Friday, May 19, 2023

#2646: Mellissa Carone

Mellissa Carone is a deranged, incoherent lunatic who rose to fame right after the 2020 election because she happened to do work for Dominion Voting Systems at the time (she was “hired through a staffing agency for one day to clean glass on machines and complete other menial tasks”) and recognized the career opportunity that presented itself in forwarding false and utterly baseless claims of election fraud in Michigan. In an affidavit from November 10, 2020, Carone alleged that some ballots were counted four or five times, that more than 100,000 ballots were then “found” after vans dropped off food for the poll workers, that poll workers were filling out ballots on behalf of voters, and that her managers were incompetent. She forwarded no shred of evidence to corroborate the claims, but they were sure popular with certain crowds of conspiracy theorists, who promptly launched Carone to national fame – she immediately became Rudy Giuliani’s star witness at a Michigan House and Michigan Senate Oversight Committees panel on Trump’s baseless fraud allegations. Her eccentric performance (she struggled mightily, and repeatedly, to describe what her job tasks for Dominion were, for instance) went predictably viral, including her exchange with GOP Rep. Steve Johnson after she had claimed that a batch of 30,000 votes had been counted multiple times.


SJ: “We’re not seeing the poll book off by 30,000 votes.”

MC (animated): “What’d you guys do, take it and do something crazy to it?

SJ: “I’m just saying the numbers are not off by 30,000 votes.”

MC: “I’d say that poll book is off by over 100,000 [votes],” (later adding that there were “zero registered voters” in the county’s poll book, whereupon even Giuliani had to try to shush her).


Her allegations were predictably determined to be “not credible” by a Wayne County judge two days later. “I never wanted to be thrown out into the public eye the way I was,” lied Carone.


In 2022, she attempted to capitalize on her infamy to run, together with a large cohort of pro-Trump Republican conspiracy theorists and election deniers, for a suburban Detroit-based open state House seat, earning endorsements from Guiliani, Mike Lindell and the Macomb County Republican Party. Her platform included railing against vaccine mandates, open borders (to Canada?) and perceived traitors among other Republican lawmakers (primarily those who didn’t endorse the insane Big Steal conspiracy), as well as pushing the expected white nationalist talking points (“they’re trying to eliminate the white people in America, particularly the white male in America,” yelled Carone) and – of course – election fraud conspiracy theories, including repeating debunked claims about shredded ballots in Georgia and claiming that 75 percent of Americans voted for Trump, something she knew “for a fact” after listening “to Rudy Giuliani every night – his comments on his YouTube channel.” She also claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the Jan. 6 violence on Jan. 6 was “led by Antifa.”


Diagnosis: Local dingbat clown, unfettered by the chains of reason, evidence, fact or decency – exactly what frighteningly large portions of the electorate desire, though one may still hope that Carone remains simply too incompetent to manage to get herself elected to anything anytime soon.


  1. Well, the only positive thing about her "personality" is her lush blonde hair. (Unfortunately, that hair adorns a completely empty head).

  2. Well, let's see ... I recall early morning, Nov 4, 2020. Waking up, going into check on the progress of Election 2020 results ... making a long story short here ... looking at a web page displaying massive vote "spikes" representing thousands of votes all for Biden, along with a discussion of how this was statistically impossible. Ever thought that maybe the trucks bringing in "votes for Biden" at 3 am might be real? I dunno, I tried to find the site a few days later as I was working on an article exploring the possibility that the election was being stolen right in front of us, only to discover that it had been scrubbed from the Internet. I found a screenshot which I later learned had also been removed.

    Believe this, or not. Your choice. I don't really care. In the infamous words of Hillary in another context, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

    When my article appeared, I found myself in correspondence with a couple of poll workers in Michigan. Mellissa Carone might have been one of them, but I can't swear to it (I didn't save the emails). One was a woman; the other, a man. The woman seemed perfectly sane to me, but very uncomfortable and unaccustomed to being in the spotlight (and also going through some serious personal issues I won't disclose here which local media were sadistically using in an attempt to discredit her). If it was her, then her exchange with the GOP Rep. indicated that she was flustered, not that she was wrong. It happens. We're not all expert at speaking in public.

    Both had filed affidavits (sworn before a notary on penalty of perjury) alleging having witnessed misconduct in their precincts. Both disappeared, however. The man told me not to email him further as his computer had been hacked and he'd received death threats.

    As for the affidavits, they were just two of hundreds that also vanished. Maybe Orwell's concept of "memory-holing" is relevant here, no?

    Again, though, you "rationalist" folks are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Maybe, though, you can explain how a man with all the charisma of a sack of potatoes who barely campaigned and can barely speak a coherent sentence without a teleprompter loses a national election by 7 million votes to a man who fills arenas ... whatever you think of him personally. It's possible, of course, just not very likely.

