Trump’s Midas Touch: Legal Experts Line Up To Declare The Georgia Call As The Latest Crime By Trump

For many legal analysts, President Donald Trump remains a type of criminal Midas figure: everything he says or does turns instantly into a crime.  Over the last few years, the media has published a long line of unfounded criminal theories by experts claiming that a tweet or a meeting or a statement established a clear prosecutable case. It is a popular and profitable take with the media which has been feeding an insatiable appetite for such reassuring views.  Law has become a recreation and legal analysts have become part of the legal entertainment.

This pattern is continuing to the very end of the Trump Administration. Within minutes of the leaking of a call between Trump and Georgia election officials, the same experts were declaring yet another clear crime.  The loudest was Andrew Weissmann whose desire to find a crime to use against Trump appears to move from an obsession to a delusion.

I do not fault those who read the statement in an incriminating fashion. It can be read in an incriminating fashion. However, there is clearly a non-incriminating meaning that also can be taken from the transcript. That is not reasonable basis for a criminal allegation. There may be evidence that supports a criminal allegation related to this call but the transcript does not come close to a prosecutable case.

Since his departure as the top deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann (now a MSNBC analyst and a NYU law professor) seems intent on proving his critics correct about his profound bias against President Donald Trump and his reckless approach to prosecutorial standards.  He recently called for prosecutors to use grand juries to pursue Trump and others in an unrelenting campaign based on unfounded legal theories.  His recent book has been denounced by other prosecutors as unprofessional and inappropriate.  Weissmann previously called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation and, after the pardon of Roger Stone, called for Stone in a grand jury. Now, he is insisting that the call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is clearly a criminal act.  While I admittedly come to these questions from the counter perspective of a criminal defense attorney, the claim is legally absurd.

The Saturday call is now well-known, though few have actually read the full transcript. Yesterday, Raffensperger acknowledged that he made the decision to release the tape of a settlement discussion two days before the critical Georgia election. As a matter of legal practice, the taping (let alone the release) of settlement discussions is considered highly inappropriate. In some states, it would constitute a crime to engage in such nonconsensual taping. (Georgia is a one party consent state).

When the tape was released, many of us immediately criticized the statement of the President that “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.” However, experts immediately declared yet another clear criminal act and some members even called for a type of twilight impeachment in the last couple weeks of the Trump Administration.  Weissmann declared immediately that the tape showed “criminal intent” as well as “proof of his motive and his pattern of similar activity.”

The problem is that Weissmann again left the criminal code and controlling case law behind in his blind pursuit of Trump.  He was not alone. There is no established crime in this transcript under federal law.

As with the obstruction allegations investigated by Robert Mueller and the Ukrainian call that was the basis for the impeachment, this comes down to a question of intent. While most experts are notably vague on the specific criminal provision, one possibility would be election fraud under 52 U.S. 20511, which covering any person who “knowingly and willfully intimidated, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce” any person exercising the right to vote. This was not a direct intimidation of a voter but it could be claimed to be interfering with that right.

However, such an interpretation comes to a full stop at intent. This was a settlement discussion over election challenges with a variety of lawyers present, not some backroom at the Bada Bing club. The entire stated purpose of the challenges was to count what the Trump campaign alleged were uncounted votes that surpassed the 11,780 deficit. Trump repeatedly asserted that he won the election and put forward different theories of how many more votes were destroyed or not counted. He continued to return to the fact that they only need to confirm 11,780 of those hundreds of thousands of allegedly uncounted ballots.

The Georgia lawyers on the call did a good job in rebutting Trump’s theories and showing that there are not hundreds of thousands of uncounted or miscounted ballots. Yet, in any criminal case, Trump would simply argue that he was restating the point of the pending cases in a settlement negotiation: that the election was not fair and that he actually won. That is a view shared by roughly 40 percent of the public. A prosecutor would have to show that Trump clearly knew that his theories were bogus and that he did not believe there were sufficient ballots to reach that number.  As a criminal defense attorney, I would view a case built on that line as not just challengeable but laughable.

Even if the prosecutors could find a basis for establishing intent, they would still be pushing fraud statutes beyond an intelligible limits without more direct evidence of intent.  Ironically, this is the very issue that marred Weissmann’s career and the reason many of us viewed his selection by Mueller to be an egregious error.  Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led a unanimous Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005. He proceeded to make the same exaggerated claims with Mueller (which were apparently rejected by the staff) and has continued to do so as a MSNBC analyst.  He seems impervious to conflicting case law. Even a unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan does not appear to narrow his reading of such provisions. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the convictions in the “Bridgegate” case involving the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who refused to endorse then-Gov. Chris Christie. The Court observed:

“That requirement, this Court has made clear, prevents these statutes from criminalizing all acts of dishonesty by state and local officials. Some decades ago, courts of appeals often construed the federal fraud laws to “proscribe[] schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government.” McNally, 483 U. S., at 355. This Court declined to go along. The fraud statutes, we held in McNally, were “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Id., at 360. They did not authorize federal prosecutors to “set[] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials.” Ibid.”

Weissmann’s fraud prosecution would be based on a statement that could be easily defended as part of a settlement discussion over the findings of uncounted votes. There was no clear threat or benefit discussed. They were discussing what Trump was seeking in these challenges and his belief that fraudulent, and possible criminal, conduct marred the results.  One can reject those claims (as I have) without converting the matter into a faux criminal case.

Yet, readers are not satisfied with just a condemnation of Trump. They want a prosecution. To that end, another former prosecutor, Daniel Goldman, stepped forward to offer his own assurances of a criminal case to be made against Trump.  (House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff previously hired Goldman, who previously called Trump a “shameful” person who “doesn’t care about the country” and who “ ‘looks bad’ because he committed a crime.”).   Goldman focused on the line “It’s gonna be costly to you.” Goldman declared “I’ve charged extortion in mob cases with similar language.”  In reality, the line was “it’s going to be very costly in many ways” which is very different than “it will be costly to you.” The extortion theory is the same basic theory that was raised in the impeachment hearing. I testified at that hearing and noted that this type of unhinged interpretation has been previously rejected by the Supreme Court. The House ultimately declined to adopt any extortion article of impeachment.

I would be interested to see the cases that Goldman charged solely on this type of line. The statement in a settlement that further litigation is going to be “costly” is hardly unprecedented.  Moreover, Trump can point what he said after that line: “I think you have to say that you’re going to reexamine it, and you can reexamine it, but reexamine it with people that want to find answers, not people that don’t want to find answers.” Yet, like Weissmann, Goldman wants the public to believe that this would not just be a good case for prosecution but not unlike cases that he personally prosecuted. If he did bring a case on that type of evidence, it is hard to believe it would withstand a cursory pretrial challenge.

Of course, none of this matters. That is just law.  This is legal entertainment. In the echo chambers of our current news platforms, such views are rarely challenged. Viewers hear what they hoped to hear from experts who are eager to supply endless theories of criminality. Of course, the same endless flexibility in the criminal code does not extend to figures like Hunter or Joe Biden.  Trump just has that criminal Midas touch.

139 thoughts on “Trump’s Midas Touch: Legal Experts Line Up To Declare The Georgia Call As The Latest Crime By Trump”

    1. Liberty, they won’t let him in the country. Scotland already said Trump won’t be allowed in. There’s always Russia.

  1. He’s a Trump he’s a frump…
    He’s a crump all the way!
    From his first theft of coke…
    To his last frying day!

  2. “If we nominate Trump we will get destroyed – and we will deserve it.”

    Lindsay Graham, 2016

    Internal bloodbath just beginning.

    Good night.

  3. Nice question-begging. Since you don’t know what that means, i”ll explain that YOU ARE PRESUMING THE POINT THAT IS TO BE PROVEN,

    We don’t know he lost since irregularities in the process remain unexplained.

    1. You are doing what you claim another did.

      How about you list the “irregularities in the process remain unexplained,” proving that they’re real irregularities (and aren’t just complaints about things that people imagined but that aren’t real) and that they remain unexplained.

  4. ET TU, PENCE?






  5. “the transcript does not come close to a prosecutable case.”
    Perhaps then it is only typically, morally repulsive.
    Yet you can’t really blame Trump, a desperate man, all those felony indictments ready to drop and pesky NY State and City tax fraud investigations on simmer.

    1. Any such indictments would be illegal. You can’t investigate someone because you hate him. Any indictment would be the fruit of a poisonous tree and flagrantly unconstitutional.

      1. He’s investigated because of evidence that he broke laws. That people hate him doesn’t protect him from investigation and indictment, any more than people’s hate for pedophile Epstein protected him from being investigated and indicted. Trump’s lawyers are welcome to make your argument in court.

    2. Sounds to me like you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are perpetrating corruption, usurpation of power, abuse of power and violations of the public trust.

      Look at this:


      “Former head of China Huarong Asset Management given no option for reprieve

      “A Chinese court has sentenced a former banker and party official to death, in a high-profile bribery, embezzlement and bigamy case that has shocked the country.”

      – The Guardian

      The last guy I recall doing that was jailed for “malicious prosecution” which constitutes witting and deliberate dereliction for corrupt purposes – he being Mike Nifong, DA, Durham Cty., N.C.

      Before that, surely you heard, the Nazi Gestapo used the “law” as a weapon, not of necessity but for political/personal gain.

      And preceding that there was Kafka but that was fiction – I think it was fiction, wasn’t it?

    1. Would a good citizen “interfere” in an election that had been corrupted and tampered with?

      It is Pence’s sworn duty and moral and ethical obligation to oppose corruption, election fraud and vote tampering.

      Pence has truckloads of probable cause and he must act on it in whichever direction it leads.

      The American Communist Deep Deep State took out Nixon through election fraud and vote tampering in 1960 – Kennedy lost then received help from the Mob and some Texans.

      The American Communist Deep Deep State later took out JFK through criminal acts.

      The American Communist Deep Deep State is attempting to take out President Donald J. Trump through criminal acts.

      Pence will be, forever into eternity, a small, dishonorable and evil man if he fails the truth.

      Pence will take his deceit and betrayal to the Gates of Heaven, where he will petition for entry.

  6. My comment that starts with “why are you so hateful” is addressed to Anaonymous” who began his comment with “FROM THE COLUMN”– it is NOT addressed to Professor Turley. I don’t know why, when I specifically hit “reply” specifically below the comment I want to address, does my reply end up as a separate comment at the top of new comments?

  7. What makes you so hateful and tunnel-visioned? Did you lose a big one? By the way, it’s “Abrams,” not Abrahams-you know, -the one who had her sister try to block legitimate voter roll reviews? Just relax, read the comments, and narrow your responses to informational challenges, not vitriolic attacks. I think we’d all appreciate it

    1. Anonymous, what makes you so blind?? Obviously a call like this is totally out of the ordinary. An incumbent president, defeated for re-election, telephones a Secretary of State in a key battleground, asking to have 11,000 votes found. This is about as inappropriate as it comes. Especially after losing in dozens of courts!

      It doesn’t get any worse than this regarding post-election interference. To suggest that people concerned about this call are “hateful” or “tunnel-visioned” makes ‘you’ absolutely clueless. It’s like you’re in another orbit with no grasp of right or wrong.

        1. Cooking the books for Trump is not the job of the SoS. Trump was not asking for an audit, or an investigation into actual issues, but he was asking for the SoS to give him a specific number of votes so he would win.

      1. 400 ex-intel officers investigating 2020 election
        ‘Fraud was so massive and so blatant, despite what mainstream media said’ More than 400 former members of the nation’s intelligence communities who are part of a growing informal network believe there are irregularities in the 2020 elections and are conducting their own investigations.
        Robert Caron, who began his career with the CIA, told the Epoch Times, the network includes intelligence officers, analysts and operatives in the military, law enforcement and judiciary from the FBI, CIA, military intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and other agencies.
        “The fraud was so massive and so blatant, despite what the mainstream media said, that we need to get this information out to the public,” Caron (Ex CIA)told the Times. “That’s why more and more people from the intelligence community and law enforcement are coming out, which is unheard of.”

  8. What do you call a constitutional law professor if Biden and the Democrats control everything? A History professor. And once the 1st amendment is finally a thing of the past, that will be an unemployed professor. Our blog host is about to discover (if he hasn’t already) just how irrelevant his once respected legal blog has become, since a majority of people following his blog have absolutely no interest in the law.

    1. The Ds are not the ones that are proving themselves hostile to the constitution and the very idea of voting.

      1. You’re an idiot — doubly.

        The Democrats are the ones trashing the Constitution.

        And VOTING is not a good thing. Ideally NO ONE would be allowed to vet EVER. Did you ever read a book?

        Read Tullock & Buchanan’s “Calculus of Consent”. They merely won a Nobel Prize for it. Voting is a SUBSTITUTE for democracy.

        1. They won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which is not a political science prize.

          Thanks for recommending the book. It looks interesting. However, I doubt they said something like “Voting is a SUBSTITUTE for democracy” or “VOTING is not a good thing.” I just tried searching an online version of the book to find them saying these things, but didn’t see it. Perhaps I wasn’t using effective search terms; what section is it in?

      2. Your entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

        Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to “claim or exercise dominion over” or to possess or dispose of private property.

