Read on Twitter
Tucker basically says: so there's a few cases of fraud, but probably not on a scale to change the outcome
He of course surrounds this with a lot of grievance about those trying to silence those who doubt the election, but basically calls for litigating and recounting with little doubt it will ultimately affirm the result
I believe the technique is called “pacing and leading”
"At this stage, the fraud that we can confirm does not seem to be enough to alter the election results. We should be honest and tell you that. Of course that could change. But changing the election result is not the whole point..."
So he's being a bit slippery and leaving himself some wiggle room -- and letting people hear what they want. But he later goes on to say that the ask is for an investigation to restore trust, not aiming at a particular result.
"The point isn't that we need to keep investigating until Donald Trump wins. That is not the point. The point is we need to find out what happened so the rest of us believe the system is real."
The rest is fighting with the media, recapitulating claims made in the lawsuits, etc. But the two linked segments are the keys that tell us where he actually stands on the factual question.
The generous reading is that he's urging Congress play a game of charades to placate the crazies.
The ungenerous reading is that he's creating a structure of confirmation bias to go apeshit when Congress refuses the charade.
The ungenerous reading is that he's creating a structure of confirmation bias to go apeshit when Congress refuses the charade.
Because I don't actually think he's trying to break democracy but to contain his own profitable brinksmanship, I incline toward the former reading.
