Friday, November 20, 2020


I'm pleased that Tucker Carlson said this on his show last night about one of President Trump's election lawyers, who claimed in a news conference yesterday that there was widespread Democratic electoral fraud in this year's election:
... we took Sidney Powell seriously, with no intention of fighting with her. We've always respected her work and we simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention.

But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of polite requests. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they also told us Powell had never given them any evidence to prove anything she claimed at the press conference.

... she never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.
However, please note that Carlson also said this about Trump's other high-profile attorney:
But back to Thursday's press conference, which [Rudy] Giuliani kicked off by saying the Democrats stole the election by means of coordinated fraud in a number of states. Giuliani did not conclusively prove that, but he did raise legitimate questions and in some cases, he pointed to what appeared to be real wrongdoing. At one point, Giuliani held up an affidavit from a worker in Detroit called Jessy Jacob alleging fraud in that city's polling places.

... This is the sworn statement of an American citizen made under oath and under penalty of perjury, so you cannot dismiss it out of hand. Jacob goes on to say that her supervisor told her not to check the photo IDs of voters when they arrived. She says she saw city employees coaching voters on who to vote for, as well as voters voting more than once.
And this:
The other day on television, Powell said of Trump that when the fraud is finally uncovered, "I think we'll find he had at least 80 million votes." In other words, rigged software stole about seven million votes in this election....

Now, to be perfectly clear, we did not dismiss any of it. We don't dismiss anything anymore, particularly when it's related to technology. We've talked to too many Silicon Valley whistleblowers and we've seen too much after four years on the air....

There's evidence that a lot of things that responsible people dismiss out of hand as ridiculous are, in fact, real. The louder the Yale political science department and the staff of The Atlantic magazine scream "conspiracy theory," the more interested we tend to be. That's usually a sign you're over the target. A lot of people with impressive-sounding credentials in this country are frauds who have no idea what they're doing. They're children posing as authorities. And when they're caught, they lie and then they blame you for it. We see that every day. It's the central theme of our show and will continue to be.
And this:
Maybe Sidney Powell will come forward soon with details on exactly how this happened and precisely who did it. We are certainly hopeful that she will.
In other words, Carlson wants it known that he hasn't been presented with evidence of Democratic electoral fraud -- but he considers it quite possible that Powell and Giuliani are right, even now.

Similarly, I'm pleased that John Hinderaker at the Power Line blog pointed this out:
... I got an email today from a Minnesota resident, a conservative and a smart guy who is the CEO of a company, and later talked with him on the phone. He has taken the trouble to read the filings that have been made so far by Trump’s lawyers. He directed my attention to an affidavit signed by Russell Ramsland, a Texas resident who is an expert on cyber security. The affidavit was filed by Lin Wood in the Georgia lawsuit, but it relates entirely to Michigan, and it is a safe bet that it has been filed in one or more cases in that state as well....

Paragraph 11 explains:
... There were at least 19 precincts where the Presidential Votes Cast compared to the Estimated Voters based on Reported Statistics exceeded 100%.
... Here’s the problem: the townships and precincts listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 of the affidavit are not in Michigan. They are in Minnesota....

Evidently a researcher, either Mr. Ramsland or someone working for him, was working with a database and confused “MI” for Minnesota with “MI” for Michigan. (The postal code for Minnesota is MN, while Michigan is MI, so one can see how this might happen.)
This is hilarious ineptitude, and it's good that Hinderaker is pointing it out. But Hinderaker also writes this:
There is circumstantial evidence of more than a normal amount of voter fraud in this year’s election.... how strong [Trump's lawyers'] evidence will ultimately be, we don’t yet know. I hope their claims turn out to be well-founded and provable.
And this:
A postscript: has Mr. Ramsland inadvertently stumbled across evidence of voter fraud in Minnesota? I seriously doubt it. The venues in question are all in red Greater Minnesota, not in the blue urban areas where voter fraud is common.
So even when these folks are pointing out the weakness of the Trump case, they remain on message: Nothing's been proven so far, but we all know the Democrats cheat every chance they get. So even if no evidence turns up, we all know there was fraud, because Democrats are scum.

And this is the more responsible wing of the right-wing media.

No comments: