Posted on 11/20/2020 8:31:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
First, whatever Jeff Charles wrote here is wrong. I kid… I agree with a lot of the points he made there. Fortunately for us, we can agree on many points and disagree on others which is what makes RedState a great place to work.
Last night on Tucker Carlson on Fox News, the beloved conservative host reported that for the last several days, he and his staff have made numerous attempts to get Trump attorney, Sidney Powell, on his show to discuss her current legal action in efforts to overturn current results and to deliver the election to President Trump. (as covered by Bonchie here)
🚨 #Tucker on Sidney Powell: "We invited Sidney Powell on this show. we would've given her the whole hour…But she never sent us any evidence despite a lot of requests, polite requests, not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her." (2/2) pic.twitter.com/MkiSjtb63L
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 20, 2020
During the segment, Tucker stated that he maintained his skepticism of the possibility of an overturning of the election in the face of the lack of evidence. To have such skepticism is not only healthy and at this point, is only going to get worse the longer that Team Trump waits to deliver any evidence they may have of election improprieties. (No, sworn statements are not evidence, so get that crap out of here) I am not here to fault Tucker for his skepticism.
For Tucker to demand an appearance on his show or else he will call it false in itself, however, is not how things work. For the last several years, the media has printed story after story about Trump on the weakest of “anonymous sources” and “high-ranking officials” (who later turned out to be paper pushers) and I would certainly expect “conservative media” to act in a manner different than that. I think that maybe what Tucker is aiming to do.
But with conservatives having witnessed Fox News committing ritualistic seppuku over the last several weeks, it is any wonder why Tucker hasn’t become a victim of his own messaging prior. Remember, this is the same Tucker Carlson, who just weeks ago had spun some story about documents regarding Hunter Biden that mysteriously disappeared in a UPS delivery, now is demanding evidence from others for a network who never once covered the mountain of evidence that was the case against Hunter Biden in the first place.
What assurances do we have that, in the case that Powell had actually come on the show and produced evidence, she would have been taken seriously? During the course of my own reporting leading up to the election, MSM sources denied a report that myself and fellow RedState writer Jennifer Van Laar had not only possession of, but had published ourselves. The media characterized that same report as “Pizzagate 2.0”, more “Q Anon” conspiracies, and the NY Post reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptops, despite not having a single connection to any of those things. Do we really think that Powell, in all of her wisdom, would cast her pearls before swine thinking that that swine would realize or report accurately on the contents of her evidence? God no.
For Tucker, of all people, to demand that Powell come on his show or he is going to unilaterally declare the Trump case lost and absent of any proof is not only wrong, but it is also a gross abuse of Tucker’s influence in conservative media. Once more, we are still waiting for Tucker’s bombshell report on the documents he received, lost, regained control of, and still hasn’t reported on. Are we all supposed to write off Tucker as a result of his lack of evidence?
Simply put Mr. Carlson, demanding someone come on your show or else you’re writing them off is how the left operates. We don’t do that. We can operate above that line. You don’t get to unilaterally decided we all have to move on (even though I, myself have done so). Powell is under less-than-zero obligation to come on your show and tell you a damn thing. She owes you nothing, and in fact, owes your network even less. Sorry Tucker, but that’s not how it works.
Ben Shapiro concurred today on the radio.
fox news...Trump was up 305 percent in FL and they still wouldn’t call it.
they can go to hell.
Turned fox on after 7 years that night, 4 different times, and didn’t last 5 minutes each time.
Murdoch’s boys are real zeros
I'm not a legal beagle, but I thought signed affidavits were considered evidence. Is that incorrect? I.e., is witness testimony not considered evidence?
As I see it; Tucker stays with Faux News in spite of it now being anathema to most of his former fans. On top of that, he has said a few things that sounded wimpy and/or anti-Trump. He caught bleep for it. In desperation he’s tried to salvage some cred by acting tough. But he made the mistake of trying to show toughness by hammering Sidney Powell! Whaaaat?! How stupid can he get?! Who is next? Melania Trump?! One other possibility; His contract with Faux might contain a no-compete clause. If he leaves Faux he can’t go anywhere for X number of years. JMHO.
