SD City Advances Opt-Out Mask Rule After Christians Recite Reasons Jesus Doesn’t Want Your Face Covered

Really?   Why have rules at all if you can opt out?   This is more of the religion can opt out of any laws they wish, religious people do not have to follow rules or laws because … Jesus.   God did not want you to cover your face?   He can see you through walls to watch you masterbate and have same gender sex for fuck sake!   But these same people will wear ski masks and other face coverings in the cold?   I am so tired of exceptions and allowances being made for the most stupid and unwilling to have responsibility for their actions people.    Hugs

The Rapid City Journal reports:

The Rapid City Council voted 9-1 on Monday night to move a mask-optional ordinance to a second reading with council member John Roberts voting no. The majority of the public attending the meeting did not wear masks despite a mask requirement while in city buildings. There were also three police officers present as well as Rapid City Police Chief Don Hedrick, who all wore masks.

After about three hours of public comment, council members approved Ordinance No. 6454. It will be heard once more for the second reading. If approved, it will go into immediate effect and last until Feb. 28, 2021. Instead of requiring the public to wear a mask in public indoor places where six feet of social distancing was not possible, businesses and other facilities that have an occupancy of 50 people or more will be able to opt out of the regulations.

Watch the below TikTok compilation for some of the reasons Jesus doesn’t want you to wear a mask. Really. The full meeting is surely more than you can endure, but it’s also below if you want to skip around for maximum crazy.

 

@rae.kars

Anti-maskers in Rapid City, SD at a mask mandate meeting 11/30/20 – This is real life parks and rec lmao #covid19 #mask #parksandrec #politics

♬ original sound – Rae

There is a 4 hour video at the link above.   Way too much crazy for me to watch or repost.   Hugs

Thumbnail

She Witnessed the Aftermath of the Kyle Rittenhouse Shootings. Now She’s Scared for Herself.

Really scary what passes for rule of law in the US right now.   Gangs of thugs, some with legal degrees trying willing to violate others rights and cause harm to promote their cause.  How are these any different from the drug cartel gangs?   Hugs

She Witnessed the Aftermath of the Kyle Rittenhouse Shootings. Now She’s Scared for Herself.

A protest medic filed a complaint about Rittenhouse’s legal team: “I believe they are harassing witnesses including myself.”

Katie Walker was reading in bed just before midnight on October 8 when she saw a strange text message on her phone. It was a student who lived in the apartment building that Walker (not her real name) had recently moved out of. He was alarmed, because two men he’d never met had knocked on his door around 9 p.m., asking for Walker. They said they were investigators but refused to identify themselves, and they proceeded to knock on just about every other door in the apartment building asking for her whereabouts. “My roomate [sic] asked to see ID and they laughed said no and walked out of the building,” the student texted her. He said the guys looked “sketchy.”

Walker sat up in bed, nervous. She wondered whether the men were white supremacists, coming after her now because of what she’d seen in August in Kenosha, Wisconsin, less than an hour’s drive from her home. She’d gone there as a medic, to help people who were tear-gassed or otherwise injured during anti-police demonstrations. During the protests, she’d spotted Kyle Rittenhouse, a white 17-year-old with an assault-style rifle. Soon after, he shot and killed two people, one of whom Walker tried to assist with medical care. He also wounded one of her fellow medics, whom she knew personally. (He says he fired in self-defense.)

After that awful night in Kenosha, Walker filed a police statement about what she’d seen near the shooting, hoping that would be the end of it: The experience left her exhausted, with post-traumatic stress disorder, and she wanted to lie low for a while and recover at home. But with the news now that two strange men were trying to track her down, she dialed the local police and left another statement. An officer jotted down that the two men had “looked scummy,” and sent someone over to the building to walk around and lock the door. Walker stayed up the rest of the night with her boyfriend, worrying, and reached out to the FBI.

The next day, her phone kept buzzing. And she wasn’t alone: The men called multiple members of Walker’s family, including her parents. It turns out these guys weren’t random white supremacists: They still refused to give their names, but, according to Walker, they mentioned they worked for the legal firm representing Rittenhouse, who now faces homicide charges. They said they wanted to take her deposition, something she’s not required to do under Wisconsin law except under very specific circumstances. One of the men also asked Walker whether she planned to give a statement to the cops about what she’d seen in Kenosha, and she said she already had. She begged them to leave her alone and hung up, but one of them called again later. Terrified, Walker reached out to John Pierce, a lead attorney for Rittenhouse. She told him about the men and asked him to make them stop.

