I took a closer look at your link and the book it references. Who knows? I could be in a bubble or just have missed important info about it. I'll readily admit,

I took a closer look at your link and the book it references. Who knows? I could be in a bubble or just have missed important info about it. I'll readily admit, I do not hold The Washington Examiner in high regard for its journalistic integrity, and the book seemed like a typical partisan hatchet job. But I could be wrong. It's always important to examine where we're wrong, where our assumptions lead us astray. Here's where it went off the rails. > In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes. > Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election. Would it surprise you to learn that the recount did not occur due to "Franken's army of lawyers" but instead because ALL ELECTIONS in Minnesota by Minnesota law MUST have a recount if the margin of victory is less than 0.5%? I certainly didn't get that important but if info from the Examiner or the passage quoted from the book. So where did Franken's extra votes come from? Thin air? The cemeteries? No. 953 absentee ballots had been mistakenly rejected. Not all of the absentee votes went to Franken of course, but enough did where the lead shifted. Was it a close race? Yes. Was it a contentious race? An eight-month saga to be sure. Did the election go through a far greater amount of scrutiny that most elections? Most definitely! Now ask yourself this question honestly: do you think the Washington Examiner and the book would have been this inflammatory in their description of events had Coleman won by 0.01%? Would they have called any legislation narrowly passed/rejected with Coleman's senate votes suspect or illegitimate? Answer: no. The Washington Examiner continues to be a partisan mouthpiece created solely because conservatives didn't like The Washington Post calling them out all the time. Same by the way for The New York Post regarding The New York Times. The names chosen were conspicuously close to the papers of record precisely because they wanted to muddy the waters. Just partisan wrangling? I think not. The WaPo and NYT both regularly issue corrections to their news reporting. Any news outlet will make mistakes, and any honest news outlet will issue corrections/retractions without having been legally required to do so, even if it materially subverts the original news report. If you can find three prominently-displayed and substantive corrections/retractions by The Washington Examiner that were not court-ordered, I will publicly apologize here and concede the point. For point of reference, public substantive corrections look like this: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/troubling-corrections-at-the-washington-post-new-york-times-and-nbc-news/ https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/troubling-correctio...