On Thursday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson confronted former Obama Department of Justice spokesman Matthew Miller for suggesting that Donald Trump’s presidency is illegitimate and the election was not “fair and square.”
Such debates have been catalysts for drawing eyeballs to Carlson’s eponymous FNC show and his promotion to 9:00 p.m. Eastern. That being said, this particular one didn’t disappoint.
Following a tame debate over the DOJ’s decision to investigate how the FBI looked into the Clinton e-mail server, Carlson turned to Miller’s recent history of calling into question whether the next President of the United States has legitimacy to run the country.
“So, I think there is a cloud over Donald Trump’s victory. I think there are questions about the legitimacy of his presidency,” Miller complained.
Carlson eventually had enough and chastised Miller for making such an accusation considering he was a former high-ranking government official:
But the point — look, okay, so I’m glad that you can see you think Trump is potentially illegitimate. You tweeted this today: “Was Trump dually elected? Of course he was. Was the election free and fair? By typical Western democratic standards? Absolutely not.” You said again, I am not sure why it’s not okay to question Trump’s legitimacy. He was elected but it wasn’t fair and square. In what sense was it not fair and square and why would you write someone like that as a former public official?
Miller declined to back down, responding:
It wasn’t fair and square in the sense that you had the intervention of the nation’s top investigative official, Jim Comey, 11 days before the election, that clearly had an impact on voters as they went to the — the voting booths and you had an intervention by a foreign government that was seeking to subverts our democracy and elect Donald Trump, according to our intelligence.
The FNC host countered by asking if he has “any evidence at all that the intervention, as you described it by Russia, and we’re assuming that happened,” but Miller dodged by complaining about studies by political scientists (read: other liberals).
Among other points, Miller cited “a four-point job in Clinton’s poll numbers in the final days of the election” due to the Comey letter and WikiLeaks.
“Well, I can’t prove the moon landing isn’t real either, but I kind of assume it is because I know evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence that Russia, in any way, affected the actual outcome,” Carlson humorously shot back.
Miller trotted out the Comey blame game, but Carlson blasted him for ignoring his questions about naming “specific way that Russia affected the outcome of the election and give me one even scintilla of evidence that that actually happened”:
MILLER: So, I think, you know, this is a question of whether you assumed that the intelligence agencies are correct in their assumptions. This is the first thing that happened.
CARLSON: No, the intelligence say, Russia tried to do this. You’re saying, they had the desired outcome by affecting the election itself.
MILLER: Right. Right.
CARLSON: And they have no evidence that that is true.
For all the talk about Trump supporters or those opposed to Hillary Clinton being conspiracy theorists, this segment proved that there’s plenty of it on the left: “You can look at the timing and look at the timing of Clinton’s drops in the polls, and the last 11 days. I’m not saying Russia by itself. I’m saying Russia combined with the Comey Letter.”
With time winding down, Carlson unloaded:
Look, I guess what’s so frustrating here is that there is no evidence that has had an effect on the election. Now maybe it did, maybe it didn’t, but we can’t say that it didn’t. Sure, you are saying it was not free and fair which is a very big claim for someone who is widely believed, like you, a former public official to me, but I would say this. Here is what we do know. Mrs. Clinton didn’t have an economic message. The middle class did not vote for her. Huge parts of the country, the center of the country, non-rich people and non-poor people ignored her appeals. Would it be more fruitful to a Democrat to say like, let’s get that economic message, like let’s listen to the middle class.
Here are the relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s Tucker Carlson Tonight on January 12:
FNC’s Tucker Carlson Tonight
January 12, 2017
9:03 p.m. EasternTUCKER CARLSON: I’m talking about the investigation announced today who’s only purpose and you know it as well as I is to discredit Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential race. The point of this whole thing is there is a cloud over it. It was unfair. That’s the point and why is that a point that Americans should pay for with their tax dollars?
MATTHEW MILLER: So, I think there is a cloud over Donald Trump’s victory. I think there are questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, but I don’t think that is what the inspector general is looking at. I don’t think that’s why he’s doing it. In fact, if you look at the same announcement today, there are several things he’s looking into that go to Democratic officials.