Sidney has sworn affidavits which I believe ARE evidence but the court may require testimony.
The author of this piece is a retarded idiot. His basic premise (evidence) is flawed, therefore his entire opinion is invalid and he may go join Tucker Carlson on the croquet field.
There are four types evidence by which facts can be proven or disproven at trial which include:
Real evidence;
Demonstrative evidence;
Documentary evidence; and.
Testimonial evidence.
Sworn affidavits are in fact evidence. They represent testimony.
I like your post. But the image you posted did not render properly in my browser. Could you re-post the image? Thanks.
Sad to see Tucker do such a stupid show. Hope he resigns his job rather than allow himself to be used a globalist ‘talking head’ again...
...thought he had more integrity than that.
I am sorry the deep state Communists threatened your kids. You should have moved them and your wife and asked for help. Now. So long farewell
From Wikipedia :
" The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles
that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding.
These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision."
The Rules of Evidence vary from state to state, but generally follow Federal guidelines.
A signed affidavit is a legal statement, it does not meet "prima facia' evidence unless corroborated by another witness, written statement,
or a personal appearance by the witness in court.
Most evidence needs to be corroborated by another source, or witness, or it is considered 'hearsay', and that evidence,
while accepted by the court, is not given much weight or consideration in rendering a decision.
Television đź“ş is a waste land
I stopped watching Cucker Tarlson. Storage Wars is fun instead.
Powell certainly doesn't have the obligation to appear on just any show that demands that she come on and present her evidence - there are, after all, plenty of crackpot shows in the world.
However, there are very few shows with more credibility on which Powell could appear and expect an honest and fair hearing.
Finally: To demand "assurances" that one will be "taken seriously" is a pretty high bar. Is Powell honestly claiming that she doesn't think that Tucker Carlson would give her a fair hearing? On what other news program could she expect a more-impartial hearing? What does she think she would have to lose by appearing on Mr. Carlson's show?
I'm on Mr. Carlson's side on this issue. Journalists are allowed to express skepticism, and a potential interviewee who refuses to appear on one of the most conservative-friendly shows in the nation to present her case invites further skepticism.
Regards,
Glad Trucker is on the side of the little guy, not.
Says who?
Sworn statements are considered evidence.
RE: What does she think she would have to lose by appearing on Mr. Carlson’s show?
Here is what Sidney Powell tried to offer Tucker in their text exchanges:
1) A written sworn affidavit by a person in the know ( however, the person’s identity must be kept secret because identifying him/her would endanger him/her ). There are threats of doxxing and physical attacks and she says that they need witness protection.
2) when it came to the statistics and math behind the irregular data coming out of the voting machines, she said that since she is not a numbers person, she offered to bring a math/data expert with her to present their evidence.
Tucker apparently did not consider such “evidence” good enough. Since you are on Tucker’s side, what sort of evidence do you believe is satisfactory ?
I think Tucker is toast. He has lost credibility for not commenting on what FOX did on election night or to Jean Pirro and he has the gall to says journalist are dishonest. Tucker had on a leftist journalist who quit his own company for their censoring his remarks on the election. If Tucker had integrity he would do the same with FOX. But Tucker wants the show more than his reputation. And this thing with Sydney? An affidavit is EVIDENCE. Tucker should know that. I use to like Tucker and would excuse his mannerisms to parting guests like, “that the smartest think I’ve heard” or “that is really wise and deep words.” His heart was in the right place and he did the Bobulinski interview flawlessly to help Trump. But if he stays with the FOX he is toast. Maybe he doesn’t know it yet. Or maybe he does and he thinks it will be seen as a comedown to go to a lesser network or do the Bill O’ Reilly thing after he got let go. Tucker does have an ego and painful as it is, he should look to that leftist journalist — Glen Greenwald — to do the right thing and leave FOX.
FOX will someday be fighting over CNN’s small audience — both pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.