Tucker Carlson.
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.
RE: 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
I am curious to listen to Tucker tonight to see what he has to say regarding this. He could have invited BOTH Sidney and the other Math Wiz witness to his show. Why didn’t he?
RE: “In fact, I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation,”
Tucker could have READ the affidavit for us, the audience to hear. Why didn’t he?
Faux Spews is almost finished from a conservatives viewpoint. We are leaving the network in droves, in 6 months Dora the Explorer will be higher rated.
Fox is racing to the bottom as fast as they possibly can...................
I think she may be interviewed on WMAL in about 30 minutes.
I’m just tired of the whining from Fox anchors about how they haven’t seen any evidence of election fraud, etc. FFS, have they never heard of twitter or blogs? There’s a ton of evidence and graphs already presented by mathematicians and statistical experts, if they cared to look. Numbers aren’t my thing, but even I understand what a “statistical improbability” means!
Tucker could have written his own contract with newsmax OAN , or the blaze. Now when fox cans him he’ll be lucky to land a gig with the psycos on the view....
Megan Kelly will pull some strings for him.
Tucker Carlson.
If a Democrat farts they consider that evidence.
You can listen to Tucker tonight...I’m done. Every time you watch Fox (which I don’t anymore) your helping to pay the salaries of Juan Williams, Donna Brazile, Chris Wallace, Dana Perino, etc. etc. etc.
An affidavit IS evidence. The content of the affidavit would help understand the situation more she told him.
I agree, Carlson showed he’s an a$$hole. I don’t know how else to put it.
“Touch him! Love him! Liebe mein Affe-Mienke!”
Who was Tucker’s father? How connected was he?
Fixed it
Fox is dead. If Tucker wants to revive his career, he will have to move to another venue.
The evidence would be in the system logs and server logs that showed the timestamped activities for each of the voting machines, who was logged on, what network access transfers occurred, etc.
The fact that this is not required by law to be made public (with IP/MAC addresses redacted) is evidence that the electronic voting system used is not transparent and must be assumed to be suspect. Without having a lawsuit in court Sidney Powell can not enforce the discovery necessary to retrieve this information. Her argument is that the software has been designed to cheat, the pattern of vote tallies appears consistent with previous vote switching frauds in Venezuela, and statistical analysis shows impossible volumes of processing. This should trigger further discovery in a normal case.
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.