        Government exists to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

        Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

        You are a communist. You are not an American.

      3. The Ds are not the ones that are proving themselves hostile to the constitution and the very idea of voting.

        That’s either a bald-faced lie or you’re that ignorant of U.S. Civics. They might not have proven it to you, but they have proven it. Do you know why government exists? Do you know why we have a constitution? Do you know why we have laws? Here’s a clue from Federalist 51.

        If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

        Government exists because it’s not in our nature to merely respect the rights of others. The constitution exists because that same nature exists in those given the power to govern. And brace yourself; that nature exists regardless of their party affiliation. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. are all hostile to controls and as a result, the constitution is hostile to them. That’s the normal part. That’s the expected part. That’s not the problem. The problem is the citizens. They’ve become nothing more than fans in the stands of a sport where most don’t know the rules. All they know is they belong to a team and they want their team to win. The rules (constitution) are meant to control the play, but those rules are only as good as those that enforce them. And that includes the people. Jump offsides and get a clear shot at the QB, that usually gets caught by the line judge and so will the personal foul be called after the QB is blindsided and knocked out of the game. And how do the fans react? One side is outraged at the blatant violation of the rules and the damage done. The other side is roaring with approval because their team might win.

        So, when the fans come to see the rules as something only the other team are hostile to, then the real losers are the fans that believe that. Those that love the sport will walk away or fight to restore the integrity of the sport. We are at that point in this country. It looks like your team will have total control of the government. They’re on record promising to change the rules. What are the odds that every citizen will have better security of their lives, liberty and property?

  9. Alan Feuer (NYT):
    “NEW: The city of Detroit has just asked a federal judge to refer Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and the rest of Team Kraken for disbarment proceedings.
    “Powell & her colleagues filed 4 Kraken suits alleging a baseless conspiracy about foreign powers & Dominion voting machines. Judge Linda Parker in Detroit swatted it down. Detroit’s lawyers note that decision & say now it’s time for the lawyers ‘to answer for that misconduct.’ … ‘While the 1st Amendment may protect the right of political fanatics to spew their lies and unhinged conspiracy theories, it does not grant anyone a license to abuse our courts for purposes which are antithetical to our democracy and to our judicial system.’ (link to the full document in the last tweet of the thread)

    1. see Commit this is another overwrought “story”

      allow me to explain

      A request to a court for disciplinary action is a nothing. It is perhaps ignorant, or a knowingly false request. I will explain why

      Here is a lawsuit about x. One side claims it is frivolous. Well the judge can make that evaluation, in federal court under rule 11. That is not an ethical matter, per se, though it could be.

      But there are Rules of Professional Conduct. That are different than the Rules of Trial Procedure.

      Now, in a matter about x, there is an allegation of an ethical breach, call that y.

      Trial judge in charge of x is not in charge of y.

      Trial court judges do not evaluate disciplinary complaints in the context of some other pending action. They do not hear them. They refer them if they want to, to the disciplinary authorities. There is usually a commission which is appointed by the state supreme courts to hear ethical complaints. They have due process and judges and prosecutor and so forth. But trial judges do not issue rulings on ethical matters alleged to have been breached in pending matterss.

      I have seen this done. The judge said if you think you have an ethical complaint, report it to the proper authority. The trial judge is doing his job and that is not his job. I have also seen judges angry at lawyers make complaints themselves. But I have never heard a judge both hear a matter and then presume to adjudicate an ethical violation inside of the other matter.

      Do these lawyers know that? I don’t know. I don’t consider myself an expert in these matters but I have noticed a lot of lawyers including “Big Law” lawyers are often ignorant of the ethics enforcement process.

      So anyhow, if those lawyers want to file complaints on those Kraken lawyers as they are being called, they can do that, but that venue is not the proper venue for such complaints. And the lawyers may have or should have known that. So it is not really a significant story.

      I hope that you find this explanation helpful

      saloth sar

      1. She doesn’t want to hear it. Similarly one hears on television shows that an offending doctor will be reported to the American Medical Association. No he won’t. The AMA is a dwindling voluntary association like the Elks that has no authority over physician discipline. Nothing will come of this but another febrile demonstration of frothing hate acted out before an equally diseased media.

        CTHD will not only find your explanation unhelpful but undesirable. Madame Defarge will not get to enjoy rolling heads over this.

      2. Thanks, Kurtz, I do understand the difference between the rules for trial procedure and the professional conduct rules, but I appreciate your noting this in case it’s something I hadn’t understood, as that’s a relevant distinction here.

        I skimmed the motion, and as far as I can tell, they are not asking the judge to do something outside her purview. If you think they did, please identify the paragraph #s.

        Presumably if they have asked the judge to do something that’s not within her purview, she’ll say so in her response.

    2. Overmatched defendants have a basis for seeking disciplinary action against lawyers who file spurious lawsuits against them. The most powerful people in the world — and, as part of the coalition that rules this country and most of the rest of the world, the City of Detroit qualifies as such — DO NOT have such a basis.

    3. Envy engenders a cat fight.

      Looks like Powell is packin’ heat against an unarmed opponent.

      That’s just cruel.

    1. Biden won the election. Congress will certify the EC votes tomorrow, and he’ll be inaugurated in 2 weeks.

      1. She would know. All she has to do is look in the mirror. Her TDS is extreme…she should seek help!!

  10. Turley continues to be sloppy with evidence and sometimes dishonest.

    He claims that the call was a “settlement discussion.” He has provided no evidence of that.

    David Shafer, party to a suit against Raffensperger, tweeted the following:
    “President @realDonaldTrump has filed two lawsuits – federal and state – against @GaSecofState. The telephone conference call @GaSecofState secretly recorded was a “confidential settlement discussion” of that litigation, which is still pending.”

    Is Turley relying on that tweet? If so, he shouldn’t. The call makes no mention of a settlement and didn’t involve all of the parties to the suits. Aside from which, why would Raffensperger be interested in a settlement discussion when Trump has so far lost both suits? And if the call was confidential, then Trump violated the confidentiality agreement with his Sunday morning tweet about the call.

    Turley is silent about why Raffensperger chose to release the tape. Raffensperger said he did it because Trump chose to tweet about the call and misrepresented the call’s contents, and Raffensperger wanted to correct the record.

    Turley says “most experts are notably vague on the specific criminal provision” Trump might be charged with. Turley should focus on those who’ve been specific. For example, Reps. Lieu and Rice sent a criminal referral to the FBI, identifying 2 federal laws and 1 Georgia law and asking the FBI to investigate:

    Turley himself introduces “one possibility would be election fraud under 52 U.S. 20511,” which has been mentioned by others (include Lieu and Rice and former AG Holder), but then he focuses on the wrong part of that law. He should have focused on section (2)(B):
    “A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office … (2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by – … (B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held, shall be fined … or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
    Trump pretty clearly attempted to deprive the residents of GA of a fair election by soliciting a false tabulation of ballots or procurement of fake ballots, depending on how you interpret “find 11,780 votes.”

    Turley once again falsely claims “Weissmann previously called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation,” misrepresenting what Weissmann and Ryan Goodlaw actually argued in their article. As for “after the pardon of Roger Stone, [Weissmann] called for Stone in a grand jury,” that sounds like a good idea.

      1. Kurtz, if you think that’s a lot of words, you don’t read much.

        It is wholly inappropriate for a president who lost an election to tell a Secretary of State to find enough votes for him to change the state’s electors. I don’t know if he broke the law, but it should absolutely be investigated, including whether Trump had similar calls with officials in other states, and if so, what he said to them.

        I’m curious to see whether Trump will attempt to pardon himself before leaving office and whether he’ll face any charges once out of office.

        1. i don’t see a violation of the statute you cited in trump’s call. i can’t really imagine any AUSA cooking up an indictment for it either, not even under a zealous successor Democrat administration. I think the call has been exagerrated to gin up the voting base in GA

          Soon this election farce will be over and then it will be Biden’s turn in the hot seat. Maybe we will get lucky and he will cure cancer as he promised. Can you imagine? perhaps he will walk on water too. Well, maybe we will get lucky

          Sal Sar

          1. Lieu and Rice cited 3 statutes. Turley cited one of those. My point was that he was focusing on the wrong part of the one statute he identified and as a law prof he should carry out a better analysis and be more honest.

  11. 🔴 LIVE: STOP THE STEAL Coalition Pre-Rally at Freedom Plaza Ahead of Tomorrow’s Big Events in DC

    1. I received an email this morning about prohibited items at tomorrow’s protest:

      Prohibited Items List

      Alcoholic beverages
      Backpacks, bags, roller bags, suitcases bags exceeding size restrictions (12”x14”x5”)
      Banners, signs, placards
      Drones and other unmanned aircraft systems
      Explosives of any kind (including fireworks)
      Glass, thermal and metal containers
      Laser lights and laser pointers
      Mace and/or pepper spray
      Noisemakers, such as air horns, whistles, drums, bullhorns, etc.
      Packages • Poles, sticks and selfie sticks
      Spray containers
      Structures • Supports for signs/placards
      Tripods • Umbrellas
      Appliances (i.e. Toasters)
      And any other items that may pose a threat to the security of the event as determined by and at the discretion of the security screeners.

      Of course these rules don’t apply to pAntifa and BLM, Inc. Per Mayor Dog Face Bow Wow


    “The Saturday call is now well-known, though few have actually read the full transcript”.

    The Professor is probably correct. Most Americans have only skimmed the surface of Trump’s call. It’s an hour long. Like Trump blocked off an hour for said call.

    ‘I’ took an hour to review the whole tape. It plays in three acts like the outline below:

    ACT I: Trump greets the Georgia team like a famous New York hustler calling the sticks. The Georgia team should be thrilled to hear from this celebrity. Trump then goes into a lengthy presentation of the ‘facts’ as he sees them. But all his information is flawed. A string of conspiracies already disproven. The Georgia team just listens.

    ACT II: About 20 minutes into the call, Trump realizes the Georgia team is only listening. At this point Trump pushes the charm, “C’mon Brad, give me a break, just Eleven Thousand votes”. Trump continually implies that Brad would be smart to play along. ‘ Brad has an obligation to help the party out’, or so Trump suggests. The Georgia team says little. But Brad informs Trump that his facts are wrong. Which Trump doesn’t want to hear!

    ACT III: Trump senses the Georgia team is smarter than imagined. Now Trump’s getting p_ssed! He’s not accustomed to having state officials question his ‘facts’. Trump turns ugly, telling Georgia, ‘Stacy Abrahams is laughing at them’. Trump uses Abrahams as a bludgeon repeatedly. When this fails to change the game, Trump sputters out right at the hour point. Trump seems to realize, one might think, that he’s been caught on tape.

      1. Anonymous @ 6:39 is obsessed with “Paint Chips” and has an unhealthy fixation…

        Get a life, Anonymous @ 6:39. And grow up.

        1. Anonymous our troll is desperate to stop liberals from posting on these threads. And this “paint chips – WeHaw thing” has gotten so old! The troll can’t think of anything else. He’s not creative enough. These same frantic smears over and over. What’s a troll to do?

    1. Yeah I listened to the call in full too.
      18:57 “And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated…”

      37:10 “The ballots are corrupt, and you’re going to find that they are, which is totally illegal and it’s more illegal for you than it is for them, because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a, that’s a criminal offense. And you know you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots in my opinion based on what I’ve heard, and they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can both of which are criminal fines and you can’t let it happen but you are letting it happen. I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state, and flipping the state is a great testament to our country, cause, you know, it’s a testament that they can admit to a mistake, or whatever you want to call it.”

      He’s repeatedly informed he’s wrong, insists they say they recalculated. He says he’s putting them on notice they’re letting a crime happen and that it’s a criminal offense which is a big risk for them. It’s skirting the law at least and he’s pressuring them to find an exact number of votes or implying bad things will happen. He’s got a long list of potential crimes I’m sure he’s planning on pardoning himself for, I’d be surprised if this doesn’t make the list. Of course he may not be done with his antics yet so I assume he’ll wait until January 19th to attempt self-pardon, since he may not be able to pardon himself for things he did, but certainly can’t for things he plans to do.

      1. CKO7, it’s towards the end of that call when Trump becomes the overbearing bully we always heard he was. He knows he’s pitching a ‘No Sale’ and it enrages him. Trump isn’t used to people saying ‘No’.

        1. Good catch. I suspect he will be issuing a pardon shortly for himself, Guiliani and his goons. The last one I’m not so sure of. Guiliani has already threatened to squeal on him if double crossed so I presume that carries more weight than goodwill towards his deranged fans that may have his back when this is done, but could also make him forever linked to the chaos he created, even in the eyes of the forgetful GOP.

  13. Off topic. Chicago. Is the mayor Lori Lightfoot related to Ralph Lightfoot who was the plaintiff in the prison reform case of Lightfoot v. Walker?

    1. I doubt it. she was a partner at mayer brown and platt. or whatever they call it now. they’re not the kind of law firm to miss a detail like that and let it gum up their strategy becoming the number one shill of big-law big-corporate Illinois

      but i have not studied the case, just saw this

      Sal Sar

Leave a Reply