Yes, Trump was Seeking Another Recount or Investigation in Georgia: A Response to the Washington Post

Below is an expanded version of my Hill column on the Georgia call at the center of the recent indictment and the attack in the Washington Post by columnist Philip Bump, someone I have repeatedly criticized in the past for false and misleading stories. The column attacked me for suggesting that the Georgia call was not strong evidence of a crime and that Trump was seeking another recount or investigation. While I disagreed with Trump’s claims and supported the decisions of the Georgia officials (and still do), many campaigns have sought such investigations or launched challenges based on flimsy evidence. I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.

Here is the column:

The processing of former President Donald Trump in the Fulton County jail followed a familiar pattern. First came the mugshot, then the merchandise. Both the left and the right immediately started selling mugs and t-shirts featuring the scowling image of Inmate P01135809.

Snap, scowl, sell and spin. Our legal and political dialogue has now been reduced to the substance of a Benetton catalogue.

Politicians and pundits continue to assure the public that this indictment is not just the criminalization of political speech or election challenges. Much of that spin returns to a familiar point of reference: Trump’s call to Georgia officials. Indeed, I have been criticized for even suggesting that “the call” is not evidence of a crime, even though I continue to support the actions of the Georgia officials who resisted Trump’s requests, including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

I previously wrote that the strength of any Georgia indictment could be measured on the weight given to “the call,” a highly debatable claim that Trump expressly called for fraud. But my doubts about this call (which Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis cited as the impetus of her investigation) do not stem from any refusal to accept that Trump could be charged or convicted.

When the Mar-a-Lago indictment came down, I was one of the first to say that I considered it a strong case. I have since noted that the case seems to be strengthening with time. But that is not the case in Georgia.

Although there are strong criminal allegations against some of the defendants on individual acts in the Georgia indictment, the effort to prosecute Trump is based on loose alleged conspiracies and little new evidence involving his own actions.

For that reason, it is telling that pundits have again made “the call” the focus of this sprawling racketeering theory.

First, a brief reminder of what “the call” is. This was not some back-room, smoke-filled political wheel-and-deal call. It  was similar to a settlement discussion between largely antagonistic figures and their opposing teams. State officials and the Trump team were seeing if they could resolve their differences without further litigation. The Trump team wanted a new statewide recount. Trump had lost the state by less than 12,000 votes and was making the case that he could still show that he had won the state. He stated, “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”

If you are going to argue for another recount or continued investigation, the obvious argument is that it would not take statistically many votes to make a difference.

I have long disagreed with Trump over his claim of systemic voting fraud. I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech while he was giving it. I supported Vice President Mike Pence and his certification of the election of Joe Biden. I have also regularly criticized Trump when I felt that such criticism was warranted. This does not change my view of whether the call is compelling evidence of a crime.

When the Washington Post first reported this call, I posted a critical tweet based on its initial, erroneous account that Trump had ordered Georgia officials to just “find” the needed votes. I noted that such a demand would be breathtaking and further noted that, even if they did so, it would not stop Biden from winning the presidency.

But a few hours later, the actual transcript of the call was released, showing a strikingly different context for the “find” comment than the Post had reported. Trump was clearly referring to his objective in finding votes and the threshold he needed to meet. That is a predictable argument for a candidate in pushing for a continued investigation.

The Post also ran a misleading story on a separate, related call that left the same false impression. By the initial account, Trump had supposedly told investigator Frances Watson to “find the fraud” and promised that she would be “a national hero.” In fact, Trump had stated that, if the officials did a neutral investigation, “you’re going to find things” including “dishonesty.” The Post had to issue a correction at the top of this second story after the Wall Street Journal found a recording of the call. “The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source,” the paper acknowledged.

Philip Bump’s recent Washington Post column continues to cite the paper’s original, skewed account of that call in order to criticize my commentary on it. Yet even in doing so, Bump inadvertently demonstrates the danger of using this call to prosecute Trump.

As a threshold matter, Bump suggests (and many have repeated) that Trump was not seeking another recount because the recount had already occurred and Trump never uses the word “recount” in the first call. The argument shows the lack of good faith in the criticism. Obviously, Trump was seeking another recount or investigation. We all know that Georgia completed the recount. I wrote about it at the time and considered that recount to end reasonable doubts over the election. Trump, however, was making the case for another investigation or recount. That was the subject of the call. He wanted the state to take another look. That is further born out in the second call when he again asks them to take another look.

Trump’s demand is as simple and obvious as it was wrong. He wanted to maintain a challenge to the election in the courts and in Congress. Just a couple days after the election, I wrote a column predicting this strategy based on what the Democrats had done in prior years. I called it the Death Star strategy. To make it work, Trump needed to find evidence of fraud and delay or undermine state certifications.  A new recount or continued investigation would achieve that purpose.

