SO, POLITICO SAYS STACY ABRAMS WAS MAKING UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF ELECTION FRAUD? SEEMS LIKE A BIG DEAL… “The original complaint included allegations that voting machines were vulnerable to hacking and were switching votes intended for Abrams into votes for Kemp. Fair Fight Action found two voters who said they had to select the button to vote for Abrams four times before the machine’s screen showed a vote for Abrams instead of Kemp. Fair Fight Action removed this allegation in December 2020 in a revised complaint, at the same moment then President Donald Trump was making similar unfounded allegations in his effort to overturn the presidential election results in Georgia.” (Emphasis mine.)

Do you think Politico actually meant to say that Abrams’ allegations were unfounded, or do you think it’s more likely that they so robotically demand fealty to the sacred principles of “Orange Man Bad” that you always have to say Trump’s allegations are unfounded regardless of context? (And yes, I know the story is mostly about funny business with legal fees, but isn’t that pretty much priced in to everything at this point?)