The hearing yesterday on the motion of former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to remove his case to federal court from Georgia state court had a number of notable moments. The testimony of both Meadows and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger offered insights into the case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. While I have said that the sweeping indictment contains some serious allegations of criminal conduct against individual defendants, I have been critical of its broad scope and its implications for free speech in future challenges to elections. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes. What was most striking is that Raffensperger confirmed a key aspect of “the call” with Georgia officials that I previously raised about the purpose of that call.Ā For his part, Meadows categorically denied key allegations made by Willis in the indictment.
The hearing confirmed, as I have noted, that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the removal issue. In my view, Meadows and his counsel, George J. Terwilliger III, did well overall in showing that Chief of Staff has a broad portfolio of responsibilities and it is not possible to dismiss all of the cited actions in this indictment as purely political and not involving official conduct. Yet, as U.S. District Judge Steve Jones noted, there is little clarity on this issue in terms of precedent and we will have to await his decision. There will likely be an appeal of any order.
I thought both Meadows and Raffensperger did well on the stand. I was particularly interested in Raffensperger’s description of the call. I have always supported Raffensperger on his position in that call and the decisions of his staff. I have also rejected the claims of former President Donald Trump on the election allegations and his claims in the call.
Despite the recent attack in the Washington Post, it is not the merits of Trump’s claims but the use of the call as a criminal act that drew my criticism. The call was misrepresented by the Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings.
Raffensperger described the call in the same terms. He correctly described the call as “extraordinary” in a president personally seeking such an investigation, particularly after the completion of the earlier recount. That is manifestly true. However, he also acknowledged that this was a āsettlement negotiation.”
So what was the subject of the settlement talks? Another recount or further investigation. The very thing that critics this week were apoplectic about in the coverage. That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. Trump’s participation in the call was extraordinary and his demands were equally so. However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investigation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation. As I previously stated, 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.
The question is whether engaging in such arguments in a settlement discussion is a criminal act. This was a settlement call with lawyers on why officials should reexamine the votes and allegations of wrongdoing. While pundits continue to bizarrely stress that that the word “recount” was not used, the transcript shows that Trump was still arguing for an additional recount or investigation as these officials explained that it would not help or produce any different outcome.Ā They were right.
Meadows made news in his categorical denial of key allegations in the indictment. First, he denied that he ever asked White House personnel officer John McEntee to draft a memo to Vice President Mike Pence on how to delay certification of the election. He insisted under oath that it “just didnāt happen.ā
He also said he did not text the Georgia Secretary of Stateās office chief investigator, Frances Watson. He said that the text likely came from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state.
The testimony highlighted the weakness, in my view, of the charges against Meadows but also the use of overarching racketeering charges to snare Trump and top associates.
The most interesting takeaway is that Willis may have overplayed her hand by including Meadows. In doing so, she may have created the strongest avenue for removal. I believe that she hoped that Meadows would “flip.” Instead, he is leading the charge to federal court. Even if Judge Jones denies the motion, it can now be appealed and there are solid arguments here in his favor. If Willis showed greater restraint, she could have omitted Meadows and the strongest claim for removal. If he succeeds, it strengthens the case for others to seek removal.
Moreover, the case against Meadows simply does not seem all that compelling from the indictment. While she may have additional evidence, he currently seems a relatively weak link in her chain of conspiracy.
“Unsupported legal claims [. . .] have not been treated as crimes.” (JT)
The Left has one desire: To control everything and everyone. Those it cannot control (e.g., Trump, Musk, JT), it tries to destroy.
Those ballots have to have a signature verification. Then they need to send a D and R to knock on doors and find out where the fraud is. Running them thru the machines is a joke. If there is 10’s of thousands of illegally signed and 10’s of thousands of illegal voters that is where the fraud is. Nothing to do with the machines.
Real recounts don’t happen anymore. What does happen is ballot images deleted by the millions, and the usual blocking of all inquiries and never doing what the complainant asks for.
Youāre not learning. HAND counting does nothing to address illegal ballots.
But you can’t get past a motion to dismiss in court unless you can show the illegally submitted ballots made a difference in outcome. And you can’t show that because the ballot is separated from the envelope to preserved voter anonymity. It’s the perfect crime.
“Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.”
So I would think we should also be able to agree that the lawyers involved should be disbarred for their completely unsupported legal claims submitted over and over again to courts and as statements to the public. You would have to understand that these lies directly lead to the attack on the Capitol.
The fault/wrong I attribute to the lawyers is that they used dispositive words to allege fraudulent voting, instead of couching those claims in terms of probability, such as, “we believe it is likely that…” or, “we know there was fraudulent voting that affected the final vote count [true].”
Those statements would have been true. That is why MEDIA constantly, continuously, and carefully, declare that there was “no WIDESPREAD fraud,” and Barr stated that the evidence of fraud was “insufficient” to change the outcome of the election.