So, yes, Trump was seeking a recounting or continued investigation. Bump and others continue to push the original flawed account that Trump was ordering them to simply declare the existence of the votes as the only possible interpretation despite the fact that these were antagonistic parties and Trump was pushing them to look at various areas for possible votes.  The call can clearly be read different ways by different people. The question is whether it is a crime.

Bump maintains that the call was criminal because Trump had already been assured that another recount would not produce the votes and that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. “Trump’s entreaties” are deemed criminal because he had refused to accept “the truth” over the arguments of his advisers. Bump argues further that it does not matter if Trump actually intended to engage in fraud in the call, because the meeting was part of a general pattern of spreading “false statements and writings.”

There is no self-awareness at all in Bump’s argument. Bump has repeatedly spread false stories and then refused to accept the falsity of his own earlier claims, even after most of the media have admitted the errors. But more importantly, the standard that Bump sets forth for prosecution — imputing criminality to a politician’s refusal to accept inconvenient facts — could just as easily be used to prosecute any number of others, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who baselessly sought to block certification of Trump’s 2016 victory by disenfranchising the voters of Florida.

(MSNBC/via YouTube)

Was Hillary Clinton guilty of criminal “false statements” when she claimed that her defeat was the result of a “stolen” election and called Trump an “illegitimate president”? How about Stacey Abrams in Georgia, who refused to accept her own defeat for governor in 2018? Then there are Democratic lawyers such as Marc Elias, who filed challenges to overturn a New York election of a Republican on the basis of machines changing the outcome. Elias has been sanctioned in other litigation on different grounds and was behind the hiding of the funding of the Steele Dossier by the Clinton campaign, but no one suggested that he or others challenging elections were criminal actors. Despite my long criticism of Elias’ record and practices, I would be the first to oppose similar charges for the same reason.

Mediaite (a site founded by ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams) has called it “crazy” to make any comparison between what Trump did and Democrats challenging prior certifications. This convenient dismissal is based on the fact that, “by the time Trump unsuccessfully leaned on” Raffensperger, recounts had already been carried out. He must have known that it was false, the argument goes, and as I (and many others) stated at the time, a further investigation was unlikely to produce enough votes. However, there was never any credible evidence to support Democratic challenges such as those brought by Raskin and others in 2016. Nor was there ever any evidence that the election was “stolen” as Clinton claimed, nor that Abrams was robbed.

Critics have long denounced Trump as a megalomaniac who could not accept that he lost. Ironically, their criticism could now prove a defense for Trump. There is a vast difference between making unfounded election claims and committing a crime. This call, in my view, cannot be viewed as a crime beyond a reasonable doubt any more than the Democratic challenge to machines in New York or the 2016 certification challenge were criminal acts due to the lack of supporting evidence.

What is clear is that this is a dangerous path for the country to take in criminalizing election challenges.  For many, this looks like a Democratic prosecutor seeking prison sentences for those who challenged a Democratic victory. It could just as easily be replicated by Republican prosecutors.

Just as Trump was blind to the realities of the election, these prosecutors and pundits are blind to the implications of this indictment.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

333 thoughts on “Yes, Trump was Seeking Another Recount or Investigation in Georgia: A Response to the Washington Post”

  1. To state the obvious: “I just want to find 11,780 votes” is not a request for a recount. There are official processes for parties to an election to request a recount. Calling the election administrator directly, telling him to “find” more votes for you, and threatening him with criminal sanction if he doesn’t is not a request for a recount, it’s a demand for a corrupt result. You can’t possibly be this dumb, Mr. Turley.

    1. Listening to the phone call, plus reading the transcript, back when it all happened, tells anyone (who’s honest) that it wasn’t “making up votes,” but finding enough, out of all of the (alleged) fraud counts Trump listed. I’m thinking it’s not Turley who’s “this dumb.”

  2. The Left alleges that the disqualification clause of 14A is “self-executing,” i.e., that there need be no further legal action taken to disqualify Trump from the ballot.

    First, that Leftist fantasy is obviously self-contradictory. To enforce that clause does require “further legal action” — by the Left’s politically motivated secretaries of state.

    More importantly, that “self-executing” delusion contradicts the fact that the Constitution exists as a whole, as a unity. Cherry-picking elements of it is merely a rationalization to satisfy a desire (in this case, to “get Trump”).

    Here are the other elements of the whole that pertain to this case:

    5A: “No person shall [. . .] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    6A: The right to a trial by jury.

    Trump has a right to run for public office. The public has a right to vote for the candidate of its choosing.

    The Left wishes to abrogate those rights, by fast-forwarding to the penalty phase — while ignoring the pesky need for: charges presented, a judge, a jury, witnesses, a defense, the opportunity for an appeal.

    In other words: Due process be damned. Trump is a political “criminal.”

    That is not the rule of law or of the Constitution. That is rule by scepter.

  3. we were kept in a corral that was at least 15 to 20 feet from any of the representatives. And that was the closest people opening the ballots. There were people that were 50, 100 feet from us. The closest was 20 feet, about, and you could not see, at all, the envelope, the ballot itself, where they were stacking them, anything that was required that we were able to be able to see.

  4. @Turley,

    Meadows just had his hearing on moving his case into federal court.

    Willis made a comment about Meadows and the Hatch Act. (As reported in one of the online sites. )
    It seems she probably hasn’t read the Hatch Act or understood what she read.

    Meadows didn’t violate the Hatch Act.
    Something you would have a good field day discussing Meadow’s hearing.


      1. Standard go to leftist, liberal garbage line. Because supporters believe Constitutional rights should not be violated, does not mean we believe ANYONE is “above the law”. Even Trump has a right to a fair jury selection, afair trial & a fair defense. Federal Judge Beryl Howell, the judge on the Mar a logo case has ordered Trump’s attorney to testify against Trump & answer questions on attorney-client conversations, piercing attorney-client privilege. What if that were a trial in which you were a defendant? Biden also waived Trump’s presidential privilege. I reference a paragraph from a Newsweek opinion article written ALAN DERSHOWITZ , EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LAW, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
        ON 6/14/22; “Executive privilege, rooted in Article Two of the Constitution, empowers the president to confer confidentially with members of his staff without fear that these secret communications will be made public. It is akin to similar privileges such as those with one’s lawyer, priest, doctor and spouse. Their purpose is to encourage candid communications that are intended to remain secret.” I agree with the Professor when he wrote that “Executive Privilege Means Nothing if the Next President Can Waive It”. Both actions against Trump’s Constitutional due process, waiver of presidential privilege & piercing Trump’s attorney-client privilege is a very dangerous precedent in law.

    1. If you wish to make such a statement ATS, stat the actions and the law explaining “How could that possibly not violate the Hatch Act?”

      If you fail to do so it means your are merely providing your usual nonsense.

  5. National Archives acknowledges 5,400 Biden pseudonym emails, faces lawsuit for their release
    The new lawsuit turns up the pressure on the archives to release the documents.

    Let’s send an army battalion over and raid the place. Isn’t that how the Biden justice department works?

  6. You know, there is a possibility that Trump’s legal battles may be the springboard for the reforms so many of us yearn for. His team may end up putting the prosecutors on the defensive. They may end up exposing the “deep state” through their subpoena power, through discovery, through tough and brilliant cross examination. Good defense attorneys can turn a case on its head.
    Immediately, yesterday, he should hire Jonathan and Dershowitz. Can you imagine the two of them representing the old boy. They would strike fear in the hearts of the bully’s who plan to rip Don apart. What a joy that would be!

    1. That’s quite a wishful dream. There’s still a lot of time between now and the first trial.

  7. The claim that Viktor Shokin isn’t reliable or credible has absolutely zero merit. If the claim had any merit whatsover, we would have heard of several instances in which Shokin had performed poorly or corruptly during his tenure. But we hear absolutely nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing.

    That speaks volumes and tells us by omission that Shokin is not only reliable and credible, but that he did an outstanding job during his 14 month tenure before he was terminated because of Joe Biden’s pressure on the Ukrainian government in a QPQ and bribery and extortion scheme.

    Instead, because they have zero evidence of poor or corrupt performance on Shokin’s part, the media pressitutes tell us rubbish like this:

    * In a column published days after Shokin was fired in March 2016, Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, wrote that his dismissal came as no surprise. “The amazing thing is not that he was sacked but that it has taken so long,” Aslund said. “Petro Poroshenko appointed Shokin to the role in February 2015. From the outset, he stood out by causing great damage even to Ukraine’s substandard legal system.”

    “Great damage”? Without even a scintilla of supporting evidence? Really?

    That’s the kind of rubbish the media presstitutes put out. Of course, what the media presstitutes won’t tell you, while quoting such liars as senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Anders Aslund, is that the Atlantic Council themselves have been bribed by Burisma. The Ukrainian oligarch-run Burisma Holdings donated at least $100,000 per year for at least three years to the Atlantic Council starting in 2016–another QPQ. Also, see Burisma proudly listed and recognized by the Atlantic Council as one of their important supporters: The Atlanta Council’s leaders have gladly agreed to serve as Burisma’s flacks in exchange for cash.

    The media presstitutes are obviously complicit in the Biden Family’s bribery-extortion-QPQ scheme.

    1. Good comment, JFeldman. What has yet to be explained is the apparent decision by the “interagency” that Shokin should be fired. This appeared for the first time in Nov 22 memos described by John Solomon. These memos are said to have been forwarded to Joe Biden by a desk officer at the State Department. Victoria Nuland is said to have been involved.

