Saturday News Roundup: Tucker Carlson Backs Down in his Bruhaha with Sidney Powell

Tucker Carlson did a little crawfishing last night. – After being raked over the coals by his viewers for his attack on Sidney Powell in his Thursday monologue, Fox host Tucker Carlson took a minute on Friday to try to avoid losing half of his audience:

Only time will tell if he succeeded or not.

But let’s all admit that Carlson is absolutely 100% correct about one thing: Sidney Powell had better be able to clearly and unambiguously back up her consistent claim that Dominion/Smartmatic software was manipulated to switch millions of Trump votes to Biden when these cases go to court in the coming two weeks. She has made this claim so frequently now that any judge she goes in front of is going to be very curious to see if she can back it up.

And “proof” cannot simply be an affidavit from or testimony by some former employee, which is what Powell consistently refers to whenever she is questioned about this. She will need to have first-hand, real documentary evidence to back up any verbal claim from any witness. If she does not have that, then she should not have been out there making this claim in ever press appearance she has made over the past two weeks.

Let’s also note, however, that Powell has also consistently said that she never makes a claim publicly that she cannot prove in court, and her outstanding track record as a lawyer supports that statement. As I discussed yesterday, no good lawyer is ever going to reveal her full case publicly in advance of trial, and Powell is a very, very good lawyer. So there is every reason to be optimistic where this is concerned.

Thus, in this ongoing conflict between Carlson and Powell, I feel very strongly both ways.

This happened on Friday:

From the report at JustTheNews:

The Trump campaign is bringing “legitimate accusations” to court through affidavits of credible witnesses and other evidence used in its challenges to electoral outcomes in various states, Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor said.

Trainor said his review of evidence, including numerous affidavits claiming voter fraud and a sworn statement by a prominent mathematician flagging up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots, met the first level of legal scrutiny under what’s known as motion to dismiss or “Rule 12(b)(6)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which would dismiss less credible claims.

Noting the subsequent legal threshold beyond a “motion to dismiss” is the “summary judgment phase,” Trainor said that under this phase, the credibility of witnesses is presumed to be accurate, especially given the caliber of the testimonies Trainor has observed to date.

“When considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge will view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant’s opponent,” explains Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute website.

“What I would be concerned with, if I were on the other side of these election contests that are going on around the country, is that if you look at the level of evidence that has been provided by these affidavits — hundreds of affidavits that corroborate events that have happened on the ground — in a summary judgment phase of these cases, you have to take the evidence of the plaintiff as being true,” Trainor told “Just the News AM” television show Friday morning.

[End]

Oh.

This also happened on Friday:

From the story at JustTheNews:

Dominion Voting Systems backed out on Thursday night of a commitment to attend an oversight hearing before Pennsylvania’s State Government Committee and instead “lawyered up,” says a Pennsylvania lawmaker.

Dominion has been frequently cited by President Trump’s legal team, which is working to audit and perhaps overturn results in several states that have declared Democrat Joe Biden the winner.

Earlier on Thursday, before Dominion backed out of the Pennsylvania hearing, Trump attorney Sidney Powell made some very strong allegations against the company.

She stated that the company was “created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out. We have one very strong witness who has explained how it all works. His affidavit is attached to the pleadings of Lin Wood in the lawsuit he filed in Georgia.”

[End]

If Dominion disputes Powell’s claims and has nothing to hide, why is the company hiding? If you were a company CEO and you saw a high-profile lawyer for the President of the United States out there making all sorts of claims about your company that you consider to be false and damaging, wouldn’t you literally leap at any opportunity to get out there and tell your story, especially an opportunity to testify in front of a panel of key policymakers?

It is frankly stunning and damning that Dominion cancelled this appearance at the last minute.

Hey, maybe this had something to do with it. – Also on Friday, the Kirkland & Ellis law firm backed out of its representation of Pennsylvania’s corrupt Democrat Secretary of State in the matter:

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

This also happened on Friday:

Take a look at the justices who now will have jurisdiction over appeals from the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia. These assignments, by the way, are made by Chief Justice John Roberts in consultation with each justice about their preferences and areas of expertise. The associate justice with jurisdiction will have the first say about whether any appeals from that state should be heard by the full court.