    But no, this was a "free and fair democratic election," "the most secure election in U.S. history," "no evidence of voter fraud," "these are all baseless conspiracy theories," etc., etc., and if you're a little bit skeptical you're an "election denialist." All brought to you by the same people who spent over two years trying to delegitimize the outcome of Election 2016 using bogus intel about "Russian collusion" that in all likelihood never happened.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Biden won the 2020 election because seven million more of us were sick and tired of explaining Trump's behavior to our kids. Unlike your ilk, we saw Trump for the toxic, hateful, divisive child that he was and is. It's really that simple, your long, rambling bullshit story notwithstanding.

  3. "... looking at a web page displaying massive vote 'spikes' representing thousands of votes all for Biden"

    Are you still wondering about the spikes, or do grown-up once again have to provide the mundane facts here to you?

    And no, that you spoke with some fellow conspiracy theorists who claimed that there was voter fraud without offering a shred of evidence (including no evidence for computer hacking or death threats) doesn't really count for much. The affidavits disappeared ...? How convenient for the conspiracy theory narrative.

    Explaining how Biden could win despite his lack of charisma (I agree) isn't very hard. A lot of people decide who to vote for based in part on policy, not charisma (us Europeans have always wondered why Americans focus so much on that personal charisma bit - look at European state leaders). More importantly, lots and lots of voters voted not primarily *for* Biden, but *against Trump*, and would have voted for a ball of shower drain content if it were the candidate running against Trump.

    And the difference between healthy skepticism and denialism is a matter of *adjusting one's credence to the evidence*. Being a skeptic is healthy, but once the evidence is in, skeptics adjust their beliefs and change their minds. Continuing to stick to your beliefs regardless of the facts and never admitting that you were wrong, however, is denialism: not being willing to change your mind isn't skepticism, but dogmatism.

    1. "Being a skeptic is healthy, but once the evidence is in, skeptics adjust their beliefs and change their minds."

      And how is it that conspiracy theorists can not understand this laughable simple sentence /fact?! They think of themselves as the most "skeptical of all the skeptical skeptics".

      Well, that's because they are not at all skeptical but to the core dogmatic idiots, as you pointed out. And that's b/c consp. theorists are the same as religtards i.e. comes from the same cesspool.

  4. I figured my comment would trigger you pseudo-rationalists. I've already replied. Go back, read my 2nd paragraph. It's short, won't exceed your attention spans. Not undertaking a reply here as any further back-and-forth in here would waste my time. I've no interest in attempting dialogue with a group of folks who scream CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!! at everything outside their Propaganda-Industrial Complex narratives. Enjoy your website.

    1. You're not a conspiracy theorist; theories have a basis in fact. I call you people "conspiracy loons." And your use of the word "trigger" clearly demonstrates your inability to have an original thought. Go back to Infowars.

    2. Yeah, but I don't think you're being completely honest in that short paragraph you're referring to. I mean, if you really didn't care, why did you write that whole comment in the first place?

      And we are - and I emphasize this - not shutting down any debate by screaming "CONSPIRACY THEORY". We have been promised evidence, but not a shred of evidence has been forthcoming; meanwhile, alleged eyewitnesses like Carone (who demonstrably wasn't a "poll worker" in any meaningful sense) aren't even semi-consistent in their allegations: nothing in her story hangs together, even if you bracket the question of whether the story fits the facts. In short, no evidence has been presented whatsoever that points in the direction of widespread election fraud.

      And if you continue to believe that there was, without any evidence whatsoever, then no: that's not healthy skepticism but denialism. And note that I am not complaining that you haven't offered any evidence to *us* (I didn't expect that you would). The thing is that you have no evidence to offer *yourself* that could withstand even cursory scrutiny. *You* should recognize that you are maintaining a belief that is entirely groundless ... which you also keep asserting and wish for others to take seriously. That's not a good look.

      And evidence that has gone missing isn't very impressive. Evidence that's conveniently missing *has* been the standard response of conspiracy theories for ages: I believe conspiracy theory X; I have no evidence for X; that just shows how deep the conspiracy goes. That's the kind of epistemic hell conspiracy theorists typically find themselves in, and it's sort of a hallmark of conspiracy thinking. And what you have offered so far here fits that pattern strikingly well. You recognize that, right? It's a way of thinking that makes your beliefs entirely immune to adjustment. You should give it some reflection.

    3. G.D., you've spent much more time on that guy than he deserves. Personally, I don't argue with people like Steven for the same reason doctors don't give medicine to corpses.

    4. To paraphrase esteemed political think tank Motley Crue, the only thing worth saying to you is: "Steve - don't go away mad, just go away."