  8. Al Gore sought a recount in specific counties where he doubted the accuracy or integrity of voting districts.

    Most elections where Democrats lost, they claim the election was stolen, or there were shenanigans.

    in Pennsylvania alone, there were different standards applied to different districts, in violation of the 14th Amendment. Because of issues like that, recounts and audits were requested.

    A recount will not rectify votes that were filled out by activists at nursing homes for patients with dementia, dead people casting ballots, or other ballot stuffing schemes. You can count them all day long, and it will never verify the integrity of the voter rolls.

    The biggest interference of all, however, came from the media in collusion with the FBI. It was known before the election that Hunter Biden’s laptop was real, not Russian misinformation, and that there was evidence that Joe Biden sold his political favors as VP to foreign entities. That story was discredited and buried, while the media still pushed the debunked Russian collusion hoax against Trump. It was election interference on a massive scale, helped in large part from politicized 3 letter agencies.

    If any political candidate suspects foul play at this level, he or she is going to exhaust all avenues to object. Trump’s legal team incorrectly advised him that Pence could stop the process to investigate wrongdoing in the election. He made the request, and Pence properly declined. No one should get arrested for that. Obama, Biden, and a long line of elected Democrats have made improper requests while in office. For example, Obama spied on Trump’s campaign, improperly unmasked members of his team, and then lied about it.

    1. Karen S: Why don’t you just cite the Fox broadcast you repeat instead of wasting time regurgitating it? Al Gore didn’t even get ONE recount in Florida because Republicans filed a lawsuit to stop it. It’s not true that in “most” elections Democrats lose, they claim foul play. In Pennsylvania, because of the COVID epidemic made worse due to Trump’s incompetence, some districts relaxed the rules for absentee ballots. There is NO reason to believe that there was any fraud involved–just another Fox talking point. There’s no proof of any of the “ballot stuffing”, “dead people voting” or other nonsense you claim

      The media did not “collude” with the FBI about anything. The laptop was taken by Giuliani, who copied it, distributed copies to Republicans in Congress, and then handed it over to the FBI. THAT’s why it was suspect. AND, there’s no actual proof that Hunter committed any crimes–much less Joe Biden–despite 3 years of “investigation” that has turned up nothing. Here’s what a Republican-controlled Senate Committee investigation found (NYT 8/18/2020):

      “WASHINGTON — A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.

      The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional investigations in recent memory and could be the last word from an official government inquiry about the expansive Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election.

      It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary.”

      So, there’s no “hoax” involving Russia helping Trump—it was NOT “debunked”. And, it was not “election interference”–Trump was predicted by every poll to lose because he didn’t validly “win” in 2016–he lost the popular vote, he did a terrible job pretending to be President, he set a record for low approval ratings, and the country was in a shambles after 4 years of his “leadership”. COVID was out of control, new daily records for infections and deaths, schools, businesses, restaurants and bars shut down, no leisure travel, and he’s pushing fake cures like “Hydroxychloroquine” and intentionally lying about the seriousness–he admitted this to Bob Woodward on tape.

      Trump didn’t get arrested because of bad advice from his lawyers, either. After he lost, he still claimed victory, filed over 60 lawsuits claiming all sorts of fraud without any evidence, then he started working on a plot to circumvent the will of the American people by going on “Stop the Steal” campaigns to drum up support for an attack on the Capitol, started working on swing state SoSs to falsify the votes, lined up fake electors who falsified Electoral College documents, tried to bully Pence into taking action he couldn’t, and then told his supporters to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”. There were pre-insurrection meetings at the Willard Hotel and reconnaissance trips to plan the best means to overcome the Capitol Police, there was a cache of weapons kept at a hotel across the Potomac in Virginia waiting for the command from their “leader”, and the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters attacked the Capitol, some in military formation, assaulted police officers, smashed windows, broke down doors, rifled offices, stole computers, and they urinated and defecated in our Capitol building. Your hero watched with glee for over 3 hours while all of this was going on, mesmerized by the power he held over his fans, even knowing that they had concocted a noose and gallows, shouting “Hang Mike Pence”. When he found out Pence was safe from his followers and refused to leave the Capitol grounds and was going to proceed with accepting the certified votes, he called off the faithful, telling them he “loved” them and they were “special”. He promises to pardon them. And, contrary to alt right news, none of these were Antifa–over a thousand have been charged. If this isn’t sick, I don’t know what qualifies. To top it all off, he stole classified documents, lied about returning them, hid them, and had his staff try to disable the security cameras.

      1. Gigi, Proportion. Bill turned his back on the genocide in Rwanda which resulted in the massacre of 1,000,000 innocent, unarmed, men, women and children. Then, in his fake apology to the world, he said he was unaware of the unfolding horror engulfing them. He knew.

        I’ll trade you. Add up all Trump’s sin and weigh them against the shovels, the gasoline and tires, the spears, the hoes and ropes and butcher’s knives, and rocks and chains used to eliminate a million people.

      2. You know what Gigi, i am
        Sick to death of your blatant lies

        Here is the latest one

        “The laptop was taken by Giuliani, who copied it, distributed copies to Republicans in Congress, and then handed it over to the FBI. THAT’s why it was suspect.”


        “In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac.”

        Where do you even get your lies from???

        The FBI got the laptop from Mac Isaac, not Rudy.


        1. In a not so stunning display of a complete lack of self awareness, Gigi the liar accuses someone of “regurgitating” what they heard, and proceeds to post 200 lines of keyboard diarrhea, cut and pasted from a DNC email.

          1. From “Mediaite” 12/31/20:

            John Paul Mac Isaac is a Delaware-based computer repair expert that found himself at the center of international political intrigue when he provided a computer harddrive purported to have been copied from a laptop that Hunter Biden left at his shop for repair and neglected to pick up.

            He appeared on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom Thursday morning and explained his recently dismissed lawsuit against Twitter and explained why he gave a copy of the laptop’s hard drive to President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, despite previous claims that he had no interest in the laptop story going public.

            Mac Isaac filed a defamation suit against Twitter after the social media platform blocked the initial New York Post report from being shared, claiming that it violated a policy against sharing hacked information. Mac Isaac took issue with his being labeled a hacker and is claiming that he is now out of work. The suit was dismissed on a technicality that is being addressed.

            Like so many stories in this divided political age, the story is yet another complicated Rorschach test of news.

            Mac Isaac did retrieve information from a laptop (without explicit permission) that he claimed to belong to Biden and reportedly gave it to the FBI in February. In October, Giuliani presented the hard drive, which contained a lot of unverifiable but suggestive damning evidence, to the NY Post, the sole outlet to report. However, the original writer for the article was so suspicious of the sourcing of the hard drive that he refused to put his name on the byline of the story. Fox News refused to run the story without time to vet it properly, and Bret Baier and Chris Wallace both questioned its veracity, saying it “stinks” and is “suspicious,” respectively.

            However, since then, the Bidens have confirmed an October 29th report from James Rosen that the FBI is investigating Hunter Biden for alleged tax fraud and possible money laundering. This news was amplified by many on the right that the laptop story was correct and that there was some massive media and “Big Tech” conspiracy to keep the story quiet before the election.

            However, the conservative conspiracies neglect the Rosen report and conflate the investigation into possible tax fraud with the release of the laptop, the evidence of which was not released to any other reputable news outlet who could verify the sourcing. Hunter Biden may very well be guilty of financial malfeasance in partnership with foreign countries, and the FBI is currently investigating that.

            Mac Isaac certainly stirred up an unverifiable hornet’s nest of claims made by Trump and his allies, many of which are still unverifiable as the hard drive copy he took from the laptop still only has been shared with a handful of outlets. It has become more than a public story; it has evolved into something of a cause celebre.

            In this context, Fox News anchor Sandra Smith asked Mac Isaac why, if he never intended for this to go public, why did he hand it over to the president’s lawyer, who immediately made it public.

            “Well, I needed to get this to the proper authorities,” Mac Isaac replied, “and when I felt like the proper authorities failed me, then that gives me the opportunity to get that to the people. At the last person on the list was lawyers or the president.”

            This piece explains the reason why mainstream media questioned the authenticity of the information. Isaac had an obvious agenda.

        2. I know, now you’re gonna tell us you got it from a “reliable source”, so its not lying. Rachel Maddow again???

          And the forensics have shown that Rudy’s version is authentic, so just knock it tfo with trying to cast aspersions on its contents as unreliable. Every bit of that sh!t is true and you know it. Find something else to lie about.

        3. 10/21/2020 USA Today:

          “WILMINGTON, Del. – Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to tarnish Joe Biden’s presidential campaign continued in Delaware when he visited a police station Monday to share files from what he said was Hunter Biden’s laptop.

          “They’ve got a hard drive or a laptop or something to that effect. They try to turn it over to New Castle County PD. New Castle County PD calls us,” said Mat Marshall, a spokesman for Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings.

          Jennings’ office gave the device to the FBI, which reportedly is investigating the veracity of claims about the origin of the laptop and how its contents were shared with Giuliani’s team, Marshall said.”

          1. Both of your “sources” have since been proven wrong. They both conflate the LAPTOP with DATA form the laptop. A copy of the hard drive is NOT “the laptop. You do the same thing. Honestly, i dont give a rat’s a$$ if it was out of ignorance or dishonesty. You’ve been told the truth, just like those people, yet u still promote lies. I even found several articles where the headline says it was “hunters laptop” and then the article says “copy of the hard drive”. Thats the problem with your sources. Misleading is lying. Same as “petroleum” and “crude oil”. Same as “every month” when its not. Same as answers only to, when its not.
            Get your facts straight before you post or get used to being called a LIAR.
            And by the way, your latest may have been your biggest lie yet. Would you like to post your “source” for claiming “inflation when Trump left office was 8%”?
            It was ONE POINT FOUR PERCENT.
            Is it any wonder you feel the way you do about politics??? You have been fed and fallen for lies for years apparently. YOU are the one who needs a new source for your news, not Karen.

