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.
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.
Indictment in Atlanta has backfired on Democrats. There is now a groundswell of support for Trump from black voters who identify with his political persecution.
The only hope now to keep Trump out of the White House is to ban him from running which Democrats will attempt to do by invoking the 14th Amendment.
Watching Democrats try to invoke the 14thA is going to be fun. More mental gymnastics.
“Watching Democrats try to invoke the 14thA is going to be fun. More mental gymnastics.”
The federalist society invoked the 14th. Not democrats. They are staunch conservatives.
You are an imbecile. 2 members of the Federalist Society is not the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society has all types of people including Democrats and Never-Trumpers. Lefty Anonymous types never get anything right.
I know you are but what am I?
bug
Florida lawyer files challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 race, citing 14th Amendment
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/
Is this guy a member of the Federalist society?
Trump raises $7.1 million after Georgia mug shot
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4173169-trump-raises-7-1-million-after-georgia-mug-shot/
@DC_Draino
“Kinda crazy how the media is pushing a racially divisive shooting incident across every headline right now just 2 days after we saw countless viral videos of black Americans saying they support Trump after seeing his mugshot
The media seems to have conveniently forgotten about the 800+ Americans still missing in Hawaii after the gov’t didn’t sound the fire alarms, blocked off exit roads, and refused to use water to put out the fires for hours
Or maybe they’re just ignoring Hawaii on purpose…”
Compare and contrast the East Palestine OH train derailment and the Maui wildfires.
“In the world of the blind, the one- eyed man is king.” Or at least, he has a blog.
Professor Turley points out the “blindness” of others while steadfastly maintaining that there was no fraud in 2020 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The crime, in 2020, was the stolen election. For Trump to not have tried to investigate it and right it would have been criminal. The left’s longstanding policy of accusing others of what they are doing themselves is very effective, if completely illegal and immoral.
Professor Turley’s constant need to establish leftist street cred by reiterating how much he can’t stand Trump is disappointing and sad.
This country is now experiencing the consequences of the stolen elections of 2020, and will continue to do so until people like Turley can admit they were wrong and/or until the combined forces of Russia and China march in and take over. “If ye were blind, ye would have no sin, but since ye say ‘We see,’ the sin remains.”
>”Stolen elections”
You can’t rob a thief. It doesn’t matter how they count the votes if only Democrats and Republicans can win. In the recent GoP debate, the contestants actually had swear fealty to the eventual Republican nominee. In some states (my state) you have to register D or R to vote in the primaries.
By every metric, I don’t think the country as a whole will tolerate a 2024 Biden v Trump redux. .. assuming the country does not split apart at the seams before then.
*A “majority of Democrat voters who backed President Joe Biden in 2020 think the investigations and criminal indictments against Donald Trump constitute “an interference in the 2024 presidential election,” according to a new poll conducted exclusively for Newsweek.”
“Professor Turley’s constant need to establish leftist street cred by reiterating how much he can’t stand Trump is disappointing and sad.”
I wish I could give that 1000 likes and 11 thumbs up. And kudos for sticking with proper English, because I’d have been tempted to write that Turley doesn’t merely reiterate his tiresome opinion of Trump, but re-reiterates it, then re-re-reiterates it ad nauseam, like a dog scratching at the door, begging to be allowed back into the Democrats’ Club for Spoiled Elitists.
Your argument in a contextual-analysis regarding “THE CALL” exonerates Inmate P01135809.
Now your Argument is having to sway a Judge & Jury.
It’s hard to deal with ‘stupid’ people, They don’t get-it, and some just don’t want to get-it because they have better things to do.
Good Luck with that. Been there, More & More these days, especially with the Refugees & Illegal Immigrants swarming all over the place.
The SQUAD and the ADMIN isn’t importing the brightest bulbs on the Tree.
Stupidity is Viral.
Go Ahead: But Yes, it is the “don’t get it” and the “don’t want to get it” people in America that the left-controlled national mainstream MEDIA rely on –and target– for the prospective 2024 vote.
I watched ABC’s Geo Stephanopoulos repeatedly cut off and argue with Nikki Haley a few days ago; Martha Stewart and her selective facts and leading questions; NBC’s Chuck Turd on Meet the Press with his smirky condescension of all-things Republican. And this is what the “don’t get it” and the “don’t want to get it” people in America see, hear, view, and believe, every single day.
.