“He didn’t deny that he sent the men; he didn’t acknowledge it either,” Walker told me recently. “All he said was, ‘I understand.’” And she prayed that he did. But the next day she received yet another phone call, from Pierce’s number, she said. When she answered it, the line was silent for a minute. She hung up, shaken, wondering whether he’d accidentally pocket-dialed her or was trying to scare her, to keep her from testifying.

Walker pulled out her computer and started doing some research. What she found did nothing to assuage her concerns. Pierce, it turns out, is no fringe attorney: His Los Angeles–based law firm, Pierce Bainbridge, had previously represented high-profile clients and several Trump supporters, including Rudy Giuliani and former Trump campaign figures George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. Because he’s based in California and not licensed to practice in Wisconsin, Pierce needed an order from a judge to represent Rittenhouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hearing to oppose that order. (They are also asking the judge to require Pierce to follow Wisconsin rules about pretrial publicity or face sanctions; they accuse him of making statements, in interviews and on Twitter, that violate rules of professional conduct, such as by commenting on the character of Rittenhouse and victims in the case, sharing information that would be inadmissible at trial, and suggesting that the prosecution is politically motivated. His comments, they say, could prejudice jurors and encourage them to acquit Rittenhouse for reasons unrelated to the law.)

What’s more, Walker found that Pierce is no stranger to menacing tactics. Walker stumbled upon a Medium post by a former Pierce Bainbridge attorney who is now suing Pierce for alleged wrongful termination. In it, she learned that Pierce is also accused of harassing his ex-wife. Mother Jones reviewed court records from a child custody case, and found that, in the course of a single day in 2019, Pierce sent his ex-wife more than 60 texts laced with violent language after she told him she couldn’t drive their son to soccer because of a work conflict: “I will bury u if I have to,” he allegedly wrote in one of the texts, copies of which were submitted to the court. “I will find u at Armaggedon [sic] and fuck u up.”

“I am good,” he wrote in another message that day. “U are evil. God is on my side.” In the texts, he repeatedly called her a “slut,” “cunt,” and “bitch,” and threatened to “hunt” her down. In one message, he mentioned a television character known for torturing terrorists: “Watch Jack Bauer on 24 if ur curious what I’m capable of.”

The next day, according to court records, Pierce apologized to his ex-wife and said he hadn’t meant what he texted her, but she remained afraid. She received a temporary restraining order against him, telling the court that he’d expressed a desire to kill her before, something he later denied.

Walker kept learning more. She connected eight days ago with Jennifer Sulkess, a Los Angeles resident who alleged that she was also intimidated by another attorney at the Pierce Bainbridge firm in a separate case. The firm had been retained to represent a Russian billionaire named Sergey Grishin, whom Sulkess had accused of harassing her and her friend, Grishin’s ex-wife, allegations he denies. The two women had taken out temporary restraining orders against Grishin, as he simultaneously pursued lawsuits against them. (These legal cases are ongoing.)

In September 2018, Sulkess said, the Pierce Bainbridge attorney instructed someone to repeatedly photograph her and Grishin’s ex-wife without their consent in public. The next month, she said, a man went to the apartment building where she had recently lived and showed the office manager there her photo, saying Sulkess was wanted for allegedly fraudulently borrowing money—accusations from Grishin’s lawsuit that she denies.

Months later, at about 8 a.m. on a Sunday, a few weeks before a restraining order trial, Sulkess pulled into the parking garage of her new apartment and found that someone else had parked in her assigned spot. “As I go to back up, I see this guy in my rearview mirror, which is quite startling,” she told me. He stood near a pillar, taking photos of her, and then approached and served her with legal papers, even though she had her own attorney who could have accepted the documents during business hours. “It was so overdramatic,” she said. “The rest of the week, you’ve got this thought in your head—like, are people going to jump out of the pillars? It’s designed for psychological warfare.” She and Grishin’s ex-wife started checking the hallways of her apartment to see if there were wiretaps.

In May, Sulkess filed a complaint with the State Bar of California about the Pierce Bainbridge attorney, Amman Khan, who has since moved to another firm but still represents Grishin. She did not mention the parking garage incident but accused him of other misconduct, including sending people to photograph her. But in June, the state bar closed Sulkess’ complaint without formally investigating the allegations. “We have determined that your complaint does not present sufficient facts to support an investigation,” wrote Scott D. Karpf, a senior trial counsel for the state bar. Pierce, his firm, and Khan did not reply to questions from Mother Jones.

