Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C  Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152-3041 February 26, 2022 am – Liberation
Day (Kuwait)

To: Distribution [Politicians, Media, Potentially-Interested Persons]

Re: PA “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART CCCXXIX] – Feedback [Cruz/ConCon]
{}

One of the advantages when dealing with a select group of ~600 “bcc” recipients is that
the fact-checkers abound. When they offer opinions regarding Mastriano, they are then
annotated; when they offer facts regarding two public affairs issues, they are now to be
probed in-full. In the first instance, my pro-Cruz bias was afoot and, in the second case,
my conversations with Constitutional Convention advocates/opponents were recalled.
Therefore, it’s desirable—in both instances—to stroll down Memory Lane to tackle the
essences of what should be gleaned from all levels of discourse [from the rough/tumble
of campaign maneuvers to the Constitutional Debate regarding how to help the trapped
Commonweal, facing an institutionalized national bureaucracy shrouded by Congress].

Regarding the first issue, two pieces were forwarded: [1]—Ben Carson accuses Ted Cruz's
Campaign of Trying to 'Distort Information' - Ben Carson said he thinks Ted Cruz's
campaign's "dirty tricks" may have affected the outcome of the Iowa caucuses; and [2]—
Ted Cruz apologizes for What Ben Carson Called "Dirty Tricks" on Caucus Night - Ben
Carson's campaign said it has accepted an apology from Ted Cruz over messages Cruz's
campaign sent to supporters Monday evening in Iowa suggesting that Carson might be
about to drop out of the race. I recall vividly what occurred and felt that Ted didn’t have
to have been solicitous, for his team forwarded CNN reports of sudden/strange conduct;
yet, in an abundance of caution, he overcompensated to resolve the issue expeditiously.

There WAS a “there, there” [Ben Carson pilloried After Announcing Hours Before Iowa
Caucus That He Was Headed Home to Florida to 'Get Fresh Clothes'] that was reinforced
by CNN [Dana Bash shared breaking news from reporter Chris Moody that Carson would
return home to Florida after the contest. “Ben Carson is going to go back to Florida, to his
home, regardless of how he does tonight here in Iowa. He’s going to go there for several
days, and then afterwards, he’s not going to go to South Carolina, he’s not going to go to
New Hampshire]. This was reinforced by a contemporaneous CNN tweet [After the
#IAcaucus, @RealBenCarson plans to take a break from campaigning http://cnn.it/Iowa
http://cnn.it/1WYvJ0J] and became a real-time discussion point [CNN’s Jake Tapper called
the announcement from Carson “very unusual” and noted “almost every single
candidate” would travel directly to New Hampshire after the caucuses. “If you want to be
President of the United States, you don’t go home to Florida,” Bash responded.]
Furthermore, on Twitter, @TheLeadCNN told its 32,000 followers that Carson “will return
to FL following #IAcaucus, will not go to either NH or SC.” The account for CNN’s politics
section tweeted to 420,000 followers that the retired neurosurgeon “plans to take a
break from campaigning.” Shortly before 8 p.m., a Carson spokesman tweeted the
candidate was “not standing down” and was simply returning to Florida to “get fresh
clothes” and dodge a winter storm in Iowa. The spokesman told TPM Carson would be in
D.C. Wednesday and Thursday for a “campaign event,” and then would continue on to
New Hampshire. The campaign also disputed rumors that Carson’s trip to Florida was a
mid-campaign vacation, which many read as a sign he would drop out.

At 8 p.m., just as the Iowa caucuses were beginning, some users of the Cruz campaign’s
official mobile app received a notification saying Carson was dropping out of the
presidential race. The notification cited a report from CNN. The alert said Carson “will
stop campaigning after Iowa” and urged users to tell people at the caucuses “they should
coalesce around the true conservative who will be in the race for the long haul: TED
CRUZ!” It also included a photo of a TV tuned to CNN, showing the network’s ever-present
“BREAKING NEWS” banner paired with the headline “Campaign: Carson To Take A Break
After Iowa.” Shortly after caucusing began [at 8:07 p.m. and 8:29 p.m.], a caller who
identified herself as a member of the Cruz campaign left two voicemails for an Iowa
precinct captain to notify her Carson “is taking a leave of absence from the campaign
trail.” The caller urged the captain to tell Carson voters the retired neurosurgeon was
“suspending campaigning” following the caucuses, and they should “not waste a vote on
Ben Carson.” At 8:20 p.m., Rep. Steve King fed the rumor mill [Carson looks like he is out.
Iowans need to know before they vote. Most will go to Cruz, I hope.] by citing CNN [Chris
Moody - Carson won't go to NH/SC, but instead will head home to Florida for some R&R.
He'll be in DC Thursday for the National Prayer Breakfast. At 10:50 p.m., Carson alluded
to unnamed rivals’ “dirty tricks” after fourth-place finish. In his Iowa concession speech,
which the retired neurosurgeon began before the race was called for Cruz, Carson
reiterated that he wasn’t “going anywhere.” He also bemoaned “dirty tricks” employed
in the caucuses, without assigning blame to any other campaign in particular.