(....)
CARLSON: But the point — look, okay, so I’m glad that you can see you think Trump is potentially illegitimate. You tweeted this today: “Was Trump dually elected? Of course he was. Was the election free and fair? By typical Western democratic standards? Absolutely not.” You said again, I am not sure why it’s not okay to question Trump’s legitimacy. He was elected but it wasn’t fair and square. In what sense was it not fair and square and why would you write someone like that as a former public official?
MILLER: It wasn’t fair and square in the sense that you had the intervention of the nation’s top investigative official, Jim Comey, 11 days before the election, that clearly had an impact on voters as they went to the — the voting booths and you had an intervention by a foreign government that was seeking to subverts our democracy and elect Donald Trump, according to our intelligence.
CARLSON: Do you have any evidence at all that the intervention, as you described it by Russia, and we’re assuming that happened. I don’t think it’s a foregone fact, but do you have any evidence at all that that affected the election?
MILLER: You know, you’ll never be able to definitively say, but — but political scientists have looked at this already, have said you can see a four-point job in Clinton’s poll numbers in the final days of the election.
CARLSON: Because of Russia?
MILLER: It’s impossible to say?
CARLSON: Well, I can’t prove the moon landing isn’t real either, but I kind of assume it is because I know evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence that Russia, in any way, affected the actual outcome?
MILLER: I think that, if you look at the timing of Comey’s — I think you have to look at all these things together. If you look at the timing of Comey’s letter, if you look at the continued stories that were coming out through WikiLeaks time and time again in the last 30 days of the election and then you look in those last 11 days, when all those were coming to the forefront at the same time, a drop in Clinton’s polls — it’s fair — no —
CARLSON: But you’re dodging my question on Russia. Name one specific way that Russia affected the outcome of the election and give me one even scintilla of evidence that that actually happened. I don’t think that exists.
MILLER: So, I think, you know, this is a question of whether you assumed that the intelligence agencies are correct in their assumptions. This is the first thing that happened.
CARLSON: No, the intelligence say, Russia tried to do this. You’re saying, they had the desired outcome by affecting the election itself.
MILLER: Right. Right.
CARLSON: And they have no evidence that that is true.
MILLER: No. I’m saying you first have to assume that the intelligence agencies are right. If you assume that, then you have to look at what happened at the end of the election when you had Trump repeatedly talking about WikiLeaks out on the campaign trail. If it wasn’t so effective, why was he talking about it all the time? I think he clearly thought it would make a difference. I think he clearly thought it would make a difference because he wouldn’t have been talking to voters about all the time if he didn’t. Of course you can never definitively say. You can never look and say there are a million things that are —
CARLSON: But you have no evidence at all. I guess that’s what I’m saying. I mean, this —
MILLER: You can look at the timing and look at the timing of Clinton’s drops in the polls, and the last 11 days. I’m not saying Russia by itself. I’m saying Russia combined with the Comey Letter.
CARLSON: Look, I guess what’s so frustrating here is that there is no evidence that has had an effect on the election. Now maybe it did, maybe it didn’t, but we can’t say that it didn’t. Sure, you are saying it was not free and fair which is a very big claim for someone who is widely believed, like you, a former public official to me, but I would say this. Here is what we do know. Mrs. Clinton didn’t have an economic message. The middle class did not vote for her. Huge parts of the country, the center of the country, non-rich people and non-poor people ignored her appeals. Would it be more fruitful to a Democrat to say like, let’s get that economic message, like let’s listen to the middle class.
MILLER: I think it’s possible to believe two things at once. I think all of those things are fair criticisms. I think you can point to mistakes that the Clinton campaign made. Many Clinton campaign officials have come out and said that after the election. All of that can be true and she could still had been headed to win.
CARLSON: Really? Because I don’t hear that. You’re a smart guy.
(....)
CARLSON: Okay, but the election was two months ago and today we have a new investigation into this whose only purpose is to make Democrats feel like you know what? It’s not our fault.