Before talking with Sulkess, Walker had already filed her own complaint with the State Bar of California about Pierce and his firm. “My connection to Pierce and Bainbridge is that I am one of the witnesses in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I believe they are harassing witnesses including myself,” she wrote. But she was disappointed to hear that Sulkess’ complaint had been closed. Now she had little hope that the agency would help her, and as far as she knew, the police and FBI hadn’t done anything to track down the men who’d gone to her old apartment building. So she agreed to speak with me. She wanted to come forward in the media, she said, because some of her friends were also witnesses the night of the Kenosha protest, and they’ve been scared off from testifying after hearing about her experience. They “saw significantly more than I did,” she told me. “And they’re afraid to go to the police and file witness statements, because they’re concerned that the same thing will happen to them.”

She added, “They’re like: ‘We might go to the police. But only if John Pierce faces some sort of consequences.’” She said none of them wanted to speak with media.

Mother Jones reviewed Walker’s complaint to the State Bar of California and her police report, and spoke with the student who texted her from her old apartment building. We also verified her real name, age, location, and corroborating reports about what she witnessed at the Kenosha protest. But we are not publishing these identifying details because of her concerns for her safety and the high-profile nature of the Rittenhouse case. The teen has become a celebrity on the right, accumulating $2 million in donations to post bond ahead of his trial. Earlier this month, people in Washington at a pro-Trump demonstration that included members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group that has advocated violence, chanted together, “Break out Kyle!” And on November 21, a lawmaker in Florida, state Rep. Anthony Sabatini, went so far as to tweet, “KYLE RITTENHOUSE FOR CONGRESS.”

Walker is taking her own precautions in the meantime. She hasn’t heard from Pierce lately, nor from the two men who went to her old apartment. But she wonders if she should arm herself anyway. “I’m not pro-gun,” she told me. “But after having a stalker in college and having this happen,” she added, referring to her experience with Rittenhouse’s case, “I was like, I want some way to defend myself.”

The same story , two sites, I don’t understand the difference between this one and the NY one?

SCOTUS Rejects Appeal By Branch Covidian Pastor

SCOTUS Rejects Appeal By Branch Covidian Pastor

Law & Crime reports:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito flatly rejected a plea by a Louisiana megachurch pastor to keep his church fully open against orders from the government to limit the size of worship gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The application, styled as Spell v. Edwards, complained that the orders by Gov. John Bel Edwards forbade the Life Tabernacle Church from being “fully assemble[d].” In a more legally astonishing question, the case also sought to ask whether the “First Amendment give[s] the Church exclusive jurisdiction over whether to assemble or not.”

Alito, despite being part of the majority which knocked down COVID-19 orders by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, apparently preferred that the high court not settle these grandiose questions in Louisiana.

The case was brought in part by Roy Moore’s Foundation For Moral Law, which seeks to literally replace all levels of government with a system based on “biblical law.”

In the early weeks of the pandemic Spell was arrested after gunning a church bus in reverse at a protester. He then refused to wear a mask at a court hearing in which charges were dropped.

At least one of Spell’s parishioners has died of COVID and his lawyer was hospitalized with the virus in April.

 

Today, the United States Supreme Court denied a motion to hear the case of Spell v. Edwards, which sought to overturn the our mitigation measures. https://bit.ly/33mjYML #lagov

Throughout the course of this pandemic, I have let science and data inform the many difficult decisions I have made regarding gathering sizes and other mitigation measures to slow the spread of COVID. I have taken no such decisions lightly. #lagov

The reasonable, legal mitigation measures have been necessary to protect the people of Louisiana from unchecked spread of the coronavirus, which would limit hospitals’ ability to deliver care. #lagov

I am thankful that the United States Supreme Court denied this effort to overturn these mitigation efforts. For months I have spoken and prayed with leaders of many faiths as we have navigated this pandemic together. #lagov

I know how difficult this time has been for them and I am deeply appreciative of their commitment to practice their faiths even under trying circumstances and with the health of their congregations in mind. #lagov

As Pope Francis wrote of COVID this week: ‘Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.’ https://nyti.ms/33pgFVm #lagov

My own faith teaches me that our actions have an impact on others, that we truly are in this together, in 1 Corinthians 12: “There are many parts, yet one body” and “If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.” #lagov

I have faith that the people of Louisiana will continue to care for one another by slowing the spread of this terrible illness. #lagov

Originally tweeted by John Bel Edwards (@LouisianaGov) on November 28, 2020.

