Where’s the video of this?
The mechanism many are using to dismiss so many lesser election fraud crimes is that they--of themselves--didn't change the election outcome. That, nonetheless is constantly part of their devious crime's design.
The plan was made up of lots of sub-plots, no one of which by themselves would overturn an election. Together, however, they would. So a successful prosecutor of these individual crimes is faced with the daunting task of casting a net of conspiracy over the collection of individual frauds. And we know how the Left loves to ridicule those even hinting that multiple people work together toward a crime--pssssst!
"WHACKO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AT WORK! They are not to be taken seriously for one moment!"
The point remains because almost all accept the faulty premise. Investigators and prosecutors are made to accept the task of proving the larger conspiracy that might finally pass the "actually changed the election outcome" standard, despite inherently having at best several limited snapshots of the election pie.
Those working for clean elections should be entirely free to claim that each red flag act was a crime with the intent of combining to overthrow the election. Only if there is a pattern of offsetting instances of "human error," where the cumulative effect is de minimis could such human errors be excused and not prosecuted.
Strictly speaking, about a phrase that’s been repeatedly paraphrased, yes he’s right.
There might not be enough easily demonstrable fraud, given the limited timeframe to prove it, to meaningfully change the election results.
Might.
Maybe.
I’m currently contending there’s two layers to this fraud:
- the obvious & ongoing & common “voting dead, vote-early-and-often, and petty mishandling” which may or may not add up to enough to throw the election
- the deep well-funded highly-motivated criminal conspiracies to alter & certify results on an industrial scale (those who can _prove_ millions of valid votes didn’t exist).
All the chatter is mostly about the former. That stuff is easy for laymen to understand and indulge outrage over. It may be enough to throw results of close races.
There’s rumors about the latter. This is very hard for most to understand, as it involves big data tabulations, cryptographic signing, and “nice ___ you have there, pity if something happened to it” persuasions.
My expectation at this point is Trump & co is onto the latter, and - being the master negotiator - is (for the sake of the country) persuading the opposition to use the former to back away from a fraudulent win (”oh gee, turns out we didn’t win a couple close states, you win DJT”) lest the big/deep fraud be revealed and really break the nation (prosecuting big leaders with tens of millions of distraught supporters ... you thought months of Antifa rioting was a problem).
Yeah, at the moment the general chattering classes don’t have enough info to demonstrably change election results - so what Tucker says is strictly correct.
Thing is, we don’t have all the info.
Trump is getting the info ... and we hope he’s successful in the biggest-stakes negotiation of his life.
I watched Tucker say this last night. He acted whipped and subdued, like someone was holding a gun to his head. Later in the show he seems less wussy.
Tucker is a loser, ignore him.