Accordingly, those truthful statements might have won in the court of public opinion, but were insufficient to sustain legal proceedings.
If you get into the details you’ll see the states are the criminals and they don’t really check ballots or do recounts.
It’s all fudging and lying and covering up with cons and spins, the details show that.
Attorneys are not disbarred for “completely unsupported legal claims”. If they were, there would be no attorneys left to practice. There would also not be challenges to long-standing precedent.
Respectfully, not true. See ABA Rule 3.1.
Notwithstanding, the ethical violation would need to be severe, i.e., amount to more than simply asserting a claim that contains equivocal or “frivolous” support/backing, in either application of law or statement of fact.
Disbarment is an extreme sanction for frivolous, “unsupported” claims and reprimand or suspension is much more likely.
…anyone who has heard the recordings of both the Trump and Meadows calls can clearly understand from their tone alone that they believed there were still votes to be found in GA…. there were widespread reports of contested votes at the time… and.. as Alan Dershowitz, who was on Al Gore’s Team, explained, the calls were no different from the Al Gore calls…..Yet..here we are…..the Judicial System is now fully weaponized for Politics…
Al Gore’s team conceded when SCOTUS ruled and the electoral college voted in mid-December. And Al Gore had a much more colorable claim – having lost by just a few hundred votes in one decisive state. Al Gore’s team was not making calls to the Secretary of State in January trying to find more votes.
Dear Policito – We haven’t made it to SCOTUS yet, have we…. ! …sticking to the timeframe in question.. one must assume that Prof. Dershowitz’s precise explanation ‘trumps’ any biased or irrelevant remarks…
There were real recounts there, and observers on both sides were allowed to examine the chads, not the BS recount that was perfunctorily provided with observers too far away to see anything problematic.
Really great post which sums it up. IT WAS JANUARY. And there was no fraud (to this day).
Again, here’s Trump engaging in behavior (criminal?) after everything at this point is just bells and whistles. Biden is going to be the President.
And Trump was still doing his best to run interference that would result in who knows what, but certainly chaos. Trump knew he lost and wanted to do anything to cripple the system.
Al Gore’s team conceded only when their legal strategy of forcing endless recounts in Florida was stopped by the S. Ct. The fact that the margin in Florida was smaller than the margin in Georgia does not mean that their claim was “more colorable”. There was never any evidence that the voting machines in Florida had malfunctioned in any way.
“First, he denied that he ever asked White House personnel officer John McEntee to draft a memo to Vice President Mike Pence on how to delay certification of the election. He insisted under oath that it ājust didnāt happen.ā
He also said he did not text the Georgia Secretary of Stateās office chief investigator, Frances Watson. He said that the text likely came from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state.”
I wonder what McEntee, Fuchs and Watson will testify to when this comes to trial? Let’s not credit Meadows’ testimony until we see if it can stand up to scrutiny. Credit the DA for letting Meadows talk and get his story on the record now at this hearing so it is harder to change it later. It sounds like when this goes to trial people will start pointing the fingers at each other. I think there will be some flipping going on.
I think your analysis misses the key issue here. A White House Chief of staff is not supposed to be part of the campaign under the Hatch Act. The governing people are supposed to be separate from the political campaign people. If this call to the Georgia Secretary of State was a settlement negotiation – it was not part of governing. It was part of the campaign lawsuit brought by candidate Trump – not part of governing working for the government under President Trump.
I just do not see how this gets removed based on Meadows’ role.
Doesn’t matter.
Bringing outside counsel who are experts in election law or other aspects of the law makes sense and happens all the time.
The interesting thing is that one of the articles quoted Willis making an off the cuff remark citing the Hatch Act.
Yet two things… 1) Meadows didn’t violate the Hatch Act
2) Willis didn’t charge him w violating the Hatch Act.
Had she… its a Federal Crime.
Turley is right that the case against Meadows is weak and that he’s not going to flip or take this lying down. He’s got deep enough pockets and he’ll fight.
As Turley points out that the call in question is one that doesn’t rise to a criminal offense.
Willis is DNC cannon fodder. Don’t worry, she’ll be compensated on the back end of this attempt to go after Trump.
All this does is pull oxygen from the room of the other GOP candidates.
Biden is on a path where he’s going to be impeached. The down side there… unlike Trump’s two impeachments… actual evidence of a crime will be exposed and even the Dems in the Senate can’t hide it. They may try to carry water for Biden… but unless they are the proverbial glass of water in a deep blue state… they are at risk over this… even if they are not up for election. People remember.
-G
“While pundits continue to bizarrely stress that that the word ‘recount’ was not used, the transcript shows that Trump was still arguing for an additional recount or investigation as these officials explained that it would not help or produce any different outcome. They were right.”
(1) I’m aware of NO bases for Turley’s wholly-unsupported conclusory statement, “They were right.” I looked for support for that IGNORANT statement .and found none.
(2) About “pundits continue to bizarrely stress that that the word ‘recount’ was not used,” it appears that the professor is unaware of the distinction between a “recount” and an “audit.” As I understand it, a “recount” merely redoes a prior flawed vote-counting process, whereas an “audit” reviews the prior process to see if it was properly done. The differences between “recount” and “audit” were exhaustively examined during the lengthy AUDIT of the 2020 vote in Arizona. There is NO indication in ANY of Turley’s articles I’m aware of suggesting that he has ANY awareness of the controversy that occurred in the 2020 Arizona presidential election, where the difference between a “recount” and an “audit” was clearly established.
(3) About “the transcript shows that Trump was still arguing for an additional recount or investigation”: As stated above, the transcript does NOT show that Trump was “still arguing for an additional recount,” but was arguing for a PROPER investigation — aka an “audit.” As a lawyer, I don’t believe that Professor Turley is entitled to be THIS ignorant or dishonest about the basic facts of the case.
(4) About “these officials explained that it would not help or produce any different outcome”: A “recount” would not produce a different result, because a “recount” is merely a REPETITION of the previous FLAWED process, and that’s NOT what Trump was requesting. An “audit,” however, would have addressed the myriad flaws in the Georgia vote-counting process as outlined by the nonpartisan Voter Ga organization, which I’ve repeatedly cited here in Turleyville over the last week or so.
Summary: This INTENTIONAL conflation with a nonexistent request for a “recount” with the ACTUAL request for an AUDIT is some of the most disgraceful nonsense I’ve ever read at this site in more that 5 years — even more disgraceful than putting Michael Avenatti up on a pedistal as the prototypical heroic attorney not long before he was sent up the river for a well-deserved, all-expenses-paid multi-year vacation on the taxpayers’ dime.
Ralph,
Your point #3 is moot.
If Trump was arguing for an Audit. Fine.
If Trump was arguing about a recount. Also fine.
Both are examples of where Trump wasn’t trying to steal an election.
Turley’s point stands.
They key is that if you want to stop fraud… win by a large enough margin where fraud has minimal effect.
-G
LOL. Assuming fraud is minimal. Good luck with that.
Anyone who looks into it all knows the score, and it’s big time theft.
“They key is that if you want to stop fraudā¦ win by a large enough margin where fraud has minimal effect.ā
Ian, what makes you think the margin of victory by Trump wasnāt large and the fraud larger?
Fraud is a hard thing to define for the 2020 election because there were so many irregularities. If no irregularities occurred, Trump probably won by a large margin. Therefore, one has to examine what constitutes irregularities.
Though I didnāt know if Trump won or not after the election when looking only at fraud, today, after reviewing all the things that went on, I am convinced without fraud Trump would have won. In fact, if it is a Trump-Biden fight, I think Trump might lose, but only through massive fraud.
If we want a fair election, we need one-ballot one vote, voter ID, paper ballots, one-day voting, and a few other things. If that was possible in 2024, I have little doubt of a Trump victory or any Republican over any Democrat.
“If we want a fair election, we need one-ballot one vote, voter ID, paper ballots, one-day voting, and a few other things. If that was possible in 2024, I have little doubt of a Trump victory or any Republican over any Democrat.”
Yeah, well that’s too bad isn’t it?
Why don’t you make NFL games 58 minutes and we’d have a ton of different winners every year. LOL
Things like early voting, mail in voting (all which I have used) are GREAT things that allows a wider body of people to participate in a great thing.
Don’t you find it interesting that almost all fraud when it comes to voting, is found on the GOP side? Now I’m talking actual fraud, not fairy tales. So no using 2020 claims, ok?
Democrats cheat. That is why they donāt want secure voting. You are happy with cheating so you donāt want secure voting as well. If you think the Republicans cheat then you should want secure voting as well.
We know there was fraud with mail in ballots and lack of voter ID. Secure the election. You donāt want that. You want cheating. You must be a Democrat.
Do you wish to explain 2000 Mules and all the other videos that documented cheating?
“We know there was fraud with mail in ballots and lack of voter ID”
Completely false. Mail in ballots are completely secure. There are tons of articles from legitimate sources that verify this. I can proudly say I mailed by ballot in for the 2020 election.
Oh let me guess, you went down the raw data all by yourself to disprove the experts. Trump and company should think about hiring you, you could really help his criminal case (eye roll).
“Do you wish to explain 2000 Mules and all the other videos that documented cheating”
This has been debunked by again legitimate sources and is nothing more than propaganda designed to haul you in and create doubt. In that aspect, it’s been a very successful documentary – as you will surely demonstrate in reactions to this post. So have at it!!!!!
