Here's A Nice Reminder That Laura Ingraham's Brother Hates Her Too

Illustration for article titled Here's A Nice Reminder That Laura Ingraham's Brother Hates Her Too
Screenshot: Fox News (Fair Use)

On Tuesday evening, Fox News host Laura Ingraham had on her show an anonymous poll worker from Nevada’s Clark County, who made some baseless and incredibly stupid claims that—contrary to any evidence whatsoever—the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris campaign was engaging in voter fraud. The worker claims that she saw, with her own eyes, people next to a Biden/Harris van ripping open envelopes and marking what she believed were ballots. Aside from the fact that this would be a very dumb way to commit fraud, I repeat, there is no evidence of voter fraud. It just didn’t happen!


That Ingraham gave airtime to this anonymous woman is not a surprise. Also not a surprise, but delightful nonetheless? Ingraham’s older brother Curtis, who despises her, continues to call her out on her bullshit.

“My sister has become a complete and total wackadoo!” Curtis, a teacher in California, wrote on Twitter in response to his sister’s segment.

This isn’t the first time that Curtis has taken a stand against his sibling. In an interview from 2018 with the Daily Beast, Curtis repeatedly described his sister as a “monster” as well as “destructive.”

“She’s very smart, she’s well spoken, but her emotional heart is just kind of dead,” Curtis told the Daily Beast. “And you see it in her face when you see her on TV. She’s ready to destroy. She does not listen to understand—she listens to respond. And her response is always an attack.”

According to NBC News, in a Facebook post, Curtis blamed his sister’s noxious views on their father. “Our father was a Nazi sympathizer, racist, anti-Semite and homophobe,” Curtis Ingraham wrote. “Like father like daughter?”


Curtis, who is gay, told the Daily Beast that Ingraham’s anti-LGBT stances were a “betrayal”:

But he said Laura became more religious in subsequent years, and began to waver in her newly empathetic positions on LGBT rights. In private conversations with her brother about issues like same-sex marriage, she said she would have to “agree to disagree” with him.

He told The Daily Beast that, to him, Laura’s change of heart on LGBT issues and gay marriage at the time constituted a betrayal.

“That goes against my ethics,” he recalled thinking. “You’re destroying me. It’s hideous, it’s hideous behavior.” He added: “That’s what I’m trying to unveil here, the hypocrisy. ‘Family’s first, I know about gay rights, my brother is gay.’ It’s all a sham.”


In recent days, Curtis has continued to make his opinions about his younger sister known. “Spin away spider sister,” he wrote in response to a tweet from Laura; in another, he described her as the “antithesis of character.”

Curtis, you have my deepest sympathies for being related to such a scumbag, but keep up the good work!

Senior reporter, Jezebel


The Ghost of James Madison's Rage Boner

This whole sordid episode is yet another demonstration that the right now lives in a reality-free bubble of its own construction. All allegations that support their positions are to be accepted without any forensic analysis whatsoever, no matter how facially preposterous they are; all explanations that debunk these allegations are to be rejected out of hand.

I’ve seen many, many serious, highly educated and qualified people trying to address the crazy fraud theories on Twitter, and it makes no dent in any of it. One good example is this right-wing meme that Biden’s vote totals violate a statistical theory known as Benford’s Law that describes how certain random distributions will fall. Multiple PhD statisticians have tried to explain why Benford’s Law can’t be applied to election results, but the meme has proven invulnerable. Here’s one attempt.

I am not a statistician, but I am a lawyer, and what I can tell you (again) here is to pay attention what Trump’s lawyers are actually arguing in court, not what they’re saying on Twitter and Laura Ingraham’s show. That is because lawsuits require admisible, provable evidence, not echo-chamber nonsense like this. And their actual legal arguments are so weaksauce it’s laughable.