Stay tuned.

In other news, here is the edict that Minnesotans got from their corrupt communist Democrat Governor on what was Day 250 of “15 Days to Flatten the Curve”:

Lovely, isn’t it? Quit electing Democrats, Minnesotans, and stuff like this will stop happening to you.

Writing at The Federalist, Joy Pullmann has a terrific piece detailing how controversial presidential advisor Scott Atlas has been right about everything related to the China Virus, which is why the corrupt news media and Democrats are so focused on destroying him.

Here’s an excerpt from that piece:

Because he has courageously presented evidence that gums up the media’s goal of ending Trump’s presidency by using coronavirus to punish Americans, the knives have been out for the views Atlas represents since the beginning.

Atlas is not at all alone in professional skepticism about the value of extended lockdowns, cloth masks, and obsessing about case counts as opposed to hospitalizations and deaths. So far, more than 12,000 medical and public health scientists and more than 35,000 medical professionals from around the world have signed the Great Barrington Declaration that summarizes this advocacy of “focused protection.”

Atlas is just a prominent face for this view that the power-hungry elites need to crush to avoid responsibility for their horrifically bad leadership during the COVID outbreak, as well as to get Trump. So they seek to destroy him because he and the scientific coalition he represents makes it clear that these public health emperors may have plenty of masks, but no clothes.

Thus YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have repeatedly banned or slapped warnings on Atlas’s statements and all scientific evidence that might support the Great Barrington view. This week a former Obama official called for Atlas’s medical license to be revoked for the crime of practicing science.

[End]

Go read the full piece – it will be the best 5 minutes you spend today.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is the only real conservative alternative to Drudge, and deserves to become everyone’s go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

27 thoughts on “Saturday News Roundup: Tucker Carlson Backs Down in his Bruhaha with Sidney Powell

  1. Reply
    Gregg - November 21, 2020

    Referring to my comment about the FIB involvement in the election voter fraud investigations in Dave’s last article:

    Maybe it is good that Barr’s DOJ and Wray’s FIB are not involved in the election litigation(s) and investigation(s) for the following reasons:

    It would take them years to “investigate” any of the accusations and by then btfsplk could (theoretically) be in his second term.

    This is assuming they find anything to report on or prosecute. It is doubly good that the investigators and their investigations are independent and outside of government. The fact that outsiders are doing ALL of the heavy lifting on ALL of these cases is a good thing since the FIB and DOJ are obviously so corrupt that anything they might come up with could be shot down in the court of public opinion.

    And whatever comes out of this election one thing is certain:

    The FEC, the DOJ and the FIB are totally in the tank for one party and should lose all credibility with the vast majority of the American people, or at least the 80 or so million who voted for the President.

    ***

    Regarding Minnesota’s governor and his edicts:

    The Left is just seeing how far it can go and how much will be tolerated in their quest to have Nazi/Soviet/East German etc. style control over their citizens. This too will eventually backfire as it will eventually go to court and be ruled unconstitutional and the voters in these states will eventually revolt against their demonic dictatorial FACIST Democratic Masters. Even sheep eventually get tired of being shorn.

    That of course is presuming we can get anything close to open fair and honest elections from this time forward. And that is a very big IF.

    The pressure in the conservative cooker is building and it won’t be able to withstand too much more heat. Just sayin’.

  2. Reply
    brian - November 21, 2020

    Question. Why is it Tucker is basically demanding evidence proving Sidney Powells claims and yet Barr/Durham has released absolutely ZIP in almost 2 yrs and barely a peep from the conservative side??