“Completely false. Mail in ballots are completely secure.ā
Yet, in a post to Tom, you proved them not to be secure. In Georgia, they are finally looking into it since documentation of the problem has been demonstrated. I provided that evidence on this blog a short while back.
“Oh let me guess, you went down the raw data all by yourself to disprove the experts.ā
No. Documents were presented based on government sources.
“This has been debunked by again legitimate sources ā
That is not true. You don’t read. Others tell you what to think. I will provide in a separate response a discussion debunking your claims.
Afterward, you can respond and prove that you know what you are talking about. I doubt you will.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/05/fact-checking-2000-mules-the-movie-alleging-ballot-fraud/
ā¢ āBallot harvestingā is a pejorative term for dropping off completed ballots for people besides yourself. The practice is legal in several states but largely illegal in the statesā
FALSE
The mules engaged in ballot trafficking, which is illegal in all states. Ballot harvesting, legal in some states, has to do with taking a limited number of ballots from family members or dependent people directly to the dropbox.
That was not done! The ballots were picked up from a central source (ILLEGAL) and then transported to drop boxes in ILLEGAL numbers. There was no relationship between the mule and the one voting, which was also illegal.
This was BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is ILLEGAL in all fifty states.
========
āThe film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020.ā
The evidence is overwhelming, including videos, whistleblowers, and people interviewed who didnāt know what was happening but filled in the empty pieces about what was happening with the ballots.
It was BALLOT TRAFFICKING WHICH IS ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES.
====
āPlus, experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters ā not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby.ā
One doesnāt repeatedly go by drop boxes in the middle of the night 10 times, suddenly wearing gloves to prevent fingerprint detection.
Cellphone location data was good enough that their data located a criminal who performed a criminal act where they were checking pings. They gave the police the information, and the criminal was arrested. So much for this type of garbage from the left.
āThereās always a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.ā
But the uncertainty disappears as the number of times at the dropbox and the center increases. That is why they didnāt use only three events. They used ten times which would be a far outlier. Videos and other information fill in more of the details.
The quote is uneducated. The commenter should see the film and stop parroting what the left wants to hear. He needs to state the truth.
āWhatās more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes ā increasing the likelihood that innocent citizens got caught in the groupās dragnet, Striegel said.ā
3 AM in the morning would be unusual.
āSimilarly, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might be visiting both a nonprofitās office and one of those busy areas. ā
Would they end up at a ballot box ten times? Of course not. One needs to see the film because the data debunk these bogus statements.
=====
āA video of a voter dropping off a stack of ballots at a drop box is not itself proof of any wrongdoing, since most states have legal exceptions that let people drop off ballots on behalf of family members and household members.ā
But that means they take the ballot directly from the person to the ballot box, or the ballot becomes illegal. They were taking ballots from an illegal center. That is known as BALLOT TRAFFICKING.
They were BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is illegal in all 50 states.
āAnd True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone ā
So, according to the article, Philadelphia was the exception, and the other places proved the filmās argument. There was further evidence in Philadelphia. Cameras at ballot boxes are not the only cameras available. But that provides the question, where were the cameras and what happened to the film? It sounds like there was even more unlawful activity going on in Philadelphia.
I donāt think I need to debunk more of this article. Everyone needs to see the film for themselves. ATS will continue to deceive and lie, but he canāt do that to people armed with the truth.
(from a prior post)
Now it is up to you Bill to respond.
I mean, really, just this comment shows how you try to twist individual instances your way:
“So, according to the article, Philadelphia was the exception, and the other places proved the filmās argument.”.
No – it’s saying there was no film obtained in Philadelphia. And cell phone data is still not empirical data in this instance or the others.
Glove to leave no fingerprints……..it was WINTER and COVID was rampant.
Bill, you donāt read very well.
“I mean, really, just this comment shows how you try to twist individual instances your way:ā
Why not start your comment with: This is a twist, quote the words, and then explain what you are trying to say. You canāt. That is why you stay away from facts.
“No ā itās saying there was no film obtained in Philadelphia. And cell phone data is still not empirical data in this instance or the others.ā
It asks the question: Where were the cameras in Philadelphia, and where was the film? It existed. Who swiped it away? Why? Probably Democrats didnāt want the film to show what was happening, but the cellphone evidence exists, and videos exist from elsewhere.
“Glove to leave no fingerprintsā¦ā¦..it was WINTER and COVID was rampant.ā
They didn’t wear gloves before and started wearing them simultaneously after the report of an arrest based on fingerprints. Photographic evidence exists of people removing their gloves after they stuffed the ballot box.
You are full of ignorance and arguments that demonstrate foolishness, not intelligence.
“They didnāt wear gloves before and started wearing them simultaneously after the report of an arrest based on fingerprints. Photographic evidence exists of people removing their gloves after they stuffed the ballot box.”
Ok…and you know this how? From the movie or external reporting?
“Okā¦and you know this how? From the movie or external reporting?”
Bill, the videos show people aren’t wearing gloves. The date of the arrest based on fingerprints is known. Immediately following the arrest, the Mules were wearing gloves. The proof is on video and visible in many places at many times.
Instead of trying to make things up, why don’t you view the video? Then you can see if you can disprove anything I said. That is how intelligent people act. Parrots only say what someone teaches them.
I see you didn’t comment on proven ballot trafficking which is illegal in all 50 states.
You didn’t comment on the overwhelming evidence, which included videos, whistleblowers, and people interviewed who didnāt know what was happening but filled in the empty pieces about what was happening with the ballots.
Since you didn’t talk much about cellphone trafficking, you must agree that piece of overwhelming evidence existed.
Why did people go to the drop boxes 10 times in the middle of the night? You can’t answer that either. Did I say such traffic at 3 a.m. would be highly unusual?
Take note of your juvenile responses and your inability to deal with the evidence. There is no way to debate with one who relies on emotion rather than fact. Surely, by now, you realize how unprepared you are. Start reading additional sources of information.
“I see you didnāt comment on proven ballot trafficking which is illegal in all 50 states.”
Why would I comment on something that never happened or doesn’t happen.
The article says ballot harvesting is legal in most states, that’s a true statement. Ballot trafficking is illegal in all states, another true statement. I have to comment on everything you write, even the obvious?
That ballot trafficking actually happened is a false statement, by you on this blog. There’s my comment.
“Why would I comment on something that never happened or ”
Bill, when custody of the ballots is lost, that proves ballot trafficking. That is on the videos.
You prove you are too dull to see things that happened and are on video. You don’t see them because you can’t explain them. Your ideology has placed your brain in the wrong place.
“Donāt you find it interesting that almost all fraud when it comes to voting, is found on the GOP side?”
I find it not plausible. Care to post your source?
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-were-only-trump-supporters-arrested-2020-election-fraud-1730592
there ya go. Figured we would just start with 2020, since that seems to be a sticking point with a lot of you.
But feel free to Google other election plots prior, you’ll find it’s mostly Republican registered.
Bill, it was a stupid act proving that voter fraud exists on both sides, but the vast amount of fraud or questionable voting was on the Democrat side. That is not important. The important thing is to stop such actions so that the public can trust the voting process. You provided an individual example, while the other showed or explained the risk of hundreds of thousands of ballots. The difference in evidence makes your claim sound foolish.
That means we must abandon mail-in voting or severely limit it with rules.
The reason Democrats do not wish to stop this abuse is because they know it benefits them at election time. After all, they cheat more than anyone else.
Will you call for an end to mail-in voting or significant restrictions?
“Bill, it was a stupid act proving that voter fraud exists on both sides, but the vast amount of fraud or questionable voting was on the Democrat side”
Read the article. Go to the database, run by a conservative outlet. Don’t be dense.
Most voter fraud is on the Republican side. Not just in 2020. It’s right there for you to look at but you won’t……..you’ll go to your fringe websites that promote conspiracy theories.
I bet you overwhelmingly backed the suitcase and USB port lie promoted by Giuliani in the GA election count, didn’t you….just a hunch. Still support it?
“Read the article. Go to the database, run by a conservative outlet. Donāt be dense.ā
I went there already, and it showed large numbers of mail-in or absentee ballot fraud, something you said didn’t exist. Does that make you dense, or does it inform us that you do not read? It didn’t generally specify what party committed the fraud, but I searched for a few and saw Democrats. They had a lot of jailbirds as well.
“Most voter fraud is on the Republican side. Not just in 2020.”
I am waiting for you to link to your proof. You demonstrate your ignorance about voter fraud every time you speak. I just produced my response to a Mercury News article on 2000 Mules. Now, you can show why 2000 Mules were wrong by debating my rebuttal. You won’t.
“I bet you overwhelmingly backed the suitcase and USB port lie promoted by Giuliani in the GA election count,”
Don’t be stupid. I like Giuliani, but I didn’t comment on many of the specifics on him because there wasn’t sufficient information. Your comment is based mostly on an ideological basis and to date has been deficient in proving your case. You now have a chance with 2000 Mules, as I provided you with a source and a rebuttal. You will not engage in thoughtful discussion on this subject. Right?
“I went there already, and it showed large numbers of mail-in or absentee ballot fraud, something you said didnāt exist”
Large numbers compared to the overall mail-in total? You do the percentage and let me know if it’s secure. Get back to be me on that percentage.
You lost me at “I like Guliani….”…………LOL
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-covid-technology-health-arizona-e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762
You’re entitled to believe what you want, but it’s based on unsubstantiated claims that aren’t backed by empirical data.
You let me know when this smorgasbord of evidence of fraud is presented to the world and everybody goes “Trump was right all along” – we will all be waiting.
“Large numbers compared to the overall mail-in total?”
You prove you don’t know what you are talking about. You said “Mail in ballots are completely secure.” earlier. Were you lying? Were you ignorant? Do you say the first thing that comes to mind because you are a classic know-nothing?
You can choose whichever you prefer, but one can see from your quote, you do not tell the truth.
Mail-in ballots are difficult to trace for many reasons. That means this significant number is the tip of the iceberg.
“Large numbers compared to the overall mail-in total?”
Bill, you prove you don’t know what you are talking about. You said, “Mail in ballots are completely secure.” earlier. Were you lying? Were you ignorant? Do you say the first thing that comes to mind because you are a classic know-nothing?
You can choose whichever you prefer, but from your quote, it is easy to see you do not tell the truth.
Mail-in ballots are difficult to trace for many reasons. That means this significant number is the tip of the iceberg.
This is the guy you like?
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4178903-giuliani-loses-georgia-election-worker-defamation-suit-by-default-judge-rules/
Disgusting.
Bill, are you trying to prove you can link but cannot think?
You are ignorant about what Guiliani achieved. He was a great mayor. Do you want to dispute that fact? Go ahead. Being wrong about everything doesn’t seem to bother you. That means you are used to being wrong.
LOL
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4179159-gop-state-lawmaker-arrested-in-alabama-on-felony-voter-fraud-charges/
I’m really sorry to keep piling on…………
“Iām really sorry to keep piling onā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦”
Bill,
Your link’in proves you are not a thinkāin man,
but a child in long pants piling on, proving himself a moron.
I didnāt want to use the word moron, but after making yourself a fool once and then twice, which should suffice, I discovered the word idiot didnāt rhyme.
Can you at least admit what Guiliani did to those two election workers was disgusting?
I mean, we can find common ground here, right?
Bill, there is no common ground. I provided proof that you dismissed without a rational reason. You have been wrong about everything and now you looking for common ground. If I think I agree with you, I have to think again since your track record has been so bad.
I donāt concern myself with Giuliani. He is unimportant. If you want agreement, then agree on what is simple. Biden is corrupt.
Michigan police memos raised concern about possible nationwide voter registration fraud scheme
Local Michigan police and the state’s attorney general discovered a high ratio of fraudulent voter registration applications, investigated “Election Fraud by Forgery,” and referred the matter to the FBI….
Open Secrets, a non-partisan research group that tracks money in U.S. politics provides data showing that GBI has been paid millions of dollars in the 2020 election cycle by Democratic and far-left groups. These groups include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ($2,117,605); DNC Services Corp. ($1,031,856); and the Biden for President Campaign, who paid GBI $450,000….
During the investigation, Michigan State Police conducted a search of a GBI Strategies office in Southfield, Mich., and found four rifles, four pistols, and a whiteboard with āseveral notes on it…..
Search warrants in the report mention state police “currently investigating a possible violation of ‘MCL 168.933a’, Election Fraud by Forgery.”…
JT says “For his part, Meadows categorically denied key allegations made by Willis in the indictment.”
Wow, what profound incite. An indicted person denies charges, That never happened before, He must be innocent.
Furthermore, In searching through the Trump Raffensperger call transcript, the word recount occurs once, by Raffensperger. JT goes on an on about how trump was asking for a recount but somehow trump never actually uttered those words. NO, trump was asking Raffensperger to find him enough votes to win the state.
Elections are ran by states, not by the feds, trump wanted to stay in office so he could play dictator just like his friends in N Korea, Russia, Philippines, etc. This was a Keystonion Cops attempt at staying in power, When Republican officials at the state level would not comply with flipping the election in his favor, trump turned to his VP to refuse to count certified election results. When that fell through he turned to his right wing thugs to muscle their way to change the results in the Capitol building through intimidation.
What happened on January 6, 2021 has never happened in our history. It is a sad day and trump will forever be tied to this event as the looser that acted like a 4 year old when his toy was taken away. JT is tarnishing what was once a good reputation by continuing to defend all this as free speech when he knows it was not. As I’ve said many times before, that filthy lucre must be pretty good JT. Read the numerous articles out there calling out JT for loosing his way.
So now let the attacks against me begin. But first understand. No I am not a democrat, Never have been. I am not a leftist. I have way more leanings to libertarian principles than Demo or Repo. When you loose an election, come up with policies that will attract voters. Trump has done none of that. What exactly does trump stand for anyway? The 2020 Republican platform. oops, there wasn’t a 2020 republican platform. So what does he stand for? Go ahead, throw your insults, act just like trump, be a baby, One day I hope you will all take your blinders off and get out of the trump cult.
Talk about a rant….
Criticism of this indictment, the DoJ, Merrick Garland or Joe Biden is not the same thing as support for Trump.
*Trump’s “Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes” ~ Turley
I consider you a liar.
Nothing new, a bunch of you are.
“NO, trump was asking Raffensperger to find him enough votes to win the state.ā
Let me fix that for you. NO, trump was asking Raffensperger to find him enough ILLEGAL votes to win the state. He talked about hundreds of thousands of irregularities and illegalities.
If someone washed your mouth out with soap, your tongue would disappear.
“So now let the attacks against me begin. But first understand. No I am not aā
No need to explain. You are uniformed.
“What exactly does trump stand for anyway?ā
As I said, you are uninformed.
Let me fix it for you:
Trump was asking Raffensperger to find him enough UNFOUNDED, MADE UP ILLEGAL votes to win the state
In other words – look for something that does not exist in a already declared election.
Way to go DJT, you f*cked up presidential elections going forward………………
“Trump was asking Raffensperger to find him enough UNFOUNDED, MADE UP ILLEGAL votes to win the stateā
Trump made it clear in the >er than one-hour call that he thought there were many illegal votes many more than the votes he lost by. He asked Raffensperger to find just enough so that people could see the Democrats were cheating. You can argue whether Trumpās analysis was correct, but you cannot argue he didnāt believe Democrat cheating occurred. You are uniformed and rely on 3 seconds that you twist to conform them to what you wish to believe. That is low quality thinking.
Then you say Trump “you f*cked up presidential elections going forwardā¦ā¦ā
How? That is where you are unable to answer. You are uninformed and not explain in detail how you draw your conclusions. That makes your conclusions valueless.
“Then you say Trump āyou f*cked up presidential elections going forwardā¦ā¦ā
How? That is where you are unable to answer. You are uninformed and not explain in detail how you draw your conclusions. That makes your conclusions valueless.”
I said it in a previous post but will repeat it.
What will Trump say if/when he loses the next election? Bow out graciously?? LOL
But you know what, you’re actually correct. Because if Trump is convicted we won’t have a future with this kind of issue. People will thing twice when they justly lose.
I take note you canāt answer the how portion of my question. Your answer book is empty but your distortions continue.
“What will Trump say if/when he loses the next election? Bow out graciously?? LOLā
Trump left the WH despite what the leftist media hyped people up to believe. What did Hillary Clinton say or Gore or anyone else? Democrats are known for their bad behavior. Invite the Clintonās over, and when they leave see if you still have your silverware.
When people lose an election, it is part of their freedom to contest the loss. Of course, you believe freedom is what you want it to be, so we can conclude that you are against freedom. You are looking toward the state using force to abridge another manās freedom to say what he believes. In this case Trump is correct so you are nothing more than a supporter of despots who seek absolute power.
In regards to this:
You can argue whether Trumpās analysis was correct, but you cannot argue he didnāt believe Democrat cheating occurred.
I can’t argue what he believed, you are 100% correct. But it doesn’t not matter as the election was OVER and being CERTIFIED. He was out of options in regards to THIS ELECTION. He could have honestly believed he won – it still does not make right what he did concerning ALL THE ACTOINS as described in the indictment. There comes a point in time where you have to admit defeat and take a different course.
“I canāt argue what he believed, you are 100% correct.”
That ends the Jawja case against Trump.
” There comes a point in time where you have to admit defeat and take a different course.ā
There comes a point where you must admit a great degree of corruption occurred in the 2020 election and that the country needs to reform its election process. Almost all consider Biden President whether they believe he won legally or not. The big issue is that you and your buddies want to maintain power by maintaining a corrupt voting system.
“When you loose an election, come up with policies that will attract voters. Trump has done none of that.”
Know what he’s gonna do? He’s got a plan. IT’S RIGGED AGAIN!
I love when people say let’s decide this in the election and give Trump a pass.
Didn’t we just do that in 2020 and Trump f*cked all over it?
“NO, trump was asking Raffensperger to find him enough votes to win the state.”
Maybe the only true or correct thing you’ve ever said. So what??
Maybe you should try putting the word “find” in quotation marks, like others have, as if that gives it some new meaning.
Sorry, but unless someone testifies that they were present with Trump and they saw him wave his fingers ala Dr. Evil (fire the “laser”), you got nothing there.
There is an unrelenting, dedicated fervor by the Left to destroy Trump. -Mostly for things that others have done, with impunity.
We must ask ourselves, why?
@Lin,
Trump is an outsider who can’t be controlled.
Deep state? meh.
The sad thing…
Trump wins… 30% of the people will be in constant riot and ‘resistance’.
Lawyers will sue anything he says or does.
Certain members of Congress will continue to call for his impeachment regardless of having any reason to impeach him.
