I paraphrase, but here’s the transcript from last night’s Tucker Carlson show, where Brit Hume asked an excellent question,

Emphasis added (starting at 3:05 into the video, link via Real Clear Politics):

BH: There’s one other thing worth mentioning here — that the FBI director also said in an answer to the question that he had found no evidence, no information pointing to a wiretap of Donald Trump or of Trump Tower. No evidence of that. However, what about this investigation that’s been going on since July of the Trump campaign and Trump associates?

TC: Great question!

BH: Are we not to believe there is no surveillance associated with that? We do know, as you pointed out, that Mike Flynn was caught up in a wiretap. That may be a routine wiretap of the Russian ambassador to whom he was speaking. But who knows?”

“And when he made this announcement, Comey, that there was this investigation going on, which he said he received permission from higher up to do this announcement — there was a story back on January 19 in The New York Times, which basically laid this whole thing out and said it was based on surveillance that indicated there had been these contacts. That story also said it wasn’t clear that the wiretaps turned up anything about the Trump campaign. So, we kind of don’t know where we are. And remember this — this is also supposedly a counter-intelligence investigation, which that means it is basically national security matters. So, what’s up with that? I mean what’s that tell us about how likely they are to find about Putin or collusion? One wonders.”

TC: You just made the point of the month, if not year. If there was an investigation, and there was, there was surveillance.

And we wait for Congress to demand an answer to that question.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

The needs of a web site like mine that would absolutely love to have someone kick in $60k a year to support me and the radio show are apparently highly different that one that has millions of dollars invested at the start.

For example for such a site like Tucker Carlson’s it is vital to stay relevant to the MSM so if things were rough and I needed a kick-start I would know that the easiest way to get MSM attention is to hit a conservative and there is no conservative the MSM lives to hit more than Sarah Palin.

Thus the Daily Caller decided to go quote Mike Tyson’s vile sexually charged attack on Palin inspired by Joe McGinnis’ book.

Alas poor Tucker, he hasn’t apparently been paying attention. McGinnis’ book has so little credibility and is so discredited even Keith Olbermann and the NYT are dissing it.

That misjudgment is bad enough but the decision to try to go after Dan Riehl, for pointing out this tactic was not so bright:

What is it with these sad little Beltway bois? Are they simply misogynistic and unable to pass up an opportunity to attempt to humiliate a successful woman with more clout and influence than the petulant little bow-tie boy, Carlson, has or will ever have? Or is it their inadequacy in the face of an attractive, accomplished woman like Palin that causes them to lash out so despicably?

Riehl’s base post contained, shall we say, more colorful language. Well Carlson and company took exception and led to a whole series of further posts by Riehl demonstrating several things:

1..Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller have much too thin a skin for this business

2..Sarah Palin is a lot tougher than anyone at the Daily Caller

3..The people at the Caller have no idea of how new media works.

Simple suggestion if you are a million dollar site trying to impress investors you don’t go after individual bloggers who hurt your feelings, particularly not Dan Riehl.

Also if you are going to object to Ladd Ehlinger attack ads, you have no business publishing what they did.

And do you really want to attract the attention of a film director who is known for making funny biting videos that skewer his opponents and tend to go viral? I think not.

This is a full You Fool moment!

God help the Caller if Ladd decides to parody them.

Update: Oh and #4 Sissy Willis has it all over him too.

Update 2: Stacy McCain discovers this can comments in calm and measured tones:

HOLY. FREAKING. CRAP.

I talked to Dan Riehl about this and hope to have him on the show next week to discuss it further. I talked to Ladd Ehlinger who remembers well the statements of the Daily Caller against his over ca-36 and had these things to say:

“I wonder if the Concerned Blue Hairs of America will call for Matt Lewis to be blacklisted due to his association with the sexist and misogynistic Tucker Carlson and Daily Caller?”

“I find it utterly outrageous and shocking that Tucker Carlson despises women.”

“Perhaps if Tucker Carlson fired fake-conservative writers like Matt Lewis, he wouldn’t be in the money troubles he’s in today.”

None of this of course addresses the radio station itself that ran the base interview and a station actually broadcasting this kind of stuff, Stacy McCain again:

Does FCC know about this? How about AttackWatch? Now that I think of it, have we heard from Jill Filipovic, Jessica Valenti, Melissa McEwan or any of the other feminists? Because if Sarah Palin weren’t a Republican, I think they’d probably be outraged by this.

The moral of the story? I don’t know who is backing the radio station who allowed this stupidity, but if I had 3 million in backing and was looking for more I think I’d be smart enough not to repeat it.

Update 2: Stacy McCain reports Politico has noticed.

…could have had first hand reports from a Massachusetts vote of the various Brown/Coakley events without the expense of sending Roger Leo here.

Mind you his report was pretty good, but hey Tucker still available. $800 a week that’s all I ask for 40 hours+ work.

My congratulations to Jim Treacher Sean Medlock for getting a Gig with Tucker Carlson’s new web site.

This is going to sound weird, but Tucker Carlson has just hired me to blog for his new “web-site,” which is found at the “U-R-L” http://dailycaller.com. I know! I know. I’m not sure I get it either. But it looks like I’m moving to Washington, DC as soon as I can get the truck loaded up.

He deserves it and the fact that Tucker grabbed him shows good sense, but I must confess given my situation I’m extremely jealous.

In case Tucker is still looking for guys for the Daily Caller, I’ll remind him that I’d be happy to work for him for $800 a week, if he only wants a part time guy I’d be willing to go part time for $540 a week.

Hey can’t hurt to ask.