked. People in the building learned who I was, and then my name and the contents of my emails left that building at the NSA and wound up with a news organization in Washington. That is illegal. In fact, it is precisely what this law was designed to prevent in the first place … We cannot have intelligence agencies used as instruments of political control."

A Fox News spokesperson told Axios that the network supports its hosts pursuing interviews and stories free of government interference.

It's important to note, Carlson is far from the first U.S. TV host or journalist to request an interview with the Russian president. Just two weeks ago, NBC News interviewed Putin before he met with President Joe Biden.

So why would the government care so much about Carlson's attempt? That answer is obvious: Carlson, unlike NBC, would ask Putin the questions the NSA and Biden Administration don't want answered. Carlson is a threat to the establishment, and with Putin, he could expose those in power further.

In short, Carlson's claims that the NSA spied on him were not baseless, as CNN yelled they were. On the contrary, Carlson is almost certainly correct, and we should undoubtedly take his claims seriously. And that's an even bigger story.

Not only did the government likely illegally unmask a cable news host, but major media outlets again misled their consumers about it.

For over a year, public voices -- politicians, reporters, TV hosts, blue-check Twitter accounts -- have told us to sit down, listen and not to question them.

They said that those who questioned the Wuhan lab leak theory were dangerous conspiracy theorists. Those who wondered about Hunter Biden's laptop were Russian puppets who deserved to lose access to social media.

We were warned not to question whether George Floyd's death was racially motivated, whether UFOs existed, or the reason for the Lafayette Park clearing.

They told us not to question hypocrisy because those in power were trustworthy.

These same people, all of whom are interchangeable pawns, demanded we dismissed Tucker Carlson's claim that the NSA had spied on him. Unfortunately, many still listen to them.

Why do we keep listening to the people who deceive us, those who have attempted to insult our curiosity and prohibit our questions?

At this point, how can we not question everything we are told? Think about the people they tell us to believe: Dr. Fauci, Andrew Cuomo, Kamala Harris, Don Lemon and others. Think about how much disinformation we've accepted and, as a result, how much we now don't know.

I believe Tucker Carlson, not because of his track record, but because of the track records of those who tell me his claims aren't plausible.