Thumbnail

 

Thumbnail

Alito Slaps Down Megachurch Pastor’s Lawsuit That Claimed Obeying God Meant Ignoring COVID-19 Orders

Alito Slaps Down Megachurch Pastor’s Lawsuit That Claimed Obeying God Meant Ignoring COVID-19 Orders

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito flatly rejected a plea by a Louisiana megachurch pastor to keep his church fully open against orders from the government to limit the size of worship gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  That pastor, Tony Spell, whose full legal name is Mark Anthony Spell, earlier this year opened his doors to some 1,800 congregants in violation of orders by the governor that limited the size of gatherings and required social distancing measures.

The application, styled as Spell v. Edwards, complained that the orders by Gov. John Bel Edwards forbade the Life Tabernacle Church from being “fully assemble[d].”  In a more legally astonishing question, the case also sought to ask whether the “First Amendment give[s] the Church exclusive jurisdiction over whether to assemble or not.”  In other words, the church sought to have the Supreme Court declare its assembly function as beyond state action or reproach.  In one passage, the application suggests Spell was merely “[f]ollowing his religious conviction that he must obey God rather than man” when he chose to keep his church fully open.  The application later argues that the First Amendment separation of church and state “was to protect the church from the state.”

From the petitioners’ application:

In Louisiana, one pastor and his church have been fighting since March 2020 for the right that God gives them and the Constitution of the United States secures to them: the right to assemble for church in person. Because of their supposed disobedience to Governor Edwards’ orders, the State of Louisiana has brought nine criminal charges against Pastor Tony Spell in three phases during the span of this litigation. Not only has Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards refused to respect the First Amendment rights of Pastor Spell and his church, but he has just refused an order of his own legislature to end the state of emergency that purportedly gives him the power to issue emergency orders.

This case presents a threshold question that other applicants did not present to this Court in prior religious liberty challenges: Whether the First Amendment places the decision of whether to assemble solely within the jurisdiction of the Church and not the State. Based on a historical analysis of the First Amendment and the Court’s leading precedents, Applicants herein believe the answer is yes. If it does, then Respondents have no authority to restrict the right of Pastor Spell and his church to meet.

Later on, it argued for the supreme authority of the church:

When the State’s order prohibits a church from assembling, singing together, hearing the word of God preached, laying hands on the sick, baptizing, taking communion, and the like, then the courts owe the State no deference at all.

Alito, despite being part of the majority which knocked down COVID-19 orders by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, apparently preferred that the high court not settle these grandiose questions in Louisiana.  The pastor and his church lost previous rounds of litigation in the district and circuit courts, and Alito’s rejection of the matter means the end of the line legally for the petitioners’ visions of church primacy over government.

The case was pressed in part by Judge Roy Moore‘s Foundation for Moral Law.  Moore is listed as one of the five attorneys on the case on behalf of the pastor and the church.  Moore is the former Alabama chief justice and former Senate candidate whose fervent religious views and alleged acts of sexual misconduct are already well known.

Pastor Tony Spell’s trajectory through the courts has itself not been without controversy.  He was refused entry to one of his own court proceedings because he refused to wear a mask.  He also was charged after backing a bus toward a protester.

Among the petitioners’ complaints was that the governor’s orders restricted large-scale gatherings — albeit incrementally — from 250, then to 50, and then to just 10 people “if the people in the gathering would be in a single space at the same time and in close proximity to one another.”  (The latter was suggested by the CDC and adopted by the governor.)

Generally speaking, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing religious beliefs or religious conduct solely because it is religious.  Naturally, Spell and his church cited Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case which articulated a test for determining whether government actions unduly infringe upon the right to free exercise.  Under that case, if a law is both religiously neutral and generally applicable to the population at large — e.g., it does not target a specific religious community — the law will not be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny and will almost certainly be allowed to stand.  (The Lukumi Babal court struck down a city ordinance aimed at a particular religious sect which was sacrificing animals for religious reasons.)

In this case, the petitioners — Spell and his church — articulated the correct legal standard under Lukumi Babal but then argued that the Louisiana governor’s executive orders simply “are not law.”  (In reality, executive orders are a type of law and carry the “force of law.”)  The petitioners then said that if they were laws, the executive orders did “discriminate against religious practices on their face” because “exceptions exist for other entities that do not apply to churches.”  Here, the petitioners’ argument attempted to latch on to circuit court decisions this year against COVID-19 in Kentucky orders promulgated by Gov. Andy Beshear.  However, in this case, the arguments were unpersuasive.