@lin
Yup. The film Idiocracy had the roles backward, but was otherwise prophetic. The one that matters is the unconditional belief – those with the mentality would rather do or suffer just about anything than question anything, particularly themselves. A whole lotta folks in the West define ‘open minded’ with, ‘whether or not you agree with me and then validate me for it’. Never seen a hive mind like it in my life.
Ooops. Martha Raddatz, not Martha Stewart.
James: I have not heard of “Idiocracy” film so cannot comment but thanks for taking the time.
“While I disagreed with Trump’s claims and supported the decisions of the Georgia officials (and still do) …”
Sometimes it seems as if Professor Turley is completely ignorant of anything that doesn’t get covered by democrat media — probably a residual effect of being a lifetime democrat voter. But those who followed non-democrat media concerning what went on in Georgia during the 2020 election are probably very familiar with the findings of Voter Ga, which is a NONPARTISAN voting-integrity organization, which I have referenced here in Turleyville several times. Hopefully THIS will be the last time that I’ll post this information at this website, and perhaps the professor might try READING it and then writing an article about why it is that he apparently doesn’t believe what Voter Ga found, which is similar to what’s been found in several other swing states:
https://voterga.org/
WHAT WE FOUND IN GEORGIA
Six sworn affidavits of Fulton counterfeit ballots; (10s of thousands est.)
17,724 more votes than in person recount ballot images required to tabulate votes in Fulton
Drop box video surveillance representing 181,507 ballots destroyed in 102 counties
Improper Chain of Custody forms for 107,000 ballots statewide
Estimated Chain of Custody forms missing for 355,000 ballots statewide (Georgia Star)
86,860 voters in 2020 have false registration date prior to 2017 but were not on 2017 history file
Over 1.7 million original ballot images are lost or destroyed in 70 counties despite state, federal law
Lance Armstrong was a phenomenon and his winning the Tour de France for the first few times after recovering from cancer was an amazing accomplishment. Then, year after year, seven total, he and his team continued to win. Greg LeMond (three time Tour de France winner) declared publicly that it was not possible. He called BS and knew it had to be a doping scandal. He took a lot of heat for his accusations. The French were no fans of the USA, especially that they were dominating the sport. The scrutiny was intense and yet for 13 years they could not find a break. Eventually, Lance was stripped of 7 Tour de France titles and the cinderella story came crashing down.
“If you consider my situation: a guy who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence [Armstrong’s 1996 cancer diagnosis and treatment], why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again? That’s crazy. I would never do that. No. No way.”
— Lance Armstrong, 2005
The wheels eventually fell off one of the biggest scandals in sports history and the flow of evidence, slow as molasses in winter, started adding up and Lance Armstrong’s story changed.
“Armstrong vehemently denied allegations of using performance enhancing drugs for 13 years, until a confession during a broadcast interview with Oprah Winfrey in January 2013, when he finally admitted to all his cheating in sports,”
“I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times.”
To add to my earlier post……Consider the ramifications of the revelations that have happened since the election.
The media and of course the Democrats (but then I am being redundant) are no longer interested in or have ever been interested in the truth.
For example….why could the Pennsylvania Supreme Court NOT SEE the violation of State Law before/during the 2020 Election and take the exact same action it did years later?
Law and Constitutions (State and Federal) are not made moot by a perceived health crisis.
Had the States, especially the Toss Up States, complied with existing State Law alone…..would the Election have gone to Trump?
Then one has to consider whether there was enough problems due Ballot Harvesting and the Drop Boxes to throw the election to Biden.
In my view Trump was absolutely right to question the outcome and the various Courts and Boards of Elections were absolutely wrong not to allow audits and other forensic examination of the Voting.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/bombshells-belie-big-lie-21-confirmed-illegalities-irregularities-2020
I like Turley but sometimes he reminds me of the guy sitting in a chair with one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other foot in a firepit. He is, Turley would say, statistically comfortable! Turley says, “While I disagreed with Trump’s claims and supported the decisions of the Georgia officials (and still do) ….” But he never explains what supernatural source of information he used to convince himself that Trump was wrong and the Georgia officials were correct. His conclusions in this regard are as valid as Trump’s as each was working strictly from their own experiences, not from hard factual evidence. Each indeed could be wrong and many believe to this day that Trump was and is correct. The numerous cases tossed by state and federal courts have never gone to the merits of the claims but have been tossed on procedural defects. Moreover, after Bush v Gore, all courts are reluctant to get involved in vote fraud cases because the Constitution clearly states that the President is to be elected by the people, not by some unelected or appointed judge. Turley needs to explain himself or get his foot out of the firepit.
