Fox TV host Tucker Carlson said on his “Tucker Carlson Tonight” show Feb. 4 that, citing the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, the United States is now looking for and punishing so-called political extremists from top to bottom, and that all walks of Life are involved. . Bank of America even leaked its user information to the FBI, undermining civil liberties and helping to hunt down so-called “terrorists.
The following is a translation of the text of the program.
This week and over the past month, there has been a great deal of discussion about violent extremism and its proponents. We are told that these people are domestic terrorists and must be suppressed by force. The war on terror has shifted to the United States at Home. The extremists are in our country and we must go after them.
We keep hearing this rhetoric, not just on cable news television, but from elected officials, including some Republicans. We’re hearing it from the top of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, we’re hearing it from the Pentagon. Just this week, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered the entire U.S. military to “take a pause” so investigators can clean up the military of political extremists.
And we’re hearing this from corporations, from Wall Street, from technology monopolies, from large multinational corporations that increasingly control the lives of the American people. They’re all looking for political extremists right now.
In a way, that doesn’t sound so bad. No sane person supports political extremism, especially violent extremism. We need moderation, incremental change, and the approval of the governed. We’ve said that every day for the last four years, and we mean it.
But that’s not enough to solve the problem. You have to be more clear than that. In order to solve the problem, you have to know what the problem is. You need to have a clear understanding of what the problem is, and you have to have a precise definition. And yet, no one is doing that in this extraordinary public discussion we are having.
Have you noticed that none of these emerging, feverish searchers for extremists have told us exactly what an “extremist” is? We were left guessing and looking around nervously to see if we could spot one. They weren’t talking about us, were they? And if so, what were they doing? How do they hunt down the “extremists” they keep talking about but don’t clearly identify? Now we know part of the answer to that question.
“Evidence obtained exclusively on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” shows that Bank of America, the second largest bank in the United States with 60 million customers, is actively but secretly working with the government to find “extremists. Without informing its customers or obtaining their consent, Bank of America provided private information to federal law enforcement agencies. Bank of America is effectively acting as an intelligence agency, but they’re not telling you that.
In the days following the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, Bank of America reviewed its own customers’ financial and transaction records. These are the private records of Americans who have committed no crimes. As far as we know, these people had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at the Capitol. However, at the request of federal investigators, Bank of America searched its database for specific types of individuals.
This is the information they were looking for: “1. People who had confirmed transactions in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, via bank debit or credit cards. 2. People who booked a hotel or Airbnb with a credit card in Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Maryland after Jan. 6. 3. People who were in Washington, D.C., from Jan. 7 to around the date of the presidential inauguration People who are suspected of purchasing weapons during their stay, or who have purchased merchandise at weapons-related stores. 4. People who have been associated with buying airline tickets since Jan. 6.”
The first thing you should notice about the information they’re looking for is that it’s very broad in scope. Anything purchased in Washington, D.C.; overnight stays anywhere that spans three jurisdictions and hundreds of miles; not only purchases of legal firearms, but also any merchandise purchased from “weapons-related stores,” including T-shirts; and transactions related to airline tickets, not only for flights to Washington, but also for flights from Omaha to Thailand and anywhere else. It’s a ridiculous web.
In total, Bank of America identified 211 customers who met these criteria. By then, the “Tucker Carlson Tonight” program had learned that Bank of America had turned over the results of its internal review to federal authorities, apparently without notifying the customers under surveillance. Federal investigators then interviewed at least one of these unsuspecting individuals. We learned that that person had done nothing wrong and had passed the review.
Imagine if you were that person and the FBI dragged you through a terror investigation, not because you had done anything suspicious, but because you had purchased a ticket and visited our nation’s capital. Now they are causing your head to spin in a cold sweat because the bank you trusted with the most secret information revealed your information without your knowledge. Because of the actions of Bank of America, you are being treated like a member of Al Qaeda.
No matter how much you despise Donald Trump or how much you believe that hatred of Trump is reason to put this country’s long history of civil liberties on hold, that experience is sure to scare the crap out of you. Does anyone else know about this? Is there a record of this visit? Will I lose my job because of it? This actually happened to someone.
“Tucker Carlson Tonight asked Bank of America about this and they confirmed that it did happen in the form of a non-denial of the fact. Here’s their full statement, which makes the whole thing even creepier.
“We do not comment on communications with law enforcement. Under federal law, all banks have a responsibility to fully comply with the law and cooperate with law enforcement’s investigation.”
The phrase “full compliance with the law” implies that U.S. banks have no choice, but that’s not the case. Bank of America did have a choice. It could have refused to turn over information about innocent customers to federal investigators, but it did not.
Because it is unclear whether Bank of America acted legally, we consulted with many attorneys on the matter. Some of them told us that what Bank of America did may not actually be legal and could potentially be challenged in court. One senior attorney pointed us to federal law U.S.C. 123403, which allows banks to provide information to the federal government “that may be relevant to any violation of statute or regulation.
Now, the Justice Department has instructed federal agents to remind banks of this law. Of course, they will apply maximum pressure. But the question is, what legally is information related to a possible crime, and does buying a muffin in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5 make you a potential domestic extremist?
According to Bank of America, yes, yes, it does.
In this moment, for the sake of our country and the children and grandchildren who will live here, we need to calm down, take a deep breath, avoid hysteria, and ask, “What are the rules? For God’s sake, what are the political extremists?”
There’s a lot involved in that question, but they obviously won’t tell us. For example, on Thursday (Jan. 4), National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters at the White House that “violent domestic extremism” is the urgent crisis of our Time. But Sullivan did not explain what it is.
Sullivan said that “building back better” includes not only the economy but also national security, a set of challenges that working families in this country face every day in their lives and livelihoods: pandemics, climate change, the threat of violent domestic extremism.
We’re beginning to believe there’s a reason they don’t give a definition. On Wednesday, an op-ed in the New York Times asked the question, “Is the next hot spot for misinformation a private messaging App?” As the paper put it, “The shift to private message exchange has reignited the debate over whether encryption is a double-edged sword. While the technology may prevent people from being snooped on, it may also make it easier for criminals and misinformation purveyors to do harmful things without getting caught.”
Note that “criminals and misinformation spreaders” are in the same sentence, and they are almost the same thing. What is a misinformation purveyor? Anyone who disagrees with the New York Times is clearly an extreme violent person and is dangerous.
Do you think we’re kidding? We are not.
Recent Comments