he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" (aka liasing with) the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was at hand.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father often worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later.
i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this, unintentionally, i hope. you could say it's a matter of semantics, but tucker isn't the one who is committing a semantical mistake here, he was unambiguous in his choice of words imo. "in conjunction with" here can only really mean "collaborating with while still remaining separate from". if you try to extract another meaning from it then you are twisting someone's words i'm afraid.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" (aka liasing with) the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was at hand.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father often worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later.
i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this, unintentionally, i hope. you could say it's a matter of semantics, but tucker isn't the one who is committing a semantical mistake here, he was unambiguous in his choice of words imo. "in conjunction with" can only really mean "collaborating with while still remaining separate from". if you try to extract another meaning from it then you are twisting someone's words i'm afraid.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" (aka liasing with) the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was at hand.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father often worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later.
i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this, unintentionally, i hope. you could say it's a matter of semantics, but tucker isn't the one who is committing a semantical mistake here, he was unambiguous in his choice of words imo.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" (aka liasing with) the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was at hand.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later.
i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this, unintentionally, i hope. you could say it's a matter of semantics, but tucker isn't the one who is committing a semantical mistake, he was unambiguous in his choice of words imo.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was ongoing.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later.
i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this, unintentionally, i hope. you could say it's a matter of semantics, but tucker isn't the one who is committing a semantical mistake, he was unambiguous in his choice of words imo.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was ongoing.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later.
i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this, unintentionally, i hope. you could say it's a matter of semantics, but tucker isn't the one who is committing a semantical mistake, he was very deliberate in his phrasing and choice of words imo.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was ongoing.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later.
i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this, unintentionally, i hope. you could say it's a matter of semantics, but tucker isn't the one who is committing a semantical mistake.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was ongoing.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working as part of the CIA until later. i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was ongoing.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would indeed be aware that his father worked in collaboration with CIA, and not be afraid to say that, while not necessarily learning that he was directly working with CIA until later. i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard.
for example, from wiki:
"In the summer of 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Carlson as an associate director of the United States Information Agency to succeed Ernest Eugene Pell.
Carlson became director of Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded, state-owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting.[18] It broadcasts 24 hours a day in nearly 50 languages to more than 130 million people around the world, with a full-time staff of 3,000 and a part-time staff of 1,200. Carlson was the longest-serving director in VOA's 50-year history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson#Voice_of_America
it would only make sense that, in these government positions, he would of course be working "in conjunction with" the CIA, frequently, for whatever intelligence operation was ongoing.
what tucker says makes sense to me. he would be aware that his father worked in collaboration with CIA. i like nick but he seems to be ignoring the context for this.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them, without actually being a CIA employee? i think there is sufficient difference in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard
would be nice to see if there's more clips about this to narrow down the context.
he mentions "worked in conjunction with CIA" in first clip, then is saying he was shocked to learn that he was actual CIA.
maybe he just assumed he was a contractor of some sort, or simply was in frequent communication with them? i think there is sufficient different in the context to give tucker benefit of the doubt, given that i'm not aware of any other incidents of tucker being greasy/fraudulent in this regard
would be nice to see if there's more clips about this to narrow down the context.