Posted on 11/20/2020 11:57:16 AM PST by Kaslin
Fox News has had its moments during this election cycle. There’s been considerable frustration and anger with the hosts. Election Night was a disaster for the network. Other hot mic moments have infuriated viewers. They cut away from a Trump White House presser on voter fraud. It’s been a mess. Tucker Carlson appeared to have taken a swipe at his colleagues, noting you just can’t cut away from news coverage that you don’t like. Yet, last night, it was different. Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell says she has evidence of vote fraud. She said that it will prove that President Trump won in a landslide.
The voter fraud scandal itself, if true, would be the biggest in American history by more than a few touchdowns. It would be cataclysmic, to say the least—and yet—she didn’t come onto Tucker’s show. The reason: when pressed for evidence to back up these claims, she got frustrated and told Fox News not to contact her (via WaPo):
Tucker has seen enough (of Sidney Powell anyway)
pic.twitter.com/XDcBfmZtkd— Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) November 20, 2020
As Fox News host Tucker Carlson noted on Thursday night, he’s more than willing to give airtime to outlandish claims. “We literally do UFO segments,” he said.
But even Carlson said he was fed up with the total lack of evidence produced by Sidney Powell, one of the Trump campaign’s attorneys, for her unfounded allegation that electronic voting systems had switched millions of ballots to favor President-elect Joe Biden.
“We invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour,” Carlson said. “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.”
Carlson also noted: “She never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.”
… Carlson didn’t discount the larger claims of Trump’s attorneys that massive fraud disrupted the election — an allegation that has been repeatedly dismissed in court and for which the White House has presented no public evidence.
[…]
The segment also put Carlson at odds with other Fox News hosts like Jesse Watters, who on his Thursday show described Powell and Giuliani’s news conference as “a big shot of adrenaline.”
Well, she responded this morning (via Washington Examiner):
Trump attorney Sidney Powell fires back: Tucker Carlson was 'insulting, demanding, and rude' -- https://t.co/leMZ1Scj7d -- for @dcexaminer pic.twitter.com/CTDKxZnJql— Daniel Chaitin (@danielchaitin7) November 20, 2020
Sidney Powell, an attorney on President Trump's election legal team, shot back at Fox News host Tucker Carlson the morning after he said she "got angry" and refused to provide evidence on his show for her claims of voting software flipping votes.
"No, I didn’t get angry with the request to provide evidence," the former federal prosecutor said Friday morning during an interview with Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo.
"In fact, I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation, and I offered him another witness who could explain the mathematics and the statistical evidence far better than I can. I’m not really a numbers person," she added.
"But he was very insulting, demanding, and rude, and I told him not to contact me again, in those terms," Powell concluded.
He said, she said, but pulling back from this spat between Carlson and Powell—there needs to be some sort of significant development regarding her Dominion allegations, a sequel that should drop soon—something—because the clock is running out.
Personally, I don’t see Pres. Trump taking any path except via the Constitution and the courts.
That is indeed an oddity that no one, including FOX people, have even thought about. If You don’t use your mind, how do you know the election was legit?
Thanks for responding.
Meow.
He said he knows joe biden and he is a really nice guy, matt geatz said if biden gets in he will work with him, what the hell is going on?
This is so true and it had to have been done for only one reason -- so they could live-query ranked-voting results & report those results to their payors and await the nod to gin the necessary votes.
"Sources say Collins might survive the ranked voting afforded to ur-Canucks."
“The simpler explanation is that the same proportion of non-straight-Republican voters voted against Trump in every precinct.”
non-straight-Republican voters? You mean GAY Republican voters? Do you have to reveal THAT when you register?
If you are talking about Dr. Shiva, his presentation was very excellent and statistically proved his case.
I have no idea what you really said, but I’ll listen to Dr. Shiva THE GENIUS, instead of you.
Rewatch the video. This time with your eyes and ears open, Troll.
Hockey sticks and right angle turns in data never happen naturally. They only happen in climate change and vote counting by being created by someone.
Most of us saw evidence of vote fraud on Wednesday morning in the count data from MI and WI at about 0430 in both places.
That was all I needed to see. Data anomalies like that are bad / tampered with data.
The x-axis had percentage of R straight tickets. The y-axis had direct Trump votes (non-straight). The example he gives is 60% straight party and 65% individual votes for Trump. He subtracts 60 from 65 and says 5% more unaffiliated voters voted for Trump. He then says it should be 5% across the board (horizontal line). But that's not correct.
Example 1: 20% straight R and 25% split ticket with Trump. Take a D district with 20 % straight party R vote. There are going to be more people who will vote D party down ballot but vote for Trump. Why? Because he's popular among Dems. Not as popular as BIden but much more popular than establshment RINOs.
Example 2: R district with 60% straight ticket R voting (his example). He claims that 65% of the other voters should also vote Trump. But that's not a logical conclusion. The other 40% of the voters are splitting their ticket because are not Republicans and unlikely to be Trump voters other than the same 25% or maybe a bit more that he picked up my example 1.
There is no reason for the greater percentage of Pro Trump Precincts to have a higher PERCENTAGE of Biden voters.
No, those aren't "pro Trump" precincts. Those are mainly R districts and the pro-Trump voters are the combo of straight ticket Republicans (60%), plus 40 or 45% of the remaining liberals, independents, and non-straight ticket R voters. In fact in my example 2, Trump gets more split ticket voters than my example 1.
Anyway his whole premise is easy to check, just take a single precinct from the right side of curve, only 2,000 or so in an average precinct. Hand count that precinct. It should show the same count as the machine count.
You don’t understand the graph data at all.
Why would SHE give YOU any evidentiary leads until she has fully engaged Equal Protection and, de novo, Article III, Clause 2, Section 2.
👍🏼
I understand it completely. The question is do the presenters not understand it, or are they trying to distract from the real fraud by getting people to chase easily disprovable nonsense. I also understand what is missing. Where are the plots of Biden delta versus straight party D? Not shown, probably because they have the same shaped curve.
Look at about 27:30 in the video. He says 45% straight party R (x-axis). He says that means the precinct is 45% Republican. Not true! Then Trump got 25% of the non-straight party R, thus the 25% Trump vote is "20% less than you would think".
No, it means Trump got 25% of the D voters which is pretty good. Also the downward slope of the curve means the more straight party R there are, the fewer of the Dems are likely to vote Trump. IOW the more outnumbered the D's are, the more likely they are to vote against Trump.
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.