Since 2016 we have seen what duplicity the Democrats are capable of, and what they are capable of getting away with thanks to the bought-and-sold mainstream media. It will take time, because liberals are so afraid of opposition, debate, discussion and real differences, that they’ll tolerate the Biden criminal family in the WH, and anti-constitutional senators and representatives, just to prevent anyone from upending their hegemonic agenda. They dispatched with Bernie, and they’ll do the same with RFK, Jr. also. Yes, Trump knows where the bodies are buried, and the establishment knows it. But even more frightening to them is that he’s not afraid of saying that their obsession with war, aggression and profiteering are hurting Americans. Just compare Biden’s aid to Maui with his aid to Ukraine, and don’t think that will go unnoticed.
Thank you professor for setting the record straight.
The context of the call isn’t even relevant. Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is legal, regardless of whether the grievance is reasonable. Period.
But the losing candidate badgering the SoS and threatening criminal prosecution is not legal.
Her ye Hear ye!
Badgering a government official is now a crime!
Threatening someone with that which you have absolutely NO possibilty of doing is now a crime!
In fact, convincing somone to sign a plea deal under threat of criminal prosecution is now a crime!
—–Sammy
How dumb can anyone be? Even the Washington Post admits their column was in error.
“[T]hese prosecutors and pundits are blind to the implications of this indictment.” (JT)
A spoiled child in a temper tantrum wants it, and wants it *now*. That rotten child has no ability to introspect about its own destructive behavior, no ability to consider consequences, no regard for the future.
Behold the modern Left.
More evidence of election fraud https://share.icloud.com/photos/04f82_4UuyBWB7KfaYHq1u–Q
JT says “…someone I have repeatedly criticized in the past for false and misleading stories.”
Cut the sanctimonious BS JT. You frequently give partial stories and mislead. You discounted the word of a sworn witness over the second hand account of an SS agent. The way you laid it out. the person that gave the sworn statement would have committed perjury. But hey, their account of things didn’t jive with the story you were weaving, you JT were giving us a misleading story.
JT, the great truth sayer. Stop it, you do not have a monopoly on truth.
“JT, the great truth sayer. Stop it, you do not have a monopoly on truth.”
Big mouth Bob. Let us hear you bloviate with fact. I love the worst of the worst complaining about the best of the best.
Just pointing out that JT has been wrong on numerous occasions. And even gave an example. Do you disagree?
You pointed out more. You said Turley misleads. He is too generous to the left and too critical of the right, which is part of his ideology. Misleading sounds like you are calling him a liar. He isn’t. He’s committed to civil liberties but unfortunately leans left and sometimes has to catch up and recognize the left lied and the right was truthful.
ATS,
“The Recount”…..which recount…which state….what results…..and why were Courts so opposed to taking up challenges?
Long after it matters have we seen Court Cases that have proven there were misconduct by election officials that directly benefited Biden and harmed Trump.
Had the various Courts acted and taken up the cases….how many findings would have been friendly to Trump’s Case?
Were the violations in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania “fraud” and done with the express intent to sway the outcome of the 2020 Election?
Why did the violations always favor Democrats and why did the refusal lf the 60 or so Courts to take up the cases fail to ensure the credibility and outcome of the 2020 Election?
We know for sure the claim of lack of evidence rings hollow when the very claim of that based upon the Courts abject refusal to allow forensic audits denied the ability of the Trump Campaign to confirm forensically what that evidence really was…..or was not depending upon the outcome of the. audits.
We can already see the Democrats maneuvering to have a 2020 style election again in 2024….with the move towards masks and other Covid flawed reactions that set up the disaster the 2020 Election was and given the same measures used then…..the outcome of the coming election shall be every bit as suspect as was the original.
Remember Russia…Russia…Russia…..well it is the same bunch of crooks that are using the Russian Method of Elections and by doing so are taking this once great nation straight into third world banana republic status.
In my time we knew these people as Communists but the use of that term is so out of favor these days we have to settle upon something else…..Democrats.
Out of convenience I grabbed the first article that popped up during a google search…..as there were a great many hits underneath this one….but all showing retroactive findings by Courts of violations of Election Laws in multiple States.
Findings that should have been made immediately following and leading up to the 2020 Election.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/14/courts-squash-democrats-most-secure-election-lie-swing-states-didnt-follow-their-own-election-laws-in-2020/
Yup. And get ready for another pandemic. It’s US presidential election season again.
