I’ve been saying this very thing. The chances the fraud are big enough to flip the election are certainly there, but may be small. I want the fraud rooted out and exposed, regardless of the outcome.
I’ll wait for Rush to say it
NO - Tucker is not being required by the higher ups to say anything. He's being responsible. We hate when CNN and MSNBC lies... it would be wrong for Tucker to make any conclusion as with whether or not the results will hold or not.
I didn’t hear him say that. This quote must be out of context.
Newsweek seems to have a problem with the meanings of words. So going to help them out:
"Might not alter the election" is a statement of possibility in an epistemic modality...that is a "as far as we can tell" type statement. And the subject of the statement is whether or not the election outcome will be overturned.
"There's Not Enough Fraud to Change Election Results" is not a statement of epistemic possibility, and its subject is ambiguous. It could mean the same as the subject of the subject of the other statement, that remedies of the vote fraud will not overcome the outcome, or it could mean that if the vote fraud were perfectly adjusted for that this would not change the outcome.
If Newsweek can not see the significant change of meaning here, then I have grave doubts as to their competence and reliability as journalists.
Why did he keep having a split-screen of a giant photo of biden throughout his show? That was repulsive.
Wow! Megyn Kelly said the same exact thing on Greg Kelly’s Newsmax show last night.
Every American is guaranteed a free and fair election under the constitution. The burden of proof is on the states to prove that happened.
They are the ones on trial and they should have to produce evidence it did. Not the other way around.
The Dems knew that a large percentage of their sheeple who would normally not vote in person would happily take the time to send vote by mail. Especially in light of the fact that (1) they didn’t have to request it and (2) USPS will deliver your ballot with insufficient postage, or none at all! That did it.
Well, Tucker, tat may be true. But, if any level of fraud is allowed and there is no penalty tot he one who committed it (Democrats), then why should we bother with elections in the future? Without some kind of retribution for fraud our national elections, President, Senate, House, will be meaningless. Granted, if they are meaningless we won’t ever have to live thru this kind of BS again. But then of course, Venezuelans haven’t had to live thru any frustrating elections in a couple of decades. So there is that upside, I guess.
I and a full-on Trump supporter (see my tagline) but in truth, President Trump is the just one president. There will hopefully be many more. But if we don’t pursue and prosecute any of these fraud reports, the fraudsters will own us for many years to come until we, the people decide we’ve finally had enough. How long might that take?
I watched him last night. He was talking about the handful of cases of dead people voting that has been publicized, and a few other cases, but said that those few cases he sited would not be enough which is true. He didn’t completely rule out the outcome being changed if more extensive fraud is found. The headline is wrong, leave it to Newsweak to give a misleading headline.
I don’t dislike Tucker, and in fact i’ve come to respect his willingness to not back down to cancel culture, but i’ve never viewed him as particularly pro-Trump or frankly much of a team player. Most of the time this is a good thing for his show, because you can trust him to give his honest opinion.
However, in this case, i wish he were more of a team player whereby even if you think your side is going to lose, you just sit on the bench and keep quiet rather than bringing everyone down by saying “why bother, you know we can’t beat these guys!” Which is how this comes across.
In any event, my advice to him would be let’s wait and see. After all, President Trump has been said to have no chance of coming out on top many times in the past by many so-called experts. I wouldn’t bet against him.
All that has to be proved is that the voting machine software was corrupt and a re-vote should be required. Nationwide if the problem is global.
Personally, I never trust anyone who wears a bow tie.
I can’t load the page, but if they’re referring to his 23-minute monologue last night, he didn’t say that. He said it’s a possibility, but he didn’t make any definitive statement. Newsweak lying.
Get a grip people.
This is a gaslighting headline and story. He said there might not be enough fraud to overturn the results, but there needs to be an honest investigation.
****NEWSWEEK*****
Wait for another source with full context and quote.
I will not let the MSM control my mind.
Furthermore, the statistical anomalies that have been publicized indicate a different story.
The bottom line, is that if there wasn't any large-scale fraud, there would be no resistance to a complete and thorough investigation. Yet, we are seeing resistance and it's as much from the media as it is from the Democrats. What does that tell you?
OK, so tell me how much fraud there really was, Tucker. . . .
Obama was quick to jump the gun without ANY facts to back up what he said.
If you are a dim it’s okay to make wild accusations...and over time they get repeated as fact...by our crying news casters at CNN.