  3. Reply
    WilliamH56 - November 21, 2020

    I think if you asked most conservatives/Trump supporters/etc., they would agree with what Tucker said in many respects, but it was how he said it. Further, his arrogance about Sydney not coming on to “show proof” is childish. Team Lawyer Trump likely only has limited time (Dec 14) and resources to get things done asap. They have pretty much everyone working against them and actual threats to anyone that might help. Hell, most R’s in gov’t aren’t even helping. It would also be pretty stupid for them to go on a national show and broadcast all of their proof, tactics, etc. Again, we have already seen how the MSM, tech, etc. have either shut them down or taken things out of context with respect to suits, GA recount, to name a few, so if she went on Tucker’s show to satisfy his ego, the MSM would immediately go into trash mode on anything/everything she showed. The courts is where things have to be proven, not the media.

    I’m 100% with wanting to see evidence/proof and hopefully Sydney and Team can prove their case. I’m cautiously optimistic after seeing how she’s handled the Flynn case, which basically was a full win, save for the biased, POS judge. I’m patient and am rooting for Team Trump. If you are a supporter, you should do the same.

    1. Reply
      Just Me - November 21, 2020

      Sidney Powell’s response to Carlson was classic; “Do your own investigation.” [Mic drop]

  4. Reply
    greatgraphicone - November 21, 2020

    Tucker Carlson has showed us his true colors. And for me, it’s a turning point in the road. I will more often avoid Tucker than listen to him. For me, that leaves Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham as the last trusted people on Fox News, and I am watching them also with a jaundiced eye.

    1. Reply
      jack johnson - November 21, 2020

      Then you never really new who Tucker is. Remember when he was the spoiled bow tie wearing prep school elitist that went to all the best schools and has filthy rich parents? Now he is married to another rich elitist with a family fortune.

      You have zero in common with Tucker….he just pretends to care about us peons.

  5. Reply
    Silas - November 21, 2020

    Tucker has jumped the shark. The genie is out of the bottle. Stick a fork in him he’s done.
    I could go on, but hey, you get my meaning I think.

    He should have just let it be, but I am sure his masters wanted to make sure their, up to now,
    most credible host with the largest audience in his time slot did their bidding and piled on with the rest of the communist echo chamber media. Should have thought that one through a bit more Mr. Carlson.

  6. Reply
    Meremortal - November 21, 2020

    Hey, they left out protests, so it’s really open season. Carry a sign when you go hang out with your neighbors.

  7. Reply
    Jeff Blondeau - November 21, 2020

    Isn’t a sworn affidavit, joined to the case under penalty of perjury, considered testimonial evidence? Asking since everyone, including Tucker, is [prematurely] demanding ‘evidence’, when that is what is piling up, sky high, in various forms, including testimony in sworn affidavits.

  8. Reply
    rick (@cptover) - November 21, 2020

    “And “proof” cannot simply be an affidavit from or testimony by some former employee”. Affidavits are proof in a court of law. How do you think a court works? Lawyers bring in sworn affidavits and 1st hand testimony(eye witnesses). That is how you get proof. How does the author think it is done?

    1. Reply
      David Blackmon - November 22, 2020

      I’m well aware of all of this, and have stated it all in prior posts. But this case demands more, because the lawyers will be asking the Supreme Court to issue not only a decision, but a remedy that will be radical and completely unprecedented in any presidential election in U.S. history. The only remedy that will get the result they are seeking would be for the Court to disqualify the elections in at least 5 different states and order it to be held again, using paper ballots and only in-person voting.

      If you think 5 justices are going to order that based solely on witness testimony, then you are living in freaking dream world. This is going to take evidence that is simply irrefutable.

      Thanks for your comment.

    2. Reply
      Marshall Gill - November 22, 2020

      You say that “proof” cannot be an affidavit from or testimony by some former employee and then later say that affidavits represent first hand testimony. Why do you suppose that former employees are NOT “first hand testimony (eye witnesses)”?

      Former employees can’t count as evidence unless they do?

      1. Reply
        David Blackmon - November 22, 2020

        That’s not what I said, not even close. What I have said repeatedly in piece after piece over the past two weeks is that the Trump legal team will have to meet an extremely high bar of irrefutable proof in order to convince the Supreme Court to issue what would be an unprecedented remedy in this case. This is not some fraud or embezzlement trial – both of which I have served as an expert witness in myself during my career. This is a case without precedent in our nation’s history, and if you think these lawyers, no matter how great they might be, will be able to convince 5 of 9 supreme court justices to issue a decision that will piss off half of the country at them based solely on witness testimony, you have extremely unrealistic expectations. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, no matter how many witnesses they bring before the court.