“The Aftermath” detailed how Carson fingered the Cruz campaign as the source of the
rumors he was dropping out and said its shady tactics ruined his chances in Iowa during
an interview with “Fox and Friends.” “At many of the precincts, the information was
disseminated that I was suspending my campaign, that I had dropped out,” he said. “And
anybody who was planning to vote for me was wasting their vote and therefore they
should reconsider.” I felt it was a bit of a stretch for Carson to rationalize-away this loss.

Four years prior, I’d attended an Iowa Caucus as a spokesperson for Texas Gov. Rick Perry
and I was quite aware of the atmospherics surrounding the event. Each advocate spoke
@ 8 p.m. and engaged in Q&A prior to the group vote, and the take-away perception was
that most attendees had already decided whom they’d planned to support, pre-event.
Thus, it was absurd to think a statewide tsunami could be triggered AFTER the closed
caucuses had started, yielding sufficient magnitude to dump Carson so far from the lead.
The Donald used this event to trash Cruz, behavior preceded by Carson’s having spoken
fondly about Trump when he withdrew @ CPAC a few weeks hence, after Carson had
been projected to finish either last or second-last. I’d always felt Carson to have been a
bit weird, recalling how he’d claimed that the Egyptian pyramids had been built
(presumably under the Biblical Joseph) to store grain, contradicting all sorts of history.
[Numerous graphics ribbing him emerged, at least one of which I had circulated.]
Ultimately, remember he endorsed The Donald upon withdrawal, as did many others.

So, what have we here?

Cruz’s staff circulated accurate CNN reportage AFTER the caucuses had already started,
to an unknown number of at-site advocates, who may or may not have included this info
into what they said during caucuses at which most people had already picked preferences.
How many Carson supporters would be swayed by being provided such last-minute info?
Thereafter, Cruz immediately took responsibility, and this hasty in-the-heat-of-battle
behavior didn’t recur. This hardly befits the “dirty tricks” of Donald Segretti, of ages past.
Regardless, ethical Cruz took immediate responsibility, despite doubt he had been
involved in the initial decision to disseminate the accurate/well-documented CNN report.

I wasn’t impressed then, and I’m less impressed now, after having reviewed chronology.

***

When I reported “Settled” election issues a few days ago [following Tuesday discussion
with the national experts on the Constitution and Election Integrity], I included this ‘graph
[note highlighted piece, included for completeness, that a reader fed-back as a rejoinder]:

Within this context, we rejected support for a risky Convention of States because, if lefties
can rig elections, they certainly can rig a constitutional convention; that would be a major
disaster placing the Bill of Rights under attack no matter the pathway to the event. Yet,
The Right is Betting The Constitution On An Article V Convention, approval of which has
hit the Halfway Mark; in a party-line vote, the Republican-controlled PA Senate State
Government Committee advanced a resolution that calls for a convention to consider
placing limitations on the federal government’s authority (and spending) without
weighing the chance they’d trigger a runaway event. Also, the Wisconsin Legislature
Passed a Resolution Calling For an Article V Convention Of States. To quote the sage
Christopher Wright, “If Soros wants it, I’m against it.” [With due respect to Mark Levin.]

The Federalist channeled Mark Levin’s view that this is the only way to limit the Feds.
Although discounted there, the consensus view here was that a runaway event was both
inevitable and potentially fatal to fundamentals in the Constitution and Bill-of-Rights.
This is a long-slog and naysayers should provide alternatives; the issue is clearly alive.