We previously discussed the unsubstantiated and unsupported claims made by Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow. However, an interview on Newsmax reveals how out of control this debate got when a host tried to stop Lindell from making unsupported claims. Eventually, Anchor Bob Sellers left the set in a live breakdown on national television.
Anchor Bob Sellers was quick to interrupt Lindell as he accepted his claims that the voting machines had been tampered with.
Within a few days of the election, most of us said there was no evidence of systemic fraud and increasingly criticized the Trump team for failing to provide evidence of such fraud when using these machines. When we looked at the challenges, it was clear that the anomalies reported in using the Dominion computers were due to human error and not the computers themselves. We haven’t seen convincing evidence to change that view.
I have been very critical of Lindell and his statements since the election. Indeed, I would still like a commission to finally and definitely dispel all these claims in the minds of many who are still in doubt. There are clearly many, like Lindell, who hold such views and believe the evidence exists. Fine. I would like to review it, just as we would review such evidence in post-election coverage. Why don’t you let them present such evidence in an open and transparent commission? Many will not accept contrary conclusions on either side, but I believe the majority would. Otherwise, this conversation will be repeated endlessly on Newsmax for years.
Newsmax was apparently looking for an interview about the freedom of speech concerns raised by excluding individuals or groups. As many on this blog know, I do not support the censorship of such views or the banning of people like Lindell or his colleagues on the left. Sellers have just shown how such statements can be approached with counter-statements. False statements can be refuted by true statements. That’s the beauty of freedom of speech. As with the outrageous speech of some leftists, I believe that protecting freedom of speech for people like Lindell is better than sliding down the slippery slope of censorship. We can all contest such statements through free speech.
Lindell should have used the interview to defend his freedom of speech and not to justify tampered or compromised computers. That was the reason for the segment. The interview went from bad to bad quickly:
It was a scene that perfectly captures an age of anger where reason is now a stranger.