Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson is stirring controversy once again, this time for his decision to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In a post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Carlson confirmed his upcoming interview, citing a duty to inform Americans about events in Russia, an assertion met with both support and skepticism.
“We’re in journalism. Our duty is to inform people. Two years into a war (with Ukraine) that is reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed,” Carlson said.
“They have no real idea what is happening in this region. Here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine. But they should know. They’re paying for much of it.”
Critics, who have accused Carlson of echoing Kremlin narratives in the past, voiced concerns about the interview’s implications.
Among them is lawyer Ian Corzine, who warned of potential legal ramifications under the Espionage Act.
Corzine’s analysis, while drawing significant attention, has also faced criticism and mockery online, with many questioning the legitimacy of his claims.
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton joined the fray, denouncing Carlson as a “useful idiot” for Putin and reigniting discussions about alleged Russian collusion.
However, her remarks were met with counterattacks, pointing out her own ties to Russia, including allegations that she received money from Russian sources.
Moreover, critics highlighted instances where she defended Putin and advocated for a “reset” in relations with Russia in the past.
Corzine highlighted the broad language of the Espionage Act, suggesting that sharing information with a foreign entity could potentially lead to legal trouble for Carlson.
“Tucker Carlson interviewed Putin, and something tells me it’s going to go horribly wrong … first off, is it even legal for Tucker to interview Vladimir Putin?” Corzine asked in a post on X, followed by a monologue detailing his concerns and reasons why.
Despite this warning, doubts remain about the likelihood of successful prosecution, particularly considering constitutional protections for freedom of the press.
The debate surrounding Carlson’s interview has spilled over into the realm of social media, with commentators and journalists weighing in on both sides.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized what he viewed as an overblown concern over legal repercussions, while conservative voices like Ian Miles Cheong questioned the double standard in media coverage.
“Please watch this video and see for yourself how completely unhinged, authoritarian and repressive American liberals have become,” Greenwald said. “This is from a lawyer, very seriously discussing whether Tucker Carlson will be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act for interviewing Putin,” he added.
X political pundit Ian Miles Cheong posted: “It’s legal for CNN to interview Putin but it’s not legal for Tucker Carlson to do it, apparently.”
Corzine’s analysis gained significant traction online, sparking discussions about the limits of free speech and the role of journalists in international affairs.
However, critics pointed out that Carlson is not the first American journalist to interview Putin, raising questions about the validity of legal threats.
“I guess we’re forgetting he’s not the first US journalist to interview Putin,” a netizen responded to Corzine’s stupid post.
“You are truly a moron. Why does free speech scare you so much?” political pundit Roger Stone commented.
While the possibility of legal action against Carlson in the United States remains uncertain, he has faced calls for sanctions in Europe.
Guy Verhofstadt, a prominent member of the European Parliament, suggested that Carlson could be subject to European Union sanctions for his interview with Putin.
The Daily Netizen 