Also unpersuasive were the petitoners’ arguments surrounding Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, the 1990 case penned by conservative darling Antonin Scalia from which Lukumi Babal eventually sprang.  Smith held that a state government could legally withhold unemployment benefits from a man fired for using the drug peyote for religious ceremonial reasons.  Scalia’s view was that religious activities could subject a person to negative action by the government if the government was seeking to apply a law which applied to everybody and which did not directly target a religion.

“The government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development,” Scalia wrote (internal quotations omitted).  He also bewailed the possibility that “constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind” might start to pop up if the courts agreed to a stream of requests for religious carve-outs.  Scalia provided a de facto grocery list of regulations for which religion provided no excuse.  Some of those items included “compulsory military service,” “the payment of taxes,” “health and safety regulation[s],” “vaccination laws,” “drug laws,” “traffic laws,” “minimum wage laws,” and “child labor laws.”

The Louisiana pastor and his church argued that a random passage in Smith should be interpreted to mean that “assembling for religious worship [was] completely off limits” for government regulation or interference and that the government was “completely powerless” to get it the way of religious assembly.

Again, those arguments fell on Alito’s deaf ears.

GOP Georgia Sec. Of State Slams Republican Silence On His Death Threats: I’m Thinking They’re Complicit In It

GOP Georgia Sec. Of State Slams Republican Silence On His Death Threats: I’m Thinking They’re Complicit In It

The Washington Post reports:

Raffensperger said Republicans were only harming themselves by questioning the integrity of the Dominion machines. He warned that these kinds of baseless allegations could discourage Republicans from voting in the Senate runoffs. “People need to get a grip on reality,” he said.

More troubling to Raffensperger were the many threats he and his wife, Tricia, have received over the past few weeks — and a break-in at another family member’s home. All of it has prompted him to accept a state security detail.

“If Republicans don’t start condemning this stuff, then I think they’re really complicit in it,” he said. “It’s time to stand up and be counted. Are you going to stand for righteousness? Are you going to stand for integrity? Or are you going to stand for the wild mob? You wanted to condemn the wild mob when it’s on the left side. What are you going to do when it’s on our side?”

Read the full article.

I was unable to read the full article.   Hope you have better luck.  Hugs

DO TRUMP’S LAWYERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Do Trump’s Lawyers Know What They Are Doing?

Today several of President Trump’s lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, held a press conference in which they alleged that they have convincing if not conclusive evidence that the presidential election was rigged, and that in addition to garden variety voter fraud, hundreds of thousands of votes were added to Joe Biden’s totals through electronic manipulation. This is the familiar issue that involves Dominion and SmartMatic software. Here is the press conference; it begins around an hour into the video.

There is circumstantial evidence of more than a normal amount of voter fraud in this year’s election, but Trump’s lawyers have not yet presented most of the evidence supporting the electronic claims that they must rely on to have any hope of reversing the outcome of the election. So we can only reserve judgment for now. It is hard to understand what motive lawyers like Sidney Powell and Lin Wood might have to make explosive claims that they cannot prove, which would be career-destroying. But how strong their evidence will ultimately be, we don’t yet know. I hope their claims turn out to be well-founded and provable.

However: I got an email today from a Minnesota resident, a conservative and a smart guy who is the CEO of a company, and later talked with him on the phone. He has taken the trouble to read the filings that have been made so far by Trump’s lawyers. He directed my attention to an affidavit signed by Russell Ramsland, a Texas resident who is an expert on cyber security. The affidavit was filed by Lin Wood in the Georgia lawsuit, but it relates entirely to Michigan, and it is a safe bet that it has been filed in one or more cases in that state as well.

The Ramsland affidavit is part of the Trump team’s case relating to Dominion. In paragraph 9, the affidavit states:

Based on the significant anomalies and red flags that we have observed, we believe there is a significant probability that election results have been manipulated within the Dominion/Premier system in Michigan.

What are those anomalies and red flags? Paragraph 11 explains:

Another statistical red flag is evident is evident in the number of votes cast compared to the number of voters in some precincts. A preliminary analysis using data obtained from the Michigan Secretary of State pinpoints a statistical anomaly so far outside of every statistical norm as to be virtually impossible. … There were at least 19 precincts where the Presidential Votes Cast compared to the Estimated Voters based on Reported Statistics exceeded 100%.

This is a screen shot of the list of 19 precincts:

Paragraph 17, continuing in the same vein, says:

Wayne County uses Dominion equipment, 46 out of 47 precincts/townships display a highly unlikely 96%+ as the number of votes cast, using the Secretary of State’s number of voters in the precinct/township; and 25% of those 47 precincts/townships show 100% turnout.

This list of 25 precincts or townships (a number that does not obviously fit with the preceding language) follows:


Here’s the problem: the townships and precincts listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 of the affidavit are not in Michigan. They are in Minnesota. Monticello, Albertville, Lake Lillian, Houston, Brownsville, Runeberg, Wolf Lake, Height of Land, Detroit Lakes, Frazee, Kandiyohi–these are all towns in Minnesota. I haven’t checked them all, but I checked a lot of them, and all locations listed in paragraphs 11 and 17 that I looked up are in Minnesota, with no corresponding township in Michigan. This would have been obvious to someone from this state, but Mr. Ramsland is a Texan and the lawyers are probably not natives of either Minnesota or Michigan.

Evidently a researcher, either Mr. Ramsland or someone working for him, was working with a database and confused “MI” for Minnesota with “MI” for Michigan. (The postal code for Minnesota is MN, while Michigan is MI, so one can see how this might happen.) So the affidavit, which addresses “anomalies and red flags” in Michigan, is based largely, and mistakenly, on data from Minnesota.

This is a catastrophic error, the kind of thing that causes a legal position to crash and burn. Trump’s lawyers are fighting an uphill battle, to put it mildly, and confusing Michigan with Minnesota will at best make the hill steeper. Credibility once lost is hard to regain. Possibly Trump’s lawyers have already discovered this appalling error, and have undertaken to correct it. But the Ramsland Affidavit was filed in Georgia just yesterday.

A postscript: has Mr. Ramsland inadvertently stumbled across evidence of voter fraud in Minnesota? I seriously doubt it. The venues in question are all in red Greater Minnesota, not in the blue urban areas where voter fraud is common.

Trump’s lawyers have not yet had their day in court, but they will have to do a great deal better than this if they hope to succeed.

Tucker Carlson bashes Trump attorney Sidney Powell for lack of evidence in fraud claims: ‘She never sent us any’

As Fox News host Tucker Carlson noted on Thursday night, he’s more than willing to give airtime to outlandish claims. “We literally do UFO segments,” he said.

But even Carlson said he was fed up with the total lack of evidence produced by Sidney Powell, one of the Trump campaign’s attorneys, for her unfounded allegation that electronic voting systems had switched millions of ballots to favor President-elect Joe Biden.

 

“We invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour,” Carlson said. “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.”

 

Carlson also noted: “She never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.”

 

On his Thursday show, Carlson didn’t discount the larger claims of Trump’s attorneys that massive fraud disrupted the election — an allegation that has been repeatedly dismissed in court and for which the White House has presented no public evidence.

 

But Carlson’s rebuke of Powell marked a notable departure for a show — and a network — that has given hours of credulous coverage to false claims by President Trump and his associates that fraud cost him the election. It came after Fox News aired a rambling news conference on Thursday featuring Powell and Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, making numerous false and far-fetched allegations about the election.

The segment also put Carlson at odds with other Fox News hosts like Jesse Watters, who on his Thursday show described Powell and Giuliani’s news conference as “a big shot of adrenaline.”

 

Powell, who didn’t respond to a message from The Washington Post, pushed back on Carlson in a statement to the Washington Examiner, saying that she would “encourage him and all journalists to review all the materials we have provided so far and conduct their own investigations.”

 

 

While conceding that Giuliani “did not conclusively prove” any fraud at Thursday’s news conference, Carlson argued that “he did raise legitimate questions and in some cases, he pointed to what appeared to be real wrongdoing.” And he praised Giuliani and Powell for calling into question the security of electronic voting.

But Carlson said that Powell had gone too far without proof in claiming that Trump “had won by a landslide” and that a conspiracy masterminded by electronic voting firms had changed the results. Her statements on those subjects have been repeatedly disproved, The Post’s Fact Checker reported on Thursday.

 

“What Powell was describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history,” Carlson said.

Carlson emphasized that he “did not dismiss any” of Powell’s claims, and said he “took Sidney Powell seriously with no intention of fighting with her.” But he said he was disturbed that she didn’t produce any evidence for his show.

“We simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them?” he said.

Carlson ended the segment by defending his decision to call Powell out.

“Why are we telling you this?” he said. “We’re telling you this because it’s true, and in the end, that’s all that matters.”