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 have 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 is what Tucker is aiming to do.
But with conservatives having witnessed Fox News committing ritualistic seppuku over the last several weeks, is it 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 I 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 decide 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.