        That witness testimony is going to have to be backed up by irrefutable, documented proof that is solid as steel. Luckily, as I have also discussed on this site over the past two weeks, they appear to be accumulating exactly that kind of evidence for their case.

        THIS IS THE LAST TIME I’M GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION. If you people are too lazy to read what I’ve already written, I can’t help you.

  9. Reply
    Nabi Rasch - November 21, 2020

    After 4 years of partisan low jinks–outright perverted crookedry from the legal and political community–it would be madness indeed to let the outcome rest on legal hocus pocus. No ‘evidence’ was required by the Dems to force an investigation into Russian conclusion for years, into an impeachment, or the attacks on Kavanaugh and no evidence should be required to prioritize and act on conservative demands and objections regarding election scrutiny and the validity of the election. If the population accepts a double standard where only one side gets away with perverting the playbook you don’t have democracy.

  10. Reply
    marty lopez - November 21, 2020

    How about freedom of assembly, that’s why we fought a revolution in 1776. All Democrats are tyrants.

  11. Reply
    marty lopez - November 21, 2020

    As it tuns out, Tucker lost the material and guest for a killer show and big time audience too most probably in perpetutity. He hitched his wagon to Fox’s falling star. Wrong way on that pick Tucker.

    1. Reply
      Mensa Graham - November 21, 2020

      Add me to the never Fox group. Screw them. They have joined the trash bin of MSM history.

  12. Reply
    Zeke4544 - November 21, 2020

    Eyewitness testimony IS hard evidence in a court of law. The writer of this seems to not know much about law. Eyewitness testimony is, in fact, one of the few types of evidence that is NOT considered “circumstantial.” Eyewitness testimony is, in fact, one of the few types of “direct evidence.” (Nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence either, much courtroom evidence is circumstantial and can be used to establish an argument via inference.)

  13. Reply
    Zeke4544 - November 21, 2020

    Bingo! I just posted a similar comment, then I was persusing the other comments and saw yours. Witness testimony is direct evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence). If they’re going to do punditry, they ought to take the time to survey the field on which they’re opining.

  14. Reply
    Prorkba - November 21, 2020

    If you’re still watching fox after it stabbed millions of Americans in the back, you’ve joined the side of Marx. As for Shmucker, he isn’t a juror. When the case goes to court, then he can get the evidence. Until then, no one owes him or anyone else any of the particulars.

  15. Reply
    Mensa Graham - November 21, 2020

    It was nice watching you when you were sane. Goodbye Tucker!

  16. Reply
    Herman Deaton - November 21, 2020

    Sorry Tucker Carlson but you are a day late and a dollar short..You have no standing to demand evidence for or from anyone. You have not been elected nor appointed by competent authority to any position which delegates to you the authority or responsibility to receive evidence or compile or compartmentalize for distribution to others. In shorthand Tucker,”You Ain’t Sheet! I hope you redeem yourself Tucker because I really enjoyed your show until you got a little too bog for your britches.

  17. Reply
    andrew - November 21, 2020

    Tucker is priming his audience for the big reveal. Major principle of selling: make a big claim and then prove it. Tucker is creating a “watch this space” situation.

  18. Reply
    andrew - November 21, 2020

    Hold your horses ….Tucker has a good track record. He has done too much good work over the years to be thrown under the bus with Fox. Give him a fair go.

  19. Reply

    […] I want to believe, and there are indeed some hopeful things going on. But I have to admit that my inner Eeyore often gets the best of me, and I assume that the bad guys will, in fact, win. […]

  20. Reply
    RLA Bruce - November 22, 2020

    Sworn affidavits ARE evidence and are used every day in court cases all over the nation. Why does author Blackmon insist we have to have more proof than that?

    1. Reply
      David Blackmon - November 22, 2020

      Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to answer this stupid question? SEE MY REPLY TO RICK.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: