Election 2020

Was Sidney Powell's Conspiracy Theory Too Crazy Even for Donald Trump?

Both the president and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, have publicly embraced Powell's wild claims about voting machine manipulation.


If you have been watching Sidney Powell on TV recently, you might surmise that her sudden departure from the Trump campaign's legal team reflects skepticism about her increasingly outlandish conspiracy theories. But with the possible exception of Powell's claim that Dominion Voting Systems bribed Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, both Republicans, as part of the scheme that supposedly enabled Joe Biden to steal the election, the president and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, have eagerly embraced her story of switched votes and fabricated ballots.

Here is how Giuliani introduced Powell, who was presented as a member of the "elite strike force team…working on behalf of the President and the campaign," during the bizarre press conference he held last week:

Now I'm going to ask Sidney Powell to describe to you what we can describe about another totally outrageous situation. I don't think most Americans know that our ballots get calculated, many of them, outside the United States and are completely open to hacking, completely open to change, and it's being done by a company that specializes in voter fraud. I'll let Sidney describe that to you.

Powell then spun a tale involving deceased Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez; billionaire Democrat George Soros; Lord Malloch-Brown, whom she described as "Mr. Soros' number two person in the U.K."; the Clinton Foundation; "the massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China in the interference with our elections"; and election software designed to facilitate cheating via "an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden." By Powell's account, "we might never have uncovered [this scheme] had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming in so many of these states that it broke the algorithm that had been plugged into the system, and that's what caused them to have to shut down in the states they shut down in."

Because of that unanticipated problem, Powell said, Democrats resorted to a secondary plan involving "mail-in ballots, many of which they had actually fabricated, some [of which] were on pristine paper with identically matching perfect circle dots for Mr. Biden." But for these machinations, she averred, it would be clear that "President Trump won by a landslide."

Powell's story dovetailed with Giuliani's unsubstantiated claim that "thousands and thousands" of fraudulent Biden ballots arrived in the middle of the night at the TCF Center in Detroit, where they supposedly were needed to assure that the former vice president carried Michigan. "This corresponds to our statistical evidence that shows incredible spikes in the vote counts at particular times and that corresponds to eyewitness testimony of numerous people who have come forward and said they saw the ballots come in the back door at that time," she said.

While taking questions from reporters, Giuliani reinforced Powell's credibility, saying, "Sidney was giving you information that come[s] from affidavits from other people that are given under oath." He said mysterious shipments of ballots marked for Biden "happened just around the time that the Dominion or Smartmatic people called a halt to the election," and there was "a very big spike in the vote count at exactly that time," "so what we're telling you is supported by evidence." Democrats "really cheated in two respects," he said. They "cheated with the machines," and they used "the absentee ballot process and the mail-in ballot process in order to cheat."

Giuliani credulously accepted Powell's byzantine conspiracy theory and suggested that reporters were remiss in refusing to do so: "You couldn't possibly believe that the company counting our vote, with control over our vote, is owned by two Venezuelans who were allies of Chavez, are present allies of [Venezuelan President Nicolas] Maduro, with a company whose chairman is a close associate and business partner of George Soros, the biggest donor to the Democrat Party, the biggest donor to antifa, and the biggest donor of Black Lives Matter. My goodness, what do we have to do to get you to give our people the truth?"

So when Giuliani, joined by Jenna Ellis, the Trump campaign's senior legal adviser, announced yesterday that Powell "is not a member of the Trump Legal Team," it was not because he rejects wild accusations about machine-facilitated fraud. To the contrary, those accusations are part of the story Giuliani himself has been telling.

Trump likewise had not heretofore sought to distance himself from Powell. Earlier this month, he described her as one of the "wonderful lawyers" on a "great team" that was "spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS!" Trump has echoed Powell's suspicions about Dominion machines, her claim that he actually won by "a LANDSLIDE," and her charge that the company was responsible for deleting a massive number of votes for him.

So why did Trump finally decide to disavow Powell? Citing unnamed "advisers," The New York Times reports that Trump "has been agitated about Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell for a few days." Evidently the president was put off by "how Ms. Powell had sounded" (nervous) and by "the black rivulets of liquid" that "dripped down Mr. Giuliani's face" (apparently as his sweat mingled with hair dye), not to mention "how long the appearance had stretched on" (about an hour and a half).

The Washington Post, citing "two advisers to Trump, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations," says "the president disliked the coverage Powell was receiving from Fox News host Tucker Carlson and others," and "several allies had reached out to say she had gone too far." Carlson, who generally has been receptive to Republican claims of election fraud, recently complained that Powell had repeatedly declined to supply evidence that would back up her charges.

The advisers interviewed by the Post also said Powell "fought with Giuliani and others in recent days." But if Powell argued with Giuliani, it seems unlikely that the cause was her Dominion conspiracy theory, which he publicly embraced even after it was repeatedly debunked.

"She was too crazy even for the president," an unnamed "campaign official" told the Post. If so, it is obviously not because Trump is unwilling to endorse self-flattering claims that are blatantly at odds with reality. Maybe Powell's story just became too abstruse for him to follow or too complicated for him to summarize in a tweet.

Update: Trump has continued to push Powell-style allegations about massive, machine-based voting fraud involving Dominion even after distancing himself from her.

NEXT: If Joe Biden Is Serious About Criminal Justice Reform, He Won’t Pick Merrick Garland for Attorney General

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t know what to make of Sidney Powell. She is a respected attorney who formerly worked as a federal prosecutor, represented Michael Flynn, and had a pretty high success rate as an appellate attorney. It’s hard to believe she’s a nutjob.

    1. Maybe she’s just a piece of shit liar?

      1. she said the same about you.

      2. Maybe you’re an ass eating fraudster?

        1. Someone needs to update your vocabulary. Or are you just hopeful?

        2. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.Adf I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life………… Visit Here

    2. Should be noted that she was right on Flynn, while Sullum was defending the good name of the intelligence community.

      1. It should be, so we’ll done.
        Now leftist bots will flood this comment section in their continuing psyop offensive.

        1. To be fair, we were talking about memes on the internet in 2016 and you know how spooky those are. Also, Reason writers were butt hurt that the Democratic nominee lost in 2016- you know, just like your average libertarian.

          1. Please don’t tell me you are buying into these voter fraud conspiracy theories. You, who kept making fun of the Democrats for their Russia Fever Dreams conspiracy theory. Please don’t say “but this is different.” Give me some hope there are still some sane conservatives out there.

            1. You bought into Russia winning the election with memes. Tell me, how is that not batshit crazy, but this is?

              I don’t tend to believe that voter fraud is enough to impact an election, but I am not going to let a publication staffed with two-bit Alex Joneses play their partisan game of “my insane conspiracy was not as insane as this insane conspiracy theory”.

              1. I don’t think I ever promoted Russian conspiracy theories on here. I certainly never thought the Russians swayed the election enough to help Trump win. Please post a link to a comment I made that supports your claim.

                Also, there is definitely evidence of Russian influence peddling on social media, but so what? I didn’t have any problems with that. There is no evidence, thought, to support Trump’s crazy claims. If you think the two are somehow equivalent, well, that’s just silly. This is most definitely a false equivalence.

                1. “I don’t think I ever promoted Russian conspiracy theories on here. I certainly never thought the Russians swayed the election enough to help Trump win. Please post a link to a comment I made that supports your claim.”

                  You know this isn’t true. Every time I repeated what literally every other non-Koch libertarian publication thought about Russia Fever Dreams you said “why do you have to defend Trump”. And now “Muh..Russia” is being used to keep us in Afghanistan and Syria for another eighteen years.

                  1. “Also, there is definitely evidence of Russian influence peddling on social media, but so what?”

                    By “evidence” you mean the word of the intelligence community. You are adorable. You had me fooled that you weren’t a partisan, though. Well done.

                  2. “why do you have to defend Trump” is not the same as supporting conspiracy theories about Russia.

                    1. So by your logic I should be saying “why do you have defend Biden”. That’s how this works, right?

                    2. I have criticized Biden before and will whenever you want. For example, giving Garland the AG position is bad for liberty.

                    3. And? I criticized Trump. But, you still said “why are you defending Trump” during Fever Dreams. So, I ask you, why are you defending Biden?

                    4. Yeah, defending a sitting President on a libertarian site will always be weird to me.

                    5. When did I ever defend Biden?

                    6. What are you not getting here?

                      You thought Fever Dreams were totes fine to peddle. However this conspiracy no.

                      You don’t see how that exposes you?

                    7. Yeah, defending a sitting President on a libertarian site will always be weird to me.

                      You spent 8 years with Obama’s cock down your throat, but other than that…

                2. “…Russian influence peddling on social media…”

                  Are you referring to the Trolls from Olgino, aka Internet Research Agency or whatever it’s called these days? They’ve been all over social media since Russia invaded Ukraine and they have nothing to do with Trump or Biden or anyone else in the US. They have a list of goals and the most important goal of theirs is not to help Trump, it’s to turn Americans against each other and drive a wedge between America and Europe.

                3. NICE JOB FOR EVERY ONE CHEK DETAIL OPEN THIS LINK…. Here is More information.

            2. Cray cray theories? Well the data says otherwise.


              The key evidence is as follows:

              ⦁ On Thursday November 5th at 9:09am a large batch of 90,022 mail/absentee votes get added that has over 95% support for Biden, but total votes to go up by only 9,534, implying that in-person votes actually went down by 80,488. On its own, this is a very strange irregularity, as ballots cannot disappear, and in-person ballots cannot become mail ballots. Something is wrong in the reported data, the only question is what.

              ⦁ The new batch of 90,022 mail ballots looks nothing like existing mail ballots. If the update is a data error, it must be a complicated error along multiple dimensions and is unlikely to be a simple typo. The new batch is improbable on four separate dimensions:

              ⦁ It has a level of support for Biden (over 95%) that is statistically impossible to have come from the same distribution of mail ballots counted up to that point (74.9% for Biden)

              ⦁ Every comparison of pairs of candidates shows improbable changes. This is important, as it helps rule out the possibility that a single typo in the data drives the pattern.

              ⦁ Irrespective of the old distribution, the new batch is extremely unlikely on its own terms, as it has a ratio of support for Jorgenson relative to Trump (20%) that is higher than virtually every county in America. The last fact is consistent with aiming to get Biden’s vote share “high but not impossibly high” while simultaneously trying to not give any more votes to Trump than absolutely necessary.

              ⦁ The distribution of the ballots being removed from the in-person counts is even more implausible (98.1% Biden), making it difficult to explain the overall vote update as being due to genuine mail ballots having been previously incorrectly classified as in-person.

              ⦁ Anomalies of this magnitude are extremely rare in the NYT database. Montgomery’s reduction of 80,488 in-person votes is the fourth highest vote reduction in the entire database. Over half of these involve changes of less than 100 votes, and 28% involve changes of just one vote. Of the remaining errors, many can be easily understood as examples of exactly the phenomena ruled out above (e.g. simple vote-type misclassifications).

              ⦁ Independent confirmation of the two numbers suggests Edison’s numbers are accurate reflections of the County data. Edison’s report of total absentee ballots counted in their update at 5:43am Wednesday November 5th is very close to (and slightly below) media twitter reports of total absentee ballots counted a few minutes later in the county data, suggesting that these early Edison absentee vote totals are likely accurate reflections of the underlying county data. Meanwhile, Edison snapshots on November 8th precisely match County snapshots on November 10th.

              ⦁ To test this hypothesis further, and to help rule out the possibility that this is all due to NYT/Edison data errors, after the initial anomaly was uncovered, we scraped multiple snapshots of the county’s own data at the precinct level. The changes between the two snapshots reveal that the earlier arriving mail ballots (which included the anomalous update) show a significantly higher vote share for Biden than the mail votes which were counted later in the same precinct. This shows that something is changing in the distribution of mail ballots counted within each precinct, and the earlier ballots showed a stronger tendency to favor Biden.”

              1. I’m not going to verify or debunk any of this. But I’ve seen so many conspiracy morons over the years post so many fabrications that look just like this. If I did investigate this it would turn out that the genesis of each of these claims is either pure fabrication or else one or two individuals making claims without providing any evidence, and then these claims making their way through a network of right-wing websites with some of them distorting or adding details to make it sound more plausible.

                1. What evidence do we have that the election was legitimate?

                  1. The Trump campaign has appeared in court something like 30 times to challenge the election and lost all but twice, and in those two instances the campaign was not actually challenging the legitimacy of ballots. In other words, it has had substantial opportunity to uncover and present evidence of fraud and has failed to do so.

                    There has already been one audit in Georgia that did not uncover any irregularities that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.

                    Every statistical analysis of voting patterns that I have seen appears in keeping with expectations for a legitimate election. The first and second digit Benford’s analysis is in keeping with expectations given the size of precincts and overall voting patterns, both in this election and in past ones. The “switched” or “missing” votes claims that Gateway Pundit has popularized with some Reason commenters are based on bad analysis of an unofficial data set that simply cannot be used to tally votes with the accuracy needed due to rounding in the reported results (which were only meant for website/television updates, not actually determining the election winner). (For what it’s worth, the analysis linked to above seems to be based on the same data set, but I’ll investigate further to be sure). The claims of double or triple the turnout possible from registered voter numbers is based on bad analysis of data from before voting even concluded. The analysis by Shiva Ayyadurai claiming to show odd voting patterns contains an elementary conceptual error in how to analyze the data and how to interpret those results that completely invalidates the entire analysis and that when corrected actually shows that the data is in keeping with expectations.

                    I find this website is doing a good job of not just addressing claims that are not being addressed by other outlets, but providing a much more detailed analysis. I recommend following them.


                    If you started with a prior belief that American elections are generally free, fair, and legitimate, none of the data or analysis presented thus far about this election should change that belief, and in fact it should strengthen it. If you started with a prior belief that American elections (or perhaps just this election) are generally corrupt, unfair, and illegitimate, then I still think the data and analysis presented thus far should lead you to doubt that prior assumption and conclude that this election was probably legitimate. If you don’t feel that way, I would like to know what evidence would convince you that this election was legitimate?

                    1. One that shows Trump won?
                      No I get it. But there do appear to be some serious issues about this election. Trump should concede if his legal team doesn’t start winning in court, and on the way out, both he and the Republican Senate should start massive investigations into our election system.

                    2. But there do appear to be some serious issues about this election

                      Can you be more specific?

                  2. “When Trump campaign lawyers have stood before courts under oath, they have repeatedly refused to actually allege grand fraud—because there are legal consequences for lying to judges.”

              2. Cray cray theories? Well the data says otherwise.

                I downloaded their data (I appreciate them making it available) and successfully isolated the data from Montgomery County, PA that they call into question. I can see the update in which about 90,000 “absentee_votes” (this is the column name in the actual CSV file) are added and about 9000 “votes” are also added. But I notice a few other things

                1) “absentee_votes” are updated only once in the entire data set, and this is the update referenced above. However, neither the total absentee votes or the absentee vote for each candidate (labeled as “results_absentee-trumpd” or “-bidenj”) ever start at zero. So right away I can tell that this data set is not being updated in a regular way and is note complete. This is not suspicious to me since this is an unofficial tally used for creating the NYT website graphics. It does make me wonder how much we should rely on this data set for rigorous analysis. Nevertheless…

                2) When the approx 90,000 absentee votes appear under the “absentee_votes” column, the “results_absentee-trumpd” and “results_absentee-bidenj” totals both increase, and they do so as you would expect for Biden getting 95% of those votes. However the “votes” column, “results-trumpd” column, and “results-bidenj” column do not increase by the corresponding amounts. FWIW this is also true of Jorgensen, and is especially easy to see because her numbers are so low to begin with.

                From this, I conclude that “votes”, “results-trumpd”, and “results-bidenj” are NOT a sum of “absentee_votes”, “results_absentee-trumpd”, or “results_absentee-bidenj”. Instead, “votes” seems to refer to in-person votes.

                So, the fundamental claim that the entire analysis is based upon, namely that the addition of approx 90,000 absentee ballots but only bout 9,000 total ballots, necessitating some 80,000 ballots “disappearing”, is simply flawed and based on an incorrect understanding of the underlying data. In fact, it seems that a large batch of absentee ballots were reported, along with a smaller number of in-person ballots. No reason why those two need to increase by the same amount.

                If you have some reason to doubt my interpretation of the data, please let me know.

                1. Thanks. Unfortunately, true believers in conspiracies probably will ignore you.

            3. Here’s video from 2016 of Dominion VP Eric Coomer explaining to election officials how to change votes.

                1. My full response is held up in moderation, probably for too many links. So here it is split up.

                  There is no video embedded on that page.

                  There is a link to another page that does have an embedded video.

                  I did not hear Coomer (Dominion employee) ever mention changing votes or accessing vote tables directly.

                  1. I did a Google search and found this website, which seems to be referencing a lot of the same stuff

                    1. There is a link to election board meeting minutes that appear to be from the same meeting. I could not find any references to vote switching or accessing vote tables.

                      If I missed something, or if you linked to the wrong page or have additional information, please share it and I’ll be happy to take a look.

        2. Good to know the Chair Force will be here to counter the threat.

    3. No, it’s not hard at all to believe she is a total nutjob. If you are too crazy even for Tucker, you better check yoself before you wreck yoself.

      1. You always find a way to pretend as if the latest example of Reason being nothing more than a NYT regurgitation site is actually super OK and totally not just partisan horseshit.

        1. Why? Because they are anti-Trump? The NYT is clearly pro-Democrat. Most of the Reason writers voted for Jo or abstained. I think only one or two voted for Biden. If you think simply being anti-Trump is partisan horseshit, I don’t know what to tell you.

          1. They are not “Anti-Trump” they are pro-establishment. If you’ve read the NYT editorial page, you’ve basically read Reason minus the occasional and ever so slight of quibbles.

          2. I think only one or two voted for Biden.

            6 of the fewer than 20 polled said they planned to vote Biden, but pulling fabricated numbers out of your ass and being an illiterate fucking midwit is par for the course for you.

      2. It’s possible that she hasn’t always been a nut job, but both Powell and Giuliani are living proof that someone can descend into being a nut job.

        1. Like when she blew up the Flynn case and exposed massive government corruption and the withholding of exculpatory evidence while you claimed that Flynn was a criminal and she was a nut case for defending him? Like that?

      3. Hey remember when you said she was a crazy and peddling conspiracy theories in defense of Michael Flynn and then she substantiated every one of her claims in court and got him off?

    4. This was her Wing Attack Plan R moment. That’s R for romeo.

    5. Highly successful people are often wacky as well just look at Musk, McCaffee, Trump, Gates they are weird people. weird beyond normal people weirdness.

    6. “It’s hard to believe she’s a nutjob.”
      I mean, look at Guiliani. He was once a respected lawyer and mayor, after 9-11 he was supposed to have a shot at the presidency. People sometimes lose it when they get older. Women twice. I hope it doesn’t happen to me or my loved ones, but my folks are pretty sharp and active.

    7. This writer forgets the left and those with TDS have been hammering the Trump for four years and he is still standing. Spose it might be because he’s mostly right?

    8. If only there a news magazine that could do more than tell us what the Democrats and Lincoln Project talking points were on this topic.

    9. She knows nothing about software. In her mind its a magic box with evil incantation inside.

      Hmmm, maybe she does know software?

      Seriously though, any software can be traced back to its source code (the Dominion claimed the software is theirs so they have the source code). You can verify the software doesn’t have bugs (significant ones anyway) and there is no cheat code. You can then build the software (compile or whatever) and verify the signature of that build is exactly what was used on election day.

      Also, to put in cheat code risks the entire company. If they get caught, they will never get another paycheck/contract and officers of the company risk jail time. So with high risk, there has to be high reward. Check Dominion’s parking lot and see who bought the Lamborghini.

      Follow the money

      1. Also, to put in cheat code risks the entire company. If they get caught, they will never get another paycheck/contract and officers of the company risk jail time.

        Yeah, when you get paid to cheat by a political party that will control the highest executive office in the United States as well as congress if you cheat successfully, you’re totally risking your company’s finances and your personal security…

    10. I get paid over $190 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 15k a month doing this and she convinced me to try………EARN DOLLARS.

    11. Soon we will know if she has anything or if she is channeling Adam Schiff, who promised he had proof of Russia collusion yet it was never seen nor given to the Mueller investigation.
      When there are no consequences to mud slinging expect more mud.

  2. >>abstruse

    who got a Word of the Day calendar for his birthday?

    1. Ain’t that the worst? People who try to show off with big words are so annoyingly grandiloquent.

      1. glad I stayed home Saturday yikes.

        1. Ha, pretty brutal. On to BU.

          1. plan is to be there. hopefully rooting on more than the JV

            1. Nice! I have faith in our 3rd-string walk-on QB.

      2. Exactly. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will suffice.

  3. “She was too crazy even for the president,” an unnamed “campaign official” told the Post.

    Sullum, again with the unnamed sources. This is 100% true, an inside source at Reason told me that ENB rubs Skippy peanut butter all over her body, dumps out a box of frenzied hamsters and lets them go to town. 100% true according to my source.

    1. Unnamed sources told me Sullum’s favorite tenga was aftermarket remodeled based on an opossum’s vulva.

      1. I don’t know what a tenga is, and I sure as hell am not googling it, but I suspect it is some kind of artificial vagina, and I am not surprised you have one.

        1. Of course you wouldn’t know about artificial vaginas, they’re not even close to being a little boy’s asshole.
          And why, pray tell, do you think I’m Jacob Sullum and not the unnamed source?

    2. > reading Sullum.

    3. Anonymous sources report that Sullum eats ass.

      1. What is your obsession with eating ass? Do you have Tourette’s?

        1. is that a symptom?

          1. LOL it might be. But I was slyly referring to his repeated use of this phrase in multiple comments throughout multiple articles – ergo, Tourette’s.

            1. You literally post about eating shit 50 times a day, Sqrsly.

              1. Who?

    4. Fair enough, but the claim is not so hard to believe if you’re were at least skeptical when you heard her suggest that Hugo Chavez helped rig the election.

      1. Not relevant to the point that unnamed sources have no credibility.

    5. Maybe there was no news about pot to cover and Sullum’s contract requires so many words a day.

  4. I’ll start believing unnamed sources again when a single one ever turns out to be valid.

    1. Unnamed sources are trustworthy. Thousands of signed affidavits are conspiracy theorizing.

  5. I appreciate the fun Reason is having with the many stories of President Trump and his legal team trashing in around in courts and on TV. But maybe it is time to start talking about the need for the current administration to start cooperating and briefing the incoming administration. The election is settled, the formalities have yet to be worked out, but there is plenty of work to be done in the meantime. Reason should be supporting moves to get that work done.

    1. “It’s all over nothing to see here…”

    2. It’s hilarious, and totally on brand, for Trump to be freaked out by Ghouliani’s melting make up, rather than by the total nuttiness of what he is saying.

      1. Remember all the articles written after 2016 about how Clinton needed to concede and all the articles about Facebook memes being a ridiculous excuse for Clinton’s loss?

        Oh wait, no, I forgot, they were pimping the “memes stole the election” conspiracy. Sure is weird how that works

        1. Clinton conceded.

          Read the final senate intel committee report on russia. Our parties were hacked by russian intel services and released to wikileaks, and coordinated with Trump campaign through Roger Stone. This happened.

          Ask yourself why Stone’s sentence was commuted and not instead pardoned? It is his reward for keeping faith with Trump. It preserves his 5th amendment right to continue to not snitch on Trump.

          1. “Clinton conceded”

            Clinton still says Russia “stole the election”.

            “Read the Senate intel committe report”

            Where you have to take leaps of faith to believe what the intelligence community is saying. Sounds smart, we all know those guys don’t lie particularly not to start a new war or anything.

            “and coordinated with Trump campaign through Roger Stone. This happened.”

            Actually this was discredited by the Mueller report.

            “Ask yourself why Stone’s sentence was commuted and not instead pardoned? It is his reward for keeping faith with Trump. It preserves his 5th amendment right to continue to not snitch on Trump.”

            Absolutely. Stone should have received seven years in jail for lying to the FBI about something that wasn’t a crime. Libertarian moment!

            1. “Stone should have received seven years in jail for lying to the FBI about something that wasn’t a crime. Libertarian moment!”

              Lets ask Martha Stuart about lying to the cops about a crime that never happened. No one was ever charged for insider trading.

              As for Mueller’s report, there was enough there to support obstruction of justice.

              And apparently Trump’s campaign did actively want to speak with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary. They willing met with this lawyer – only to be disappointed she had no dirt. However, it is conspiracy….

          2. i read the report…. and it does not show what you claim.

            clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right……

            1. Then you must remember this section, page 172:

              “While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to aid Trump’s electoral prospects. To do so, the Trump Campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks.

              (U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks through Roger Stone. In spring 2016, prior to Assange’s public announcements, Stone advised the Campaign that WikiLeaks would be releasing materials harmful to Clinton. Following the July 22 DNC release, Trump and the Campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016. Trump and other senior Campaign officials specifically directed Stone to obtain information about upcoming document releases relating to Clinton and report back. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign officials on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming.”

              1. oh, i misread….. i was talking about the actual impartial in depth report from Mueller…. I’ll take that over claims from a committee of politicians without evidence any day….. and that says you are wrong.

                if you trust a politician for your facts, you are a fool.

                1. It’s a 1000 page report. What is “in-depth” according to you?

                  Speaking of Mueller. He cites 10 cases of obstruction of justice by Trump personally, and dozens of undisclosed or lied about contacts between Trump campaign and Russia intel services, and notes that the obstruction caused him to be unable to confirm or deny further coordination.

                  1. correction…. it cites 10 cases of potential obstruction….. and finds insufficient evidence to conclude it was obstruction. it also explicitly found there was no contact or coordination with Russia.

          3. Yes and the surveillance state did not spy on Trump and obstruct his presidency after he was elected. And this is not a bigger threat to liberty and representative government. And “libertarians” like reason and you are not idiots, fools, and ass lickers for ignoring that.

          4. The FBI never saw the Dems server.

        2. Clinton conceded right after the election. And just because Reason didn’t write the articles you wanted them to write does not mean they were shilling for Clinton. I just checked the 2016 article to see who Reason writers were voting for, and here are the results:
          Gary Johnson 19
          Trump 3
          Hillary 2
          Greens 1
          abstaining 5
          others 2

          So your claim that Reason was somehow favoring Clinton is complete and utter bullshit.

          1. Clinton still claims “Russia stole the election” and supported the Green Party’s call for recounts in WI and MI. You guys are really stretching the word “concede”.

            1. No, she conceded. I think you are the one stretching the word. Also, what does this have to do with Reason?

              1. To concede is to acknowledge defeat. When you are alleging that the Russians cheated you out of winning the presidency, four years later, you haven’t conceded that you lost fair and square. And the fact that you have a problem with Trump not admitting that he lost fair and square, but have no problem with Clinton having done the same speaks more about you than anything.

                1. It was an Alford concession.

                2. I think you are confusing “conceding” with “making excuses why you lost.”

            2. Nope. She officially conceded. And then whined. A lot. Whining is not not conceding.

              1. You right, an honorable person would not whine about it. But she’s a Clinton. The only thing worse in politics is a tRump.

                I know I’ve called tRump a liar, a cheat, and a draft dodger. But the real nail in the coffin is this. 1) He doesn’t drink beer (even Obama sipped beer – are you allowed to ‘sip’ beer?) 2) He has a poor sense of humor – can’t take a joke and the jokes he makes are at best 4th grade.

        3. Nope. I remember articles about Russian-backed Facebook memes being ridiculous. But full stop after that. There was no “and that’s why Hilllary lost.”

          And it is hard to write an opinion piece saying that Clinton should concede when she has already conceded. Wouldn’t make sense, you know.

          1. Right, but see, you’re a lying, stupid piece of shit.

    3. But maybe it is time to start talking about the need for the current administration to start cooperating and briefing the incoming administration

      Why? What difference does it make on any meaningful level?

      1. Have you ever worked a job where you took over from a earlier shift or had a job transferred to you? It is a basic principle of continuity.

        1. Right. This is not something you just walk into an empty office and start on day one.

      2. Well you have to brief the incoming president on the ongoing coup you launched so that you can then go to the media about the briefing and begin executing the coup you launched.

    4. But we know that is not going to happen. The day Trump leaves the White House we will find that he took the drapery and light fixtures with him.

      1. Breaking news, about an hour ago, is that Trump has OK’d starting transition for Biden.

        1. Shhh, don’t talk about that. Trumpy poo is the worstest!

    5. Why even Gore refused to work with Bush even up to the inauguration and after. guess what nothing will happen if they do or don’t.

    6. Yawn, some political theater nothing more. The transition will be fine.

  6. The Washington Post, citing “two advisers to Trump, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations,”

    Oh lol, of course they did.

    Top notch journalisming, WaPo! Top notch journalisming, Jacob!

    1. They learned nothing.

      1. As long as people continue to believe the “unnamed” sources the media will continue to make them up.

    2. Well Bezos does donate to reason.

  7. Serious question is a man who thought there were Russians under everyone’s bed for the past four years the best person to lecture others on conspiracy theories?

    Trump’s lawsuit may be bonkers, but Sullum probably isn’t the best person to throw stones. I mean, are we really pretending like Sullum isn’t just “vote blue no matter who” at this juncture?

    1. How is Koch world not a parody at this point?

    2. Fact: Trump’s record when making allegations is better than the MSM’s/Reason’s over the last 5 years.

      1. people seem to forget that every time Trump says something crazy.

      2. That’s not a fact.

        This is the same guy who claimed that Obama faked his birth certificate.

        Claimed that the RNC primaries were rigged.

        Claimed the 2016 vote was rigged, set up a whole commission to investigate this rigging, then quietly disbanded the commission when they found nothing to support Trump’s claims.

        Still claims that the central park 5 are guilty, and deserve to die, despite being proven innocent by DNA evidence.

        Claimed that Covid would simply go away last May “like a dream”.

        Claimed that a hurricane was forecasted to hit Alabama, perhaps a simple mistake, but then doubled down and committed a felony by doctoring a NOAA report. All instead of simply admitting he was mistaken.

        Continues to claim he was exonerated by the Mueller report. When Mueller was asked if his report exonerated the president he replied, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” (Mueller’s report said that the president had committed 10 acts of obstruction of justice, instead, and noted dozens of undeclared and lied about contacts between Trump campaign members and members of Russian intelligence.)

        Claimed that Mexico would pay for a wall.

        1. Yet, his record is still far better than the left’s/MSM’s/Reason’s…

        2. .
          Implied that Ted Cruz’s dad was involved in the assassination of JFK. That was one of my favorites so I had to throw it in.

          1. That is a good one. Called his wife ugly too.

        3. Mueller when forced to speak before Congress was clearly suffering from senile dementia. Anything he has to say is meaningless gibberish.

          The Wall is being built with tarriffs on Canadian and Mexican imports.

          1. Exactly who pays the tRump taxes? I mean tarrifs?
            You and I do.

            BTW, tarrifs on Mexico lasted about 1 week. Didn’t pay for any wall (or any part of a wall)

    3. Sullum said he will vote for Jo Jorgensen.

    4. When did Sullum cary water for the Russian conspiracy theories?

      1. Sullum pushed back on the meme argument shortly after the election and never mentioned it again. When this site was pimping absolutely insane garbage and pretending as if it wasn’t just partisan bullshit, Sullum suddenly shut-up.

        1. Koch whores are just that and literally nothing more

          1. Sadly this is partly true. They are just a particularly humorous version of the problem of the consultant class inside the Beltway, humorous in that they will never get jobs in the White House or running agencies and departments. The only administration that has ever hired any of them was – Trump’s!

  8. “to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden.”

    Sooo…when working with paper ballots we can have poll watchers observe the counting. When we work with software, it’s closed source and nobody can observe/inspect it.

    I was utterly shocked to learn that states can even legally use closed source software in elections. It needs to be open source….period…if vital aspects of the process cannot be inspected (except by the good Canadian employees of Dominion) then it’s not an “open” election.


    1. Even more so, the election system should be done using block chain. Everyone can see what the votes were, and everyone can see their specific vote in the chain.

    2. Votes are a bunch of independent events. You don’t need or want blockchain for that.

      1. Really don’t. Simple and straightforward, open source, with paper ballots is a good way to go.

    3. There is zero reason for any proprietary software. It’s a counting machine. There is nothing sophisticated about it….or rather there shouldn’t be.
      The very fact that it has proprietary software raises huge red flags.

      These machines are used by individual precincts where a few thousand votes are counted. In my precinct, we were handed a ballot and a pen, filled out the little ovals like everyone was doing for SATs 30 years ago and then walked to a machine to feed the ballot in. if it feeds/reads, all done. If not, do it again. One machine in the precinct, which totals ~1000 votes on election day. No need for complex software….its a counting machine.

      1. exactly anything that does more than count is ripe for messing with

      2. Yes, it should be open source.

        No, it doesn’t raise “huge red flags”. States that have purchased t systems have done reviews of the proprietary code.

        1. States that have purchased t systems have done reviews of the proprietary code.

          Oh good, nothing to worry about then.

    4. Sooo…when working with paper ballots we can have poll watchers observe the counting. When we work with software, it’s closed source and nobody can observe/inspect it.

      You’ll be happy to know that Dominion makes two systems. One tabulates paper ballots. The other can be used to directly enter votes but is more commonly used to enter votes via an electronic interface and then produce a printed paper ballot, which is fed into a separate tabulator.

      So there are still paper ballots to audit.

    5. Yes, only open source voting software would be a very good idea.

    6. With paper ballots, observers are not guaranteed the right to audit the counting, according to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, by the way.

      1. Then they wouldn’t be observers, they would be auditors (or accountants).
        The lawsuit contended that should an observer take a bathroom break, all counting had to stop.

        1. I read the PA Supreme Court ruling. They used weaselly logic (there is no precedent for defining “meaningful access” therefore there is no such thing, therefore observers can be blocked from viewing the process and everything is ok as long as they are in the same room – including a conference center hall).

      2. Here in America, there is this thing called the secret ballot. It has been in use since 1888. It allows voters to cast a ballot without fear of coercion. It would be fucking stupid and downright un-American if observers were allowed to audit voting and saw who a person voted for.

  9. So after 3 weeks the only evidence Team Trump has been able to produce is a bunch of anonymous sources who swear they saw the election stolen. It’s fitting, really.

    1. Trump’s anonymous sources are trustworthy because they support the correct narrative. The ones you’re supposed to mock are Reason’s sources. They’re saying the wrong stuff.

      1. Yup. Remember how right Reason was on Kavanaugh and the Russia stuff. Their sources are solid.

        1. You do understand that Reason reports on what’s big in the news, right?

          1. They don’t “report”. They regurgitate. Pushing conspiracies about gang rape (without evidence) and Russians under your bed (without evidence) is not “reporting” no matter how many NYT writers want it to be considered such.

    2. If people sign their names to public sworn statements, I don’t think that counts as anonymous

      1. “I believe Donald Trump is a child molester and have no doubt he was put in office by Vladimir Putin.” Signed EdG. Witnessed by Jane Doe, a notary public.

        There you go. One genuwine affidavit that proves Trump is evil. But wait, you say. There’s no proof in it!! It’s based only on your belief!!

        Guess what? That’s all a public sworn statement is.

  10. Sour grapes are sour.

    1. I’ll take “things not said after the 2016 election and the endless stream of ‘Russia stole the election”.

      1. The hypocrisy- it blinds

        1. You mean both sides are crybabies? I can accept that.

          1. Agreed.

            1. Except only one side ever gets called out as being crybabies. The other side has Koch world run with their insane conspiracy theories so they can get a firm pat on the head from the cool journos.

              1. So you don’t remember when Reason was a bunch of racist conservatives for being critical of the black president?

                1. What? Serious question, can you not read well?

                  Of course I remember Reason being critical of Obama. But, that has nothing to do with embracing a conspiracy theory. Did Reason say Obama was born in Kenya? Of course not, because that’s insane. Where we disagree is that you seem to believe that saying memes stole an election is not a conspiracy.

                  1. It’s called reporting on what’s in the news. If they ignored the story you probably would have been just as angry.

                    1. Being Michael Avenetti’s stenographer is called “news”. No. That’s a partisan hit job.

                    2. Alleging a worldwide global conspiracy that has been used as an excuse to keep troops in Afghanistan and Syria, but for which there is literally no public evidence to validate said conspiracy theory is “news”? By that same insane logic “Obama is Kenyan” is “news”.

                    3. Obama is Kenyan. His father was Kenyan. He was a citizen until he was 21. In fact they changed their constitution and he could regain his citizenship and run for President.

  11. For reference, this is what Reason was publishing after the 2016 election. Seems like apeshit insane conspiracy theories met editorial standards then.


    1. Next time link to an article that isn’t completely skeptical of the source. It might help to support your point.

      1. Yeah. I’m sure they’ll have a detailed article laying out Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theory.

        1. You cry about what they report and what they don’t report. What’s the point of being here? Is constant bitching cathartic for you?

          1. Is white knighting like your hobby or job?

            1. I’m serious. When you agree with Reason you bitch about it being too little too late, when you disagree you whine about bias, and when they don’t report on what you feel is important you moan some more. I don’t see the point. Seems exhausting.

              1. I hope all is well, sarc.

            2. No, that’s me. Thinking of taking up fly fishing, though.

          2. Coming from you that’s fucking rich. You literally do nothing but bitch, piss, moan, and whine in every fucking thread 16 hours a day and then when you get called on it you fall back to ‘hurrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i’m sarcasmic durrrrrrrrr it’s sarcasm hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr’

      2. https://reason.com/2017/07/07/russias-global-anti-libertaria/

        Here’s another one for you. A real classic. Front page article about “Russia’s anti-libertarian crusade” which is definitely a thing.

        Hell, I could be here all day listing the insane articles that they pimped for the last four years. I haven’t even gotten to Shackford, yet.

        1. Have fun. I’ve got better things to do.

          1. “So what if I was wrong”

            1. If searching archives to find articles that support your point gets you off, go for it. I’m not gonna do it.

        2. You are really not making a good case here. An article critical of Russia’s ant-liberty actions is a bad thing?

          1. The article calls for sanctions against Russia over memes.

            If you think sanctions are fine then what was the complaint over sanctions against Chinese officials? I don’t get it. Is China somehow more “libertarian-y” because the Kochs can make money there?

            1. I never support sanctions.

              1. Other than when you just did 2 posts ago by defending an article calling for sanctions?

  12. not too crazy for trump, too crazy to be useful. she is so far off the rails, it breaks the illusion. the propaganda only works if you can keep the details fuzzy enough to maintain some semblance of plausibility…… if you push it too far, nobody buys it.

    1. “if you can keep the details fuzzy enough to maintain some semblance of plausibility…… if you push it too far, nobody buys it.”

      Ummmm….I think Michael Flynn would disagree.

      1. we are talking about public opinion, not a court.

        1. Public opinion is as worthless as you are. She’s going to be taking her case to a court you motherfucking inbred hicklib retard.

      2. Flynn ain’t free and clear yet, and his case may suffer from Powell’s recent public lunacy.

        1. The walls are closing in!

          Libertarians for the intelligence community!

          God you’re a fucking joke. Wait, I take that back, jokes are sometimes funny.

      3. Michael Flynn, the same guy the Obama administration advised the tRump administration to pass on?

        Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        1. Gee, you mean the Obama administration that set Flynn up, threatened his life and his family, then withheld evidence and lied about it? Their motivations must have been just as pure as the driven snow.

  13. There have always been crazies after every election loss. I won a $200k bet with a democrat who was absolutely sure Trump would never be inaugurated after his 2016 election victory, convinced that investigated voter irregularities in Wisconsin would reveal election fraud. Funny how election fraud never happens… right up until your team loses.

    What’s different here is that the candidate is openly embracing and endorsing the conspiracy theories. This is just part of the progression of populist politics: first it’s the cooks, then the somewhat well-known fringed partisans like Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow, and now the actual candidate. I expect more of this, and I expect it from the democrats even harder next time they lose. Hillary Clinton advised Biden to never concede the 2020 election. I’m sure he would have found an excuse just like Trump has, and the next one probably will, too.

    1. “What’s different here is that the candidate is openly embracing and endorsing the conspiracy theories.”


      “Hillary Clinton suggests 2016 election was ‘stolen’ from her”

      1. “What’s different is that this time around it’s not fashionable to embrace conspiracy theories.”

        1. You’re right. The only difference here is the candidate is refusing to concede.

          1. So in your mind alleging that the election was not fair is OK for Clinton, different for Trump. Not making a whole lot of sense. But, keep hanging your hat on a speech, because that makes all the world of difference.

            1. I said “different.”

            2. Listen no one is saying that Trump can’t throw a tantrum and say the election was unfair. What we want is for him to concede. like Hillary Clinton did, get out of the way, like Hillary Clinton did and let the transition proceed, like Hillary Clinton did. Is that too much to ask?

              1. Maybe he’s screwing up the transition the way Obama did.

                1. Except that Obama did not screw up the transition, he quickly and graciously greeted President Elect Trump. He, Obama, instructed all his people to assist Trump’s people as best they could.

                  Trump screwed up his own transition. He fired a talented person in Gov. Christie from his transition team and just ignored the assistance he was offered. Throughout his Presidency Trump biggest adversary has himself. He continues that to this day with his petulant display after the election.

                  1. Except that Obama did not screw up the transition, he quickly and graciously greeted President Elect Trump. He, Obama, instructed all his people to assist Trump’s people as best they could.

                    Like when they briefed Trump on the pee pee dossier so they could leak it to the media while lying about their ongoing illegal spying operation against his campaign and transition team for which 2 people are now in jail for fabricating evidence and presenting it to the FISA court? Like that? I certainly hope Trump is just as accommodating.

                2. I hear this from tRumptards all the time. tRump can do because so and so did it.

                  tRump’s mentality is 4th grade at best, so I guess we couldn’t expect anything better. But we do expect better from the President of the United States.

                  1. “My whataboutism isn’t whataboutism, your whataboutism is whataboutism. I am totally justified because you whataboutismed my whataboutism.”

                    Coming from the 1st grader giggling like a school girl while typing tRump… Your boogeyman was elected President. Jealous?

                  2. tRump’s mentality is 4th grade at best

                    Says the man beginning this statement with tRump. Lmfao. Jesus fuck man…

              2. How could Hillary have been in the way? Obama was the President. Neither Trump nor Clinton were in the White House at the time. Trump is not the “candidate”. He’s the currently, but soon-to-be-no-longer, sitting President.

                No amount of Hillary complaining would have changed whether Obama did or didn’t allow the transition to proceed. And Obama was finishing his second term, which means no matter who was elected, he was out.

                Trump is flailing about trying to hold on to the Presidency, but methinks he doth protest too much. His legal challenges continue to fall through. The EC will almost certainly elect Biden (as it appears they should). Trump will leave office the same way he left. And then the news will return to extolling the virtues of their newly elected Dear Leader Who Can Do No Wrong. Life will continue. Most people will hardly notice. Except the ones that Criminal Justice “Reform” Biden and Prosecutor Harris toss into jail for possessing plants or being a non-violent minority offender. Thank goodness the UberRacist Trump is gone.

                Y’all are hilarious. Depressingly hilarious.

  14. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/great-reset-and-risk-greater-interventionism

    Global debt is expected to soar to a record $277 trillion by the end of the year, according to the Institute of International Finance. Developed markets’ total debt -government, corporate and households- jumped to 432% of GDP in the third quarter. Emerging market debt-to-GDP hit nearly 250% in the third quarter, with China reaching 335%, and for the year the ratio is expected to reach about 365% of global GDP. Most of this massive increase of $15 trillion in one year comes from government and corporates’ response to the pandemic. However, we must remember that the total debt figure already reached record-highs in 2019 before any pandemic and in a period of growth.

    The main problem is that most of this debt is unproductive debt. Governments are using the unprecedented fiscal space to perpetuate bloated current spending, which generates no real economic return, so the likely outcome will be that debt will continue to rise after the pandemic crisis is ended and that the level of growth and productivity achieved will not be enough to reduce the financial burden on public accounts.

    In this context, The World Economic Forum has presented a roadmap for what has been called “The Great Reset”.

    1. That’s alarming. Who do the People of Earth owe that money to?

      1. The People of Mars. They consider it fair rent for all the machinery we keep landing on their planet and then abandoning when it breaks down.

      2. Lol

        “We owe it to ourselves!”

        – MMT

    2. “The main problem is that most of this debt is unproductive debt. Governments are using the unprecedented fiscal space to perpetuate bloated current spending, which generates no real economic return, so the likely outcome will be that debt will continue to rise after the pandemic crisis is ended and that the level of growth and productivity achieved will not be enough to reduce the financial burden on public accounts.”

      This is fertilizer. Government right now is in the mist of helping people weather the pandemic. It not going to help the economy if people are thrown out of work and can’t make car payment, house payments and rent. We live in a first world nation that has a consumer based economy, we need to keep people spending. Profit is not the focus right now the pandemic is the focus. After we get that settled we can start to look at addressing accumulated debt. That is when we will need to address spending and those of us fortunate enough not to have been affected will likely need to step up paying more taxes.

    3. Massive debt is the only possibility the world economy given the large economies with a fractional reserve policy and fiat money.

  15. This has devolved to one of those movie scenes where the lunatic has the pins with the dozens of strings eventually connecting the knights templar to the freemasons to the Rothschilds

  16. She was probably dumped because she was no longer of use.

    1. It’s all part of the plan. This way she can go undercover to expose the Soros – Clinton – China – deep state complex. It is not for nothing that Trump cultivated his friendship with Israel so she will have some help out there.

      When the time is right Trump will emerge from his Mar A Lago complex with revelations which will destroy the crooked rigged elections. A furious public will demand new elections and restore him to his proper place.

      1. And he’ll have morphed into his true form: Gozer the Gozerian, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, Lord of the Sebouillia.

        1. He was very big in Sumaria.

      2. And the South shall rise again!

      3. The SCOTUS sends it to the House.

        1. Sure. “House, decide this election. Biden won by 6 million popular votes and 76 electoral votes, but ignore that.”

          1. If massive fraud is proven yes ignore that.

          2. Why not just say he won by 45 million votes and Trump didn’t carry any states? It’s just as plausible as the bullshit you’re peddling.

            Oh also, we still don’t elect presidents by popular vote. You stupid sheep-fucking retards might want to take that onboard after 4 motherfucking years.

  17. “So why did Trump finally decide to disavow Powell? Citing unnamed “advisers,” The New York Times reports that Trump “has been agitated about Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell for a few days.” Evidently the president was put off by “how Ms. Powell had sounded” (nervous) and by “the black rivulets of liquid” that “dripped down Mr. Giuliani’s face” (apparently as his sweat mingled with hair dye), not to mention “how long the appearance had stretched on” (about an hour and a half).”

    I guess those are good reasons. Although spreading bullshit conspiracy theories are probably just a tiny bit worse.

    1. Really? I think she sounded upset. Livid with rage.

      1. Tell Trump

        1. Trump has been terrible picking his entourage.

          1. Trump has just been terrible, Period.

      2. Alas. The Kraken swimmeth no more.

    2. Although spreading bullshit conspiracy theories are probably just a tiny bit worse.

      Tell us more about how Russia hacked the election in 2016, sheep-fucker.

      1. Did I say anything about Russia hacking the 2016 election? I think not.
        Pussy Lips.

  18. The same people and organizations who brought you WMDs in Iraq, Russian collusion, and covid19, who also covered up illegal surveillance and Harvey Weinstein’s rapes, now bring you an election that features inexplicable statistical anomalies but not decisive fraud…

      1. Not only does that not “debunk” any fucking thing, but that isn’t the only statistical anomaly or the only tool of statistical analysis, nor did anyone ever claim it was dispositive. It’s just one of the many tools used to detect the likelihood of fraud in global elections for decades, and peddled by Vox-suckers like you when it was used in Iran when you were agitating for the war that Trump kept us out of.

        1. Nobody can say they didn’t try to litigate it. No matter how long you people carry on with this insane nonsense, you’ll always have to acknowledge that Trump took it to every court he could find and couldn’t convince them of anything. So I guess in a way he did the world a favor.

    1. You should be Trump’s legal team. Any judge would accept that as solid proof and overturn the election. Why didn’t I think of that.

      Oh, and Trump lost. Haaaaaahahahahaha. No more MAGA. It’s dead.

  19. There goes Reason upsetting the Trumpist sheep again.

    She was dumped because the others weren’t getting a share of the grift from her website.

    1. Tell us more about Russia hacking the 2016 election, sheep-fucker.

  20. “U.S. investigates voting machines Venezuela ties” (New York Times 2006)

    “The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez.

    The inquiry is focusing on the Venezuelan owners of the software company, the Smartmatic Corporation, and is trying to determine whether the government in Caracas has any control or influence over the firm’s operations, government officials and others familiar with the investigation said.”

    But after a municipal primary election in Chicago in March, Sequoia voting machines were blamed for a series of delays and irregularities. Smartmatic’s new president, Jack A. Blaine, acknowledged in a public hearing that Smartmatic workers had been flown up from Venezuela to help with the vote.

    Some problems with the election were later blamed on a software component, which transmits the voting results to a central computer, that was developed in Venezuela.”


    1. Nov 8, 2007 Press Release
      WASHINGTON – Smartmatic, the voting machine firm with ties to the Venezuelan government, today announced that it is divesting ownership of the voting machine company Sequoia Voting Systems. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) shined the congressional spotlight on the Sequoia purchase last year by Smartmatic because it posed serious national security concerns about the integrity of our elections. Last year, Smartmatic decided to sell Sequoia rather than complete an investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the government entity charged with ensuring the safety of foreign investment in the U.S.

    2. Veneuzela was Russia a decade before Russia was Russia. The same frenzy surrounded Venezuela in 2006 as surrounded Russia in 2016. Also fed by Democrats (Maloney of NY).

  21. Is Reason entering into RINO territory now?

    That said, the problem with the Trump team is that broad conspiracies, even if true, are now easily dismissed as conspiracy theories. They needed to stick to concrete acts of criminal acts and law breaking.

    1. If Powell can prove her allegations there would have been criminal acts and law breaking.

    2. Reason isn’t Republican. It’s (purportedly) small “l” libertarian although there are some LP fans in the crowd. And the Republican Party may have occasionally flirted with a libertarian idea now and again, but never in any committed, principle way. At this point, it’s just nationalism, populism, and a cult of personality.

  22. Here’s Dominion VP Eric Coomer in 2016 explaining to Illinois election officials how to cheat.

  23. But after a municipal number one election in Chicago in March, Sequoia vote casting machines had been blamed for a series of delays and irregularities. Smartmatic’s new president, Jack A. Blaine, recounted in a public listening to that Smartmatic workers were flown up from Venezuela to assist with the vote.

  24. Come on, to those who keep saying that Powell was never part of Trump’s legal team – even Rush Limbaugh, Trump’s number one radio toad, believes she was.

    During his radio show on Monday, Limbaugh began by knocking the legal team’s efforts to distance itself from Attorney Sidney Powell, telling his listeners “It’s a tough thing to deny that she was ever a part of it because they introduced her as part of it. I mean, she was at that press conference last week.”

    “The problem with that press conference last week, folks, it goes way beyond Sidney Powell,” Limbaugh said. “You call a gigantic press conference like that, one that lasts an hour, and you announce massive bombshells, then you better have some bombshells,” said the syndicated host who is heard on nearly 600 stations.


    1. 3 … 2 … 1 … Breaking News: Former conservative hero Rush Limbaush has been placed on the “RINO LIST” after telling listeners Sidney Powell is a poo poo head.

      1. I now want an audio file of Limbaugh saying poo poo head.

        1. You could have just said that to begin with instead of replying to your post with your sockpuppet account.

          1. Oh, is the same person who accused me of being Squirrel Girl?

  25. With the GSA pulling the trigger on ascertainment, the conspiracy theory play can move into it’s next act. As the curtain lifts, at center stage… Q-Anon!

  26. The good news is it seems things are winding down. Trump team is running out of lawsuits. Transition is getting under way. Reports are that Trumps digs at Mar A Lago are undergoing renovations and secret service is getting set up there.

    In other news Jill Biden is planning on making her famous deviled eggs and German potato salad for the coming inauguration celebrations.

    1. Oh, I do hope it’s roast beef!

    2. Yes, that’s great news for Democratic Party shills like you and the rest of the 50 centers and Koch-suckers.

      1. Do you ever have anything funny or witty to say, or do you always sit in the corner by yourself at Thanksgiving?

  27. Several states’ results would have to be overturned to change the POTUS result. Obviously out of 150M+ votes in an unusual year there are going to be a few irregularities – some of which are in Biden’s favor and some of which are in Trump’s favor. That’s no reason to suspect massive fraud.

    This is a joke – and as a conservative I’m sick of trying to defend all the good things conservatives have done amidst the support some conservatives are giving to the lunatic Trump.

    Unless there’s some REAL evidence of massive coordinated fraud (e.g. hard evidence of senior DNC officials plotting to throw the results or some gross statistical abnormalities) the Trump team should stop this circus now – as should the Republican party.

    1. there are going to be a few irregularities – some of which are in Biden’s favor and some of which are in Trump’s favor

      Actually there are no irregularities in this election that benefited Trump. Not a single fucking anomaly. Every single anomaly, of which there are thousands, benefiting Biden, and not in a minor way.

      But thanks for your concern trolling.

      1. “When Trump campaign lawyers have stood before courts under oath, they have repeatedly refused to actually allege grand fraud—because there are legal consequences for lying to judges.”

    2. I wouldn’t expect Trump supporters to give the most microscopic shit about the damage being done to the United States by peddling conspiracy theories that undermine faith in elections.

      They only like America if it does what they want it to do, and even then they want to round up half of us for wrongthink.

  28. Hey everyone. Is it just me or does the punchline of this joke make you laugh harder every time you read it? It’s so funny. If you want more info on it, read your papers.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.