Since the release of all of the evidence gathered in the disputed Senate runoff, there’s been some confusion and even ridicule of the inclusion of McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner irregular vote.
As I scanned the Internet over the past week, I saw several national stories that mocked the McDaniel camp for contesting the vote of their own lawyer. And sadly this same sort of silly rhetoric has come from some of McDaniel’s very own supporters, who apparently have not thought the matter through.
Chris McDaniel is a man of integrity and is eager to get to the bottom of the voting fraud and irregularities, regardless of where the votes came from or who cast them. Any vote that has any questions about it whatsoever needs to be questioned.
This is particularly true in the case of absentee ballots. State law governs the preciseness of those types of votes and how they must be cast. If they are not done in accordance with state law, for whatever reason, then they must be tossed out.
The media in Mississippi knows these facts, yet have remained silent or resorted to mockery and ridicule. Do you think they would have acted this way if a supporter of McDaniel had cast a questionable vote and it was NOT challenged?
Once again it is the media attempting to control the narrative with selective reporting, which is a major story within the story of the Mississippi Senate race.
Since the media seems incapable of reporting the real story, here are just a few questions for them to consider:
Why did Kirk Sims get replaced so soon after the runoff and the questions of fraud began to mount?
Where is Sims now? Where is Cochran? Where on Earth is Haley Barbour? And why has he or his illustrious nephew answered any questions about their shady race-baiting ads?
Where did the tens of thousands in cash money go that was paid to these people to “get out the vote”?
Perhaps if the media in Mississippi, as well as around the country, would ask the right questions of the right people and do some actual reporting, then this issue would have been solved long ago.