CDC Announces Deadly New ‘Electionyearicron’ Covid Variant
https://babylonbee.com/news/cdc-announces-deadly-new-electionyearicron-covid-variant
No fraud. Here’s the fraud: https://rumble.com/v3c0yic-heres-the-2020-voter-fraud-video-that-must-be-watched-and-widely-shared.html
All leadership is selected from above:
Daniel 2:20-21 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever; for wisdom and might are his. (21) And he changeth the times and the seasons; he removeth kings, and setteth up kings; he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that have understanding;
So too this NT harlot was hidden within the OT harlot thousands of years before she existed to be translated into a language that did not exist then but is the most widely used in these last days ~ JER(USA)LEM:
https://sumofthyword.com/2021/01/07/mystery-babylon-the-great-and-her-beast/
I applaud your effort to remain neutral in reporting since it so easy to gain support from the party of your choice. However, how anyone can believe there was not significant fraud with all the points listed in Patrick Byrne’s The Deep Rig, with the 2000 Mules documentary, Mollie Hemingway book Rigged, with significant polls shutting down at the same time, with chasing conservatives out of those buildings while liberals went in to count questionable votes, with the Dominion machines hooked up to the internet, with a truckload of pallets of votes being sent from NY to PA, with and unusual mail in voting never before witnessed. And it doesn’t matter how often you recount fraudulent votes, they remain fraudulent votes. How anyone believes that an incumbent President received 12,000,000 more votes that he did in his previous election, (never happened before and even the “Saintly Obama” received fewer votes the second term) and a candidate that couldn’t rally a gathering anywhere received 81,000,000 is closing all perception of plausibility, as well as critical thinking. There was irregularities everywhere. And by irregularities, I mean fraud.
I consider the sources of “information.” I highly recommend that you do the same.
“. . . this indictment is not just the criminalization of political speech or election challenges.”
It is far more ominous than that.
It is an attempt to criminalize dissent. And it is an attempt to chill, by the threat of criminal prosecution, anyone who considers dissenting in the future. And it is part of the Left’s tyrannical pattern since at least 2020.
You’re dreaming. There were 60+ court cases where trump lawyers yelled and screamed about fraud in front of the court house steps. They went on and on about all this evidence of fraud. When the judge said show me the fraud, they said were still looking, nothing to report yet.
Get over it, in every recount the election did not change. Any fraud that was committed (several true voters voting twice) was minimal and of no threat to changing the outcome.
Nobody is criminalizing speech like JT says, not happening. The criminalization of speech is at the behest of Repos who want to jail librarians, doctors, and school teachers if they dare talk about LGBTQ+ issues or talk about history in a historically accurate manner, or talk about abortion.
Wow! Kook-Aid time for sure. I wonder how many times it’s been written here by Prof. Turley and commenters that the judges who dismissed election fraud cases never reached the merits of the claims. Dream on. Jailing librarians, etc.? I do believe you’re speaking of the Dems like Madame Governor Whitmer and others seek to criminalize the use of the wrong pronouns. God help us.
Bob the bloviator. Along with being big mouth Bob who bloviates, what 60+ court cases are you talking about? They have been discussed so much that your false comment about them makes you sound like an idiot. You confirm that each time you post.
“every recount: No matter which name you use or what icon you continue to say the same things without ever getting them right.
Every blog needs an idiot. Thanks for being here.
They seem to be desperate to attack the good professor today.
Just pointing out that JT frequently does not give the full facts of a case, only those that support his position. I gave an example. Was I in error?
And the evidence is? Here we are going on 2.5 years later and yet no evidence. Sheeeeesh. Please, get a life.
” There were 60+ court cases where trump lawyers yelled and screamed about fraud in front of the court house steps.”
That is bloviating because the argument is empty on a subject that was discussed at length.
You have your mouth open and your eyes shut tight.
“in every recount the election did not change.”
Learn what election irregularities took place, then talk.
Walk into the shower with my granddaughter and you might never make it out.
I guess history repeats itself every 90-100 years. There were several men in the last decade who made dissent a capital offense. History teaches. We don’t listen.
Thank you for your service in the U.S. Navy, Mister Barker!
“the recount had already occurred …. We all know that he completed the recount.”
In fact, THREE recounts had already occurred. Turley can’t even honestly report that fact.
Georgia off my mind. If I ever find myself heading north on the road, and I cross that border on ’95, you know I’m gone like a cool breeze.