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 theย 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: Trumpโs call to Georgia officials. Indeed, I have been criticized for even suggesting that โthe callโ is not evidence of a crime, even though I continue to support the actions of the Georgia officials who resisted Trumpโs 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 โthe call,โ 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 โthe callโ the focus of this sprawling racketeering theory.
First, a brief reminder of what โthe callโ is. This was not some back-room, smoke-filled political wheel-and-deal call. It ย 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, โI just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.โ
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 Trumpโs 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.ย 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 โfindโ 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 โfindโ 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, relatedย call that left the same false impression. By the initial account, Trump had supposedly told investigator Frances Watson to โfind the fraudโ and promised that she would be โa national hero.โ In fact, Trump had stated that, if the officials did a neutral investigation, โyouโre going to find thingsโ including โdishonesty.โ The Postย had to issue a correction at the top of this second storyย after the Wall Street Journalย found a recording of the call. โThe recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trumpโs comments on the call, based on information provided by a source,โ the paper acknowledged.
Philip Bumpโs recent Washington Post columnย continues to cite the paperโsย original, skewed accountย of that call in order to criticize my commentary on it.ย 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.ย 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.ย 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. โTrumpโs entreatiesโ are deemed criminal because he had refused to accept โthe truthโ 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 โfalse statements and writings.โ
There is no self-awareness at all in Bumpโs argument. Bump has repeatedlyย spread false storiesย and thenย refused to acceptย the falsity ofย 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 โ imputing criminality to a politicianโs refusal to accept inconvenient facts โ could just as easily be used to prosecute any number of others, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.),ย who baselessly sought to block certification of Trumpโs 2016 victoryย by disenfranchising the voters of Florida.
Was Hillary Clinton guilty of criminal โfalse statementsโ when she claimed that her defeat was the result of a โstolenโ election and called Trump an โillegitimate presidentโ? 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 filedย 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 โcrazyโ to make any comparison between what Trump did and Democrats challenging prior certifications. This convenient dismissal is based on the fact that, โby the time Trump unsuccessfully leaned onโ 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 โstolenโ 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.ย 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.
Philip Bump is no journalist. How is a liar and a propagandist. He is also despicable human being. All one has to know is that he applauded the sister of the North Korean mass murderer dictator when she disrespected Trump at the Olympics.Bump is what comes out when one takes a dump.
“As I’ve said in other threads…..blah blah blah blah blah. Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Stupid Stupid Stupid
Wire Fraud Wire Fraud Wire Fraud
Trumpy boy gonna get fried down in Jawja. He missed a good opportunity to have Pedo Joe fall of of his bike next to his motorcade”
bug
Turley brazenly claims what Trump did was exactly the same as what Hillary, Stacey Abrams, & Jamie Raskin did. Turley presumably believes itโs perfectly understandable that Trump demanded Republican Governor Kemp resign 3 days before he pressured Raffensperger to change Georgiaโs election results. Turley believes itโs perfectly understandable that Trump has spent the past 2 ยฝ years viciously attacking his own Attorney General, Bill Barr, for announcing that the Trump DOJ found no evidence of voter fraud which would change 2020 election results.
As Turleyโs link to Raskinโs objection to Floridaโs electoral vote demonstrates, Joe Biden immediately gavelled Raskin down & ruled he was out of order for not having any Senator signing on to his objection. 121 GOP House members & more than a dozen GOP Senators objected to Arizonaโs 2020 electoral vote, yet Turley characterizes Raskin as trying to singlehandedly disenfranchise Florida voters even though Biden ruled he was out of order.
Today, Trump still attacks Pence for not having the courage to reject electoral votes. By Turleyโs rationale, Trump’s relentless attacks on Pence & Barr simply proves Trumpโs state of mind ramains convinced that Republican election officials are RINOS & incompetent.
Turley has yet to offer a reasonable explanation for Trump demanding Brian Kemp resign for the unspeakable crime of certifying election results in his state after three recounts.
Another kook who never listened to Trumpโs actual words or the Washington Postโs correction.
Maybe if we had sided with Hitler instead of Stalin, we wouldn’t be having all these smash-and-grab robberies.
You wish we’d sided with a genocidaire who declared war against the US?
Instead of the other “genocidaire” who killed more people and wished to destroy the US without declaring war???
Finished that question for ya ATS
What???
Really?
You can tell that person is a Independent all by a one sentence comment?
That is fascinating.
Tells us, what else can determine from a one sentence comment?
A persons race?
Their sex?
Their tax bracket?
Their geophysical location?
Their tax status, single, married separate, married jointly?
How many kids do they have?
Pets?
Taste great/less filling?
Or are you just blowing UV rays out of your posterior end?
Upstate – I think that person doesn’t mean anything he says, and is just throwing bombs to stir the pot (mixed metaphor, I know). He wants to get a reaction, and people naturally obliged him, so now we can expect more of the same.
In addition to troll alert, we should have a pot-stirrer alert.
Back in high school, when I was captain of our school’s debate team cheerleading squad, I wrote the following cheer:
You’re argument is spurious!
It really makes me furious!
You’re argument is specious!
And you are full of fecious!
I meant “Your”.
Oops.
No take-backs in Turleyville. You gotta live with your typos and wear them like a badge of honor. Intelligent people won’t hold a common typo against you. Only morons with nothing substantive to contribute will nitpick spelling or grammar in a comment section.
“Just as Trump was blind to the realities of the election, these prosecutors and pundits are blind to the implications of this indictment.”
This will be my final comment on this subject: Turley’s apparent cluelessness concerning the verified findings of independent voting watchdog organizations such as Voter Ga concerning the temendous level of malfeasance that went on with the 2020 election in Georgia betrays a shocking level of ignorance, even beyond the ignorance of those cited by Turley in this piece. The professor clearly has NO CLUE what went on in Georgia during the 2020 election, and it’s a level of WILLFUL ignorance that a person has to try very hard to maintain.
There’s no shame in being clueless about something. Everyone can’t know everything about everything. The shame is in writing about something when one knows nothing about it — or WORSE, when what one knows about it is total BS fed to him by a lying media.
Why should the black community vote for Biden?
—
Sixty years after MLKโs March on Washington, Black poverty rises from historic low under Trump
According to Census data, the African American poverty rate has gone up since 2019 and remained high during Biden’s presidency.
What if the Black vote doesn’t matter in 2024 the same way it mattered 4 years earlier? What if what really matters in 2024 is the deepening political chasm between men and women?
You say this: “Turley is desperate to make this about trumpโs right to free speech or the ability to challenge elections, neither of which heโs being charged for either federally or in Georgia.”
Then you finish your screed without referring to anything other than Trump’s speech and challenging of elections. You don’t point to any criminal conduct.
The Democrats didn’t just complain about elections and deny the results, they went after the winner in 2016 with a false Russian Collusion claim as a pretext for a Special Prosecutor and all the garbage that an aggressive partisan witch hunt can dig up.
What Obama, Biden and Hilary did during and after 2016 was much more egregious legally than what Trump did. What the media and the Democrats did to Trump loyalists was criminal and yet they all skated.
In 2020 a mob rioted at the WH with such violence that the President had to be moved into the bunker, a church was burned and many secret service agents were injured. Did we see any crying Adam Kinzinger crying videos? Did we see Adam crying as he said, “you held, you held that day”? Did we see Liz Cheney with her pathetic fake sad face make any speeches? Was there any committee hearings?
There may not have been actual voting fraud, but there were fraudulent actions such as Facebook money, mail in ballots, state courts changing voting regulations contra to actual laws, intelligence agencies lying about the laptop, social media banning any open discussion that wasn’t leftist approved and on and on.
To see hypocrites like Jamie Raskin yelling about election challenges is just another spike in the heart of reality, another dumbing down of honest discourse and another example of how damn shameless the media is today. Raskin’s very FIRST act as a congressman was to challenge the election of Trump and now he has made a career on the back of criminalizing election doubt. It just gets more absurd, more hypocritical and most aggravating more asinine every day.
PS. The same media that was clamoring for the invocation of the 25th A when Trump was in office is silent as we have a president that EVERYONE knows has dementia…as he runs for another 5 years! UNBELIEVABLE.
PSS. Please go on ignoring any comment penned by a person who goes by “Anonymous”. You may miss a few legitimate comments by honest people that for some reason won’t create a name, but all in all you will save yourself a lot of time by not reading the usual 200 comments by the one particular “Anonymous” that is trying to poison this great site.
>”The Democrats didnโt just complain about elections and deny the results, they went after the winner in 2016 with a false Russian Collusion claim as a pretext for a Special Prosecutor and all the garbage that an aggressive partisan witch hunt can dig up.”
Democrats can say anything, and often do. It was the U.S. DoJ and ‘intelligence officials’ that went after [president] Trump with “false Russian collusion” claims.
There must be a distinction between what ‘Democrats’ may say and what the official power of the U.S. government does. Otherwise, why bother with an election?
*’the IC has six ways from Sunday getting president Trump’ ~ Sen Schumer’s attempted coup
It is sad that this still has to be said: The Russians did meddle in the 2016 election and an investigation was needed. The only people who believe that lie are those who never read or even read a summary of the Mueller and Senate reports.
It’s amazing how many people still believe the Laptop has all the classic hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
Yes, because they they were investigating the Russians, and not Trump! They were all out to get those pesky Russians! Gotta investigate those Russians! After all, they exposed the dirty Dems for the scumbags they are with their own emails. We could let it go if they had deployed the same tricks as hillary, and just made up lies and fed them to the FBI.
—Sammy
And we all know that the black people who voted for Obama, but didn’t vote for Hillary, and determined the outcome of the election, all did it because of THE RUSSIANS!!!!
You go Sammy!!!
Reading Sammy’s comments clearly proves you wrong.
There was no meddling, and Mueller and the Senators who issued your precious report are dishonest. It’s not complicated. Why should we believe what they write? If they had produced evidence, that would be another matter, but they didn’t.
Bobby, you are absolutely right. There was a seditious conspiracy against Trump, the likes of which this country had never seen. All of the participants should be in prison.
Georgia, Illinois have both been known over the years as states where electoral shenanigans have taken place. Having grown up in Georgia and Atlanta it was always interesting around election time and it does not seem to matter who the people are, Black, White, Democrat, or Republican. I gave the Republicans a little leeway here because the democrats controlled the state almost totally for the past 100 + years since the civil war. Itโs only been in the last 20-25 years that Republicans have had their hands on the levers of power in the state. It was well that Trump criticized the outcome because in most instances he would have been right. I suspect the Zuck Bucks in Atlanta and the key Fulton county had the greater effect on the outcome. Fulton Co. -Atlanta more closely resembles New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, San Francisco and Austin than anything else and Republicans need to tread lightly there but they came be effective. However organization and a good ground game came reap enough votes in that area to keep Republicans winning in the state and emasculate the democratic hold on the city and its power in the state electorate. Desantis proved that in Florida. Organization works and a good message. Newt Gingrich showed the way in 1994 with attacking on the state level and then reap the benefit nationally but those lessons went unlearned by W. Bush and the state level Republicans in many states in subsequent years.
The business community needs to embrace the more working class voters entering the party and they need to be led away from the siren song of Democrat Big Government that favors certain parts of Big business. They fail to see that Big Government will turn on them.
History is full of such examples. 1933-1934 Germany is a case in point. Big business in Germany embraced the The National German Socialist Workers Party and their leader and they got a lot of business for themselves and a war to make even more money. It worked great until the lost and ended up in the Nuremberg Docket with the Political monsters they embraced.
Trump has an appeal to many people nationally but he fails to see the differences that must be allowed in his party in order to carry different states. A totally trump view will win in many states but lose in others where more moderate republicans can win. We see that by his at best lackluster performance in picking lower level candidates. He cursed the senate candidates in Georgia with his dabbling and lost 2 senate elections in 2020 and another in 2022 in Georgia (for a full term).
GEB
As a fellow Georgian, I can attest that this is all true. Well said.
GEB,
Thank you for the insight of Georgia, Atlanta and Fulton county.
However, there is a video that is slowly gaining traction of the Trump motorcade driving through a poor neighborhood in Fulton county with people, namely blacks, lined up and cheering Trump on even yelling “Free Trump!”
https://twitter.com/Travis_in_Flint/status/1694928419052458133
Is it an indicator of more blacks supporting Trump? Maybe even to the extent of voting Republican than Democrat?
“Biden administration targets ceiling fans, saying the appliances should be more ‘energy efficient”
Biden is causing the price of consumer goods to rise, so people won’t even be able to buy a fan. That is how he saves energy. He sends the middle class back to the stone age.
Let’s look at Biden. His main residence is an airconditioned 7,000-foot house for two people plus other homes. Let’s not forget his beloved Corvette.
There was no pressure. You’re absolutely nuts.
As I continue TRYING to read what Professor Turley wrote here, I’m emphasizing the horrible formal AND substantive quality of the composition. The constant equivocation isn’t just tedious, it’s formally disastrous.
Try as you might, Professor, your liberal friends (who’ve since migrated to the “progressive” version of insanity) will NEVER accept you back into the fold until you fully accept that they are 100% correct in everything they espouse, not limited to their godless religious belief that Trump is Evil incarnate, incapable of being right about ANYTHING.
So the endless equivocation whereby you ALWAYS go OFF-TOPIC to fault Trump for SOMETHING won’t get you invited back into the now-nonexistent liberal hive.
Therefore, focusing on just the formal writing aspects of this column, I’ll simply point out that the nonsense about the DOJ case against Trump being strong — even if it were a valid legal point (which I don’t think it is) — really has ZERO to do with an article about the Georgia indictment. I don’t mean to be overly caustic when I write this, but it seems to me that a JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL English composition teacher should be able to explain to you why it’s a grotesque error to continually toss in sentences and paragraphs about a completely different case in Florida and completely different set of issues from those involving the preposterous Georgia indictments.
Please stop trying to placate your once-liberal-now progressive friends with the relentless and tiresome equivocation and try for ONCE to stick to the relevant subject matter. Write about the Georgia case OR the completely-different Florida case, NOT BOTH. It’s like trying to argue that Hitler was a monster as human but a warm-hearted dog lover.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-hitler-and-his-dog-blondi-48334205.html?imageid=A073D8A9-EEFA-4393-AA25-84BC3E672199&p=291611&pn=1&searchId=3ea312fa36930abdbe3943dc5ef0a799&searchtype=0
If your university has an English Department (which seems doubtful at this point), perhaps you could ask one of the Engish professors to explain the idea to you — assuming they’re capable of looking at this as a matter of formal composition without allowing politics to cloud their judgment.
Turley must be one of these Democrats .. .
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-voters-think-donald-trump-arrest-is-election-interference/ar-AA1fOtqb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6b5ecd5a9b6d4ccd826fd8c8b4e10872&ei=29
*”The Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll found an average of 59 percent of Americans believed the four cases are an interference, versus 19 percent who disagreed, while another 22 percent said they didn’t know.” ~ story
Turley is trying to have his cake and eat it. Heโs trying remain relevant. His views are not based on legal reasoning or logic. Itโs based on political opinion geared towards satiating MAGA fans because they provide the bulk of his readership, his base. Itโs a shrinking demographic and heโs hanging on to it because they are the easiest to convince and to keep engaged purely for their gullible minds.
Philip Bump WhataยทCheapยทSchmuck
Philip Bump
@pbump
I wrote about Turleyโs efforts to wave away the Trump-Georgia call. http://www.washingtonpost.com/โฆ
Philip Bump (@pbump) ยท Twitter ยท 8/26/23 21 hours ago
https://twitter.com/pbump/status/1695479921345212682
๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฅ๐๐ฒโ๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ ๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐
George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley occupies an unusual spot in the cloud of lawyers and legal experts that has orbited around Donald Trump over the past eight years. He never worked for the former president, sparing him from being exiled by Trump into the ever-growing universe of declared Trump opponents. That also spared him from having to file court documents explaining why his discussions with Trump arenโt subject to the crime-fraud exception or from having to go after his former client for unpaid bills.
Turley also retained a relatively low profile, declining to follow Alan Dershowitz into the blinding, disorienting, revealing spotlight. He writes columns and appears on Fox News, offering his credentials and authority to bolster Trumpโs legal defenses. Intentionally or not, he generally keeps his head down in the trenches.
Analysis By: Philip Bump – National Columnist ~ August 25, 2023 at 10:07 a.m. EDT
washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/25/turley-foxnews-trump/
Here comes oddball “Anonymous” with his first of 200 comments on this story. I ignored it, most people will ignore it and yet the oddball will still comment 200 times. Go away oddball, we are all ignoring you.
You should work on your innumeracy.
I know you’re an oddball, but what am I?
bug
Hullbobby, you never ignore anonymous comments. If you did you wouldnโt be posting about them.
Letโs thank the Democrats:
Dick’s Sporting Goods cites ‘organized retail crime’ for 23% profit decline
Dick’s said it lost about $74 million in net income in the second quarter of 2023 because of “organized retail crime.” Dick’s is not alone, as more and more retailers are closing because of mobs of thieves striking stores.
The local Lowes down in town has put high priced items behind steel cages.
Never thought I would see that in my part of the country.
๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐ซ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐, ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ
A Florida lawyer is challenging former President Trumpโs ability to run for president in 2024 under the U.S. Constitutionโs 14th Amendment, citing the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in Palm Beach County, filed the challenge in federal court Thursday, pointing to a clause in the amendment that says those who โhave engaged in insurrection or rebellionโ against the government cannot hold office.
By: Ella Lee – 08/25/23
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/
๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉโ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐๐ โ ๐ง๐จ๐ฐ ๐ข๐ญโ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฎ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ๐ฌ
Throughout his career, Donald Trump has been like Houdini, escaping responsibility for his actions. But as he tries to escape more than 90 felony counts in four jurisdictions, his method is obvious. He is performing again, and his judges are not amused.
The trick consists of three parts. First, former President Trump intimidates those who would dare testify against him. Second, he makes himself the victim by maligning prosecutors, judges, juries and witnesses. That way, he can deny the legitimacy of the verdict should he be convicted.
By: William S. Becker, opinion contributor – 08/25/23
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4166754-trumps-coup-failed-in-2021-now-its-continuing-in-our-courts/
First, he lacks standing.
Quite convincing.
Can someone say: Gore v Bush? “Gov” Stacy Abrams? HRC (and every Dem) lieing about collusion/illegitimate President?
Now can someone say: millions of ballots mailed to ineligible voters? Zuckerbuck unmonitored voting boxes? Governors suspending state election laws to change state election laws? Covid? Laptops?
If you have a brain, you know the election of 2020 was ripe for voter fraud – and all of the alterations were made by Democrats. So who distorted the 2020 election?? Dems.
Very well said. Thanks for posting.
@CollinRugg
“BREAKING: White House visitor logs show that special counsel Jack Smithโs top aid met with Biden staffers just weeks before Smithโs indictment of Trump.
Theyโre scheming in broad daylight and they donโt even care.
On March 31, 2023, deputy chief of staff for the White House counselโs office Caroline Saba met with Jack Smithโs top aid Jay Bratt.
FBI agent Danielle Ray also joined the meeting.
2 months later, Trump was indicted. Is it making sense?”