Friday, November 20, 2020

Tucker Carlson Throws Trump Lawyer Sydney Powell Under the Bus


On Thursday evening, during his show, Tucker Carlson threw Trump election lawyer Sydney Powell under the bus and I can't blame him.

I had high hopes for Powell given what she did for Michael Flynn but it appears all she is doing is blowing smoke in the Trump case.

She keeps on talking about the software that was used in the election and how it can be manipulated, and she is correct there, but she doesn't provide hard evidence that it was used during the Biden-Trump election count to deliver votes for Biden. 

It very well may have been used to give Biden the victory but she is not proving it. 

Here's Carlson:

 

-RW

11 comments:

  1. If she’s going to make the case in court, I wouldn’t expect to hear the exact details on TV beforehand. That would be pretty sloppy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Evidence?! It is visible to the naked eye

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, what the hell is wrong with Tucker? But even without her providing evidence on the software front, there is plenty of evidence that these states really screwed up with the unaccountable mail in ballots, were violating their own laws on procedures for voting, all these thousands of ballots with Biden only, and the fact that Republicans took some state elections but somehow Biden is the president do not add up. Trump gained and even outpaced Obama on votes. We are to believe he improved his lead with millions of votes, but still lost, which would be historically unprecedented.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm going to finish it if YouTube does not pull the video. The first half hour with Rudy had a lot of mind blowing stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I watched that press conference yesterday. I thought it was tremendous, as a sort of opening-statement, i.e. foreshadowing what the evidence portends. They were literally beseeching Big Media to fulfill their Constitutional role as watchdogs and protectors of our freedoms and the integrity of our electoral process...because there's only so much Trump's thin legal-team---as skilled as they are---can do in their capacity as civil litigators.
    And how does Big Media and Journalism respond? With mockery and derision, and the same tiresome pronouncement that "they have no evidence" and "these accusations are unsubstantiated," ignoring that they have thousands of affidavits of direct witnesses (evidence!), and completely abrogating their journalistic responsibilities to investigate these many avenues of inquiry. In fact, it's worse than that: They filter out anything Team Trump says, and prevent the public from even seeing the bulk of what they are saying; They're part of The Fix, The Scam, The Big Steal.
    Progressives don't know what's going-on, and they have no desire to know. They're perfectly happy and content, wallowing in their ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ unowned. Agree. For RW to say Sidney Powell is "blowing smoke" simply because she didn't put on display the technical forensics during a press briefing, is just naive. Powell seems very credible. Tucker looks like a guy who just wants to keep his day job.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So Robert, I guess you expected Sidney to pull out a laptop and start walking you through the Visual Basic code and data tables? Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trial by jury or trial by journalism? Which seems more just? Hard to tell since the whole process (including the courts) is fraught with lies and deceit. I don't participate but it would be interesting to see the system put on trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CNN refused to even show the press briefing yesterday. What does that say? Do you really think giving them the Evidence would make them report the truth? Or would it just taint the case? Face it...The media are part of The Fix, The Scam, The Big Steal. They offer nothing but mockery and derision.

      Delete
  9. Either through the courts or the Donald needs to cross the Rubicon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tucker did his viewers a disservice by whining about Sydney, and not pursuing the things she was pointing to as evidence. He could have had his people out digging for evidence for why it was are was not possible that the voting machines were corrupted, for example.

    ReplyDelete