      3. Hunter’s gun charge for lying on the ATF form?

        Are you saying his statement on the ATF form that he doesn’t use drugs is factually correct?

  9. Correction: Philip Bump is neither a journalist nor a columnist. He is merely a presstitute. And a notably dumb one at that.

  10. Since you are so against the possibility of voter fraud, please go to the Calif Secretary of States web site, Elections statistics, then Statewide Election results, then General election Nov 3, 2022, Statement of vote, bottom of page three.
    Eligible voters: 21.9 million
    Total voters: 11.1 million.
    That means there are 10 million votes sent to “last known address” “in the wind”, unaccounted for in a ballot harvesting state.
    So at least accept the possibility of voter fraud when you have a loosy goosy Wild West voting system.
    Look at California’s collapse. Did voters do this or did ballot fraud contribute?

    1. No reason to think there was fraud, unless you look at the issues:

      The recount was just that, a recount that once again included the same 404,000 ballots that were outside the chain of custody. These votes should have been thrown out. Why is the chain of custody important? One only need to look to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to learn more:
      The chain of custody is the most critical process of evidence documentation. It is a must to assure the court of law that the evidence is authentic, i.e., it is the same evidence seized at the crime scene. It was, at all times, in the custody of a person designated to handle it and for which it was never unaccounted.

  11. Jonathan: Just call me Nostradamus! Some dipweed in FL done did what I said he would and filed to keep ol’ frumpy Trumpy off the ballot. That there 800 page report by the Special House Committee (and I think we all know what I mean by “special”, cuz they all rode the short bus to school), must have something somewhere in it that will disqualify the orange man! It don’t need to make any sense at all or require a conviction. If fani don’t get the job done, this guy Caplan is sure to.

    Now I know what you are thinking. When this gets summarily tossed on its a$$ in court, all the other litigants that are lined up waiting to cut the will of the people off at the pass, will go back to the swamp they rose out of. But how will the SC rule? Let me prove myself a narcissist again and answer my own question. What will they do without precedent? OMG they aint never ruled without precendent before, have they??? The problem the SCOTUS has is some 2 bit “legal scholars” done said the 14th is a done deal! SCOTUS can’t argue with that. It’s clear language. Of course when I am proven wrong I won’t be back here to fess up to my stupidity, I will just go on bringing up spurious claims of laws that don’t exist.

    Michael Luttig, who was a Federal Judge, but ain’t no more, because he’s an absolute moron, agrees that Trumpy’s disqualification is AUTOMATIC. See what I did there? No need for the SCOTUS to even take it up. It’s AUTOMATIC. You can’t argue with me either Johnny boy, because it’s AUTOMATIC. You probably didn’t even know that was a legal term, did ya??
    How will those conservatives respond when everyone else agrees with me??? I mean, it’s already 4 against 6, when I get the libtards on the SCOTUS on my side, we win!! Thats 7-6!!!

    The Don aint gonna even be on the ballot in Florida. His dang defense fund runnng dry. I know because I am a banker and an accountant, as well as a legal scholar, so don’t shout me down. But dammit, he needs to stop making money off of that mugs-shot. Thats really gettin’ under my thin skin! It’s cheatin’ I say. The Russians are now helping him with the marketing! I’m gonna hold my breath until he STOPS!!!!!

    Finally, I am gonna attempt to prove once and for all how smart I am, but in the process prove just how dumb I am. Its a trick my daddy showed me, when we were showering together. It’s tough to be found not guilty when half the public thinks you are! Because we all know that public opinion is the only thing that matters in court. That 51% or 52% is approximately equal to the number of morons who voted for Pedo Joe Briben, so I bet you aren’t surprised that they think Trump is guilty, but I am, because I’m an idiot.

    I also took a poll of how many people on this blog think my keyboard diarrhea is worth more that the toilet paper I jot it down on as it comes to my tiny brain. Gigi, Wally, Sammy, Fishlips and the little bug boy ALL agree with me, and my boots are as shiny as ever!

    Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
    Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
    Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump

    Theres a red under my bed
    And there’s a little ORANGE man in my head
    And he said, “you’re not going crazy, you’re just a bit sad”
    “‘Cause there’s a man in ya, gnawing ya, tearing ya into two”

    I may not be back for a minute, I am working hard on the California sniffer case. I got a good defense worked up for my client. If the Pres can do it, why can’t my guy? You like that Johnny? SCOTUS gonna have a tough time with that one.

    1. Somebody please delete this stupidity.
      Or just please just go away, you embarass yourself, you add nothing.

        1. Come on. Trump, Trump, Trump and more Trump is a little funny .. . because it’s true.

          *most of what you read about demented Joe is completely, utterly false.

  12. Nothing wrong with requesting a recount when you’re that close. Some states have it codified that a recount is automatic if the “winner” won by some percentage or less, for example 0.5%. But in states that don’t have an automatic recount threshold, it’s not illegal for a candidate to request one, and indeed is fairly common for one to do so if the vote count was really close.

    1. Recounts can change results, and have done so in Virginia, but never when the margin was as large as it was in Georgia. In a statewide contest in a mid-size state, 1000 votes is within the margin of recount. 12000 isn’t. Making up a deficit that large only happens when there is a pot of uncounted ballots or a major tabulation error.

  13. “Philip Bump’s [. . .] skewed account of that call . . .” (JT)

    The Left excels at one thing — replacing reality with its wishes:

    The Afghanistan pull-out was a “success.”

    Inflation doesn’t exist. Then it’s “transitory.” Then . . .

    It’s not shoplifting. It’s “reparations.”

    The economy is fine.

    It’s not genital mutilation. It’s “gender-affirming care.”

    Genders are fluid. And pronouns are infinitely malleable.

    It’s not censorship. It’s combatting “disinformation.”

    (And that’s only a partial list.)

    It is in the context of that habit of rewriting reality that one should evaluate the Left’s indictments of Trump — especially with key legal words such as “conspiracy,” “fraud,” “racketeering,” and in Georgia — the all-important “find.”

  14. Since many Trump supporters disliked the lawlessness and liberal spending of George W. Bush – why not go after the low hanging fruit?

    The Bush Administration – especially Bush’s torture attorneys – violated numerous laws, violated international treaties, violated everything Ronald Reagan stood for, committed torture and other war crimes.

    Best of all, the Bush folks publicly admitted to breaking the law. At minimum why aren’t Republicans going after the Bush attorneys?

    One could even make a very strong argument, that by giving the Bush officials a pass on law breaking, instead of creating a deterrent effect, it created an incentive for Trump’s law breaking.

    There is no statute of limitations on perpetrators of torture and war crimes. The Bush defendants have publicly admitted to the law breaking and betraying their own oath of office – more evidence than we have on Trump. Jack Smith is the best prosecutor to do this.

    1. “One could even make a very strong argument, that by giving the Bush officials a pass on law breaking, instead of creating a deterrent effect, it created an incentive for Trump’s law breaking.”

      You seem to have a repetitive problem. You provide premises that aren’t true.

      If you believe Trump broke the law, you can easily sate why and provide the necessary facts.

      1. Responding to Anonymous:

        Do you agree that the Bush attorneys publicly admitted to torture, war crimes, violating Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty (also federal law) and there is ample evidence for DOJ to indict those attorneys?

        Let’s answer this question first. If we had enforced International and federal laws against Bush’s torture attorneys, that would have created a “deterrent-effect” to deter future government attorneys from betraying their oath of office and perpetrating war crimes.

        That’s the entire premise of Law & Order under our constitutional rule of law system. Had that deterrent-effect happened, it quite likely would have prevented Trump from stealing nuclear secret documents and storing them in an unsecured outdoor pool shed.

        1. The question was,”If you believe Trump broke the law, you can easily sate why and provide the necessary facts.”

          Once again you roam instead of focus. Specify the laws Trump broke and how.

          1. “We tortured some folks” ~ Obama

            Many of those most responsible were promptly promoted .. . and still remain in office.

            *Obama preferred assassinating targets by drone. .. even U.S. citizens.

          2. Cuz indictments are evidence.


            “You’re honor, I submit as state’s exhibit 1, the indictment. The state rests.”
            —Jack Smith and co counsel the little bug boy

          3. Responding to Anonymous:

            Did you miss the part: stealing nuclear secret documents and illegally storing them?

            Anyone else would have been (and has been) convicted and imprisoned for far less.

            Trump did what others who did far less went to prison for. Sounds like law breaking to me.

            1. “Did you miss the part: stealing nuclear secret documents and illegally storing them?”

              How did he steal them?
              Has illegally storing them been adjudicated?

              You need to focus on what you say.

              He stole them because he wasn’t permitted to
              The law is against him
              He stored them in an unsecured facility.
              He knew they were illegal every time he took his car out.

              “Anyone else would have been (and has been) convicted and imprisoned for far less.”

              Do you talk without thinking? I hope so, for otherwise you have a bigger problem then one might think.

            2. Did you see the documents? I didn’t think so. How were President Trump’s personal papers from his presidency illegally stored? See how easy that is to tell the truth. “Anyone else would have been (and has been) convicted and imprisoned for far less.” Lying is detrimental, yet that is what you have. Biden, Pence, Obama, Bush jr. Clinton, Cheney and hard to say how many others are not in prison for the same offence. On top of that Pence and Cheney as VP, had no declassification authority or authority to declare papers as personal, while having a legal requirement to deliver them to NARA. For some odd reason Obama has 30 million pages still stored in a warehouse that had not been digitized when COVID shut down the operation before they could digitize textual records indicating Obama has the originals. Why is that and why would anyone do that. The Presidential Records Act was not followed in Obama’s case, read it for yourself. President Trump took the evidence that the FBI attempted a coup with the help of many others. They tried to prevent his election and when that didn’t work, they impeached him for a phone call to Ukraine regarding Biden’s bribes which actually occurred. Then it was hamstringing him every hour of every day. Then the FBI planted agents in the Jan. 6 crowd to instigate the riots hoping it would turn into something much larger, yet it didn’t. Stupid people trying to convince others that an insurrection or a coup was what happened on Jan 6 was laughable more than convincing. Imagining a coup to overthrow the US Government with a handful of people without weapons just doesn’t work.

    2. I can confidently claim that virtually NO ONE here, and an infinitesimally small number of US citizens, give a rats a$$ about your vendetta re: the Bush criminals. Ronald Reagan would have tortured the sh!t outta of those lowlife scumbag cowards that were seeking to destroy us. You might wanna pick a relevant cause to direct your America hating loathing towards.

      1. Tom, I want to know what to do. Staunton’s wife, children, parents, brothers, and sisters are all in church, and I hear that a church, or other social institution, will be blown up somewhere in the US. I have one of the perpetrators who is a known terrorist, and not even a citizen of the US, but I don’t know where or when it will happen.

        Tom, please help me. Should I waterboard the terrorist or put him in jail making sure that all his needs are met?

        1. Personally, I like a light socket and some saline solution.

          Or we could just play nice while they kill innocents.

    3. Stauton, I asked Tom a question, but he referred it to you. It is in this mini-thread, but for convenience I will repeat it below the line. Thank you.

      Tom, I want to know what to do. Staunton’s wife, children, parents, brothers, and sisters are all in church, and I hear that a church, or other social institution, will be blown up somewhere in the US. I have one of the perpetrators who is a known terrorist, and not even a citizen of the US, but I don’t know where or when it will happen.

      Tom, please help me. Should I waterboard the terrorist or put him in jail making sure that all his needs are met?

  15. Jon, my friend, it is past time to begin your own radio program. You owe it do the United States of America to increase your influence exposing the corruption that is destroying this nation.

    If our disgraceful free press had pursued the “Laptop Story” had it been rumored to be Don Jrs., Don Sr. would be president. That is unfair interference with an election. Not reporting stories that influence elections is corruption.

  16. Would any of the partisan hack leftists that visit this site care to explain why Devon Archer, Hunter’s buddy and co-board member of Burisma, had a meeting with John Kerry when Kerry was SECRETARY OF STATE?

    Try to imagine Henry Kissinger meeting with VP Gerry Ford’s son’s corrupt and soon to be imprisoned partner.

    Try to imagine Dean Acheson meeting with Alben Barkley’s corrupt son’s corrupt friend.

    How about John Jay? Thomas Jefferson? John Marshall? George Marshall? Colin Powell or Condi Rice? Madison? Monroe? John Quincy Adams? Cordell Hull?

    This is what the Biden’s have done to our government. We have people like Mayorkas, at HOMELAND SECURITY, Granholm, a corrupt sec of Energy, Mayor Pete, probably not corrupt just incompetent, Garland, corrupt, Lloyd Austin, incompetent, Yellen, probably corrupt and incompetent, Blinken, a FRIEND of Hunter and the force behind the 51 lying intelligence agents and the lying paper.

    Devin Archer has a meeting at state with the Secretary of State a few weeks before the Sec goes to Ukraine?!??!?!?

    But of course the lying fools will say that there is zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong.

    PS. This might be another good question for Obama!

    1. Sorry, I forgot to mention Rachel Levine, the first openly trans four star officer in the public health corp, and Sam Brinton, the bald guy with a mustache wearing a gown and red lipstick who steals luggage at airports. Someone hired that guy to be in charge of nuclear waste for our country. How come we don’t know who hired this guy?

      Of course KJP is another bright light shining for the Biden team too.

      Oh yes, let’s not forget Kamala Harris, maybe the dumbest woman to ever hold such a high office.

      1. Rachel Levine….cuz I’d rather be the fugliest “woman” on the planet than an average looking guy.

  17. We demonstrate to the world just how immature we are. Corruption within destroyed Rome and it is killing us.
    Hillary conspired and spent a fortune to destroy Trump without regard for truth/accuracy. That was criminal.

    1. “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

      – Barack Obama

      “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

Leave a Reply