Trump will still be Trump. While he’ll spend most of his time fixing Biden’s F’ups and getting this country back on track… he can’t easily reverse much of the damage done by Biden. We’re talking 70+ yrs of foreign policy down the drain thanks to Biden.
Trump is also a bit of an isolationist. That’s not a good thing and his willingness to pull back can slow the necessary fixes down.
Its not necessarily bad, but not good.
-G
Ian: I must agree. I’m also certain that Trump would spend much time bragging about how he defeated insurmountable persecution/prosecution.
Moreover, all those violent, fire-bombing, looting, destructive protesters marring Trump’s earlier January 2017 inauguration were never. held. accountable. for their riots:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/government-drops-charges-against-all-inauguration-protesters-n889531
“…the government facing off against an intensely coordinated grassroots political opposition network that made Washington the focus of a nationwide support campaign ā offering free lodging for defendants, legal coordination and other support.”
Who paid for all that damage? We did.
And I do not recall any “intensely coordinated grassroots political opposition network that made Washington the focus of a nationwide support campaign ā offering free lodging for defendants, legal coordination and other support” for the innocent January 6 protesters- who did nothing but show up that day- but were dragnetted into prosecutions or condemnation. Anyone who attended the January 6 protest must forever wear the stigmata of association with the real troublemakers that day–many who were planted activist agitators.
That “chilling” effect only encourages one side to “protest” with immunity, while other side protests “at assumed risk.”
>”That āchillingā effect only encourages one side to āprotestā with immunity, while other side protests āat assumed risk.ā”
The chilling effect is that one side controls the levers of power .. . the other side only has a bloviating nincompoop and a few weary lawyers.
*stuck in the middle with Turley
Lin,
I have wondered what if Biden wins.
What would his inauguration look like?
Would any of his voters show up?
Would they bus in teacher union members in?
Would they use the Electionyearicron COVID cases as a reason to hold a closed inauguration, like the 2020 closed one complete with fences and masked NG?
And what if a few hundred thousand Trump supporters showed up to the Biden inauguration and while peaceful, chanted in unison “NOT MY PRESIDENT!”
Would they get arrested like those at Jan6th?
Upstate: Love your “what ifs.” –And yours are real, contemplative questions deserving consideration.
At the end of my original comment, I resisted a sentence that asked, “What if Trump wins again?” because I do not want to discourage voters who might think, “all that trouble and negativity, all over again,” and refrain from voting for him.
But that is precisely what the Left is hoping for.
It’s like behavior modification training, where they prepare you for the fact that ignoring negative behavior (in this case, behavior of anti-Trump agitators) only results in ESCALATED behavior until they get the result they want. They have come after him from every angle, every twist, every forum, every charge. The whole kitchen sink.
It’s turned humorous.
Biden needs to be impeached and removed from office .. . before he kills us all.
*Hopefully, a chagrined VP Harris (if she was not caught-up in the impeachment) would think twice before doing anything rash. .. maybe.
There is no politician more deleterious and dangerous to the Deep Deep State “Swamp” than the politician who cannot be bought.
That Fani, she gonna spank Meadows fanny, right Dennis? She gonna show ’em all how we do it down heah in Jawja. She may not “know nothin’ ’bout no computer stuff” or how the indictment got posted before it was handed down, but she is one brilliant affirmative action prosecutor.
And so begins the fall of the long line of “predictions” from our local Nostrodamus.
I can’t wait until SCOTUS rules on this one on party lines.
This will only get worse. This is straight out of an authoritarian playbook whether right wing or left wing. We cannot be a country of laws if the laws are invented and manipulated for one purpose: get Trump. For more excellent legal analysis, readers of Professor Turley should watch the Alan Dershowitz Podcast on Rumble. Our great classic liberal thinkers are being supplanted by partisan authoritarians.
So what stops another DA or the AG of Georgia from indicting all the defendants on the same charges and trying them in one month in a rural county in north Georgia? Just sit back and call one or two witnesses who will not say anything of value, rest their case, and let the court enter a judgment of acquittal. Trump and company can then claim double jeopardy and walk away. There must be a counter argument to this but it could be an ingenious way to torpedo Willis and her henchmen.
@Dennis…
There’s this thing called double jeopardy?
Maybe you’ve heard about it?
You are correct but it Trump were to be indicted on the same charges in another Georgia county or by the AG, he could sit back and wait for a manufactured acquittal and then move to dismiss Willis’s indictment as barred by double jeopardy. He would be accused of being in cohoots with the AG but hey, since when did not corrupting the criminal justice system matter?
Fani should have used restraint? Did Alvin Bragg use restraint? Did Jack Smith use restraint? Did that nut job suing Trump for sexual assault years and years later show restraint? Did Garland? Did the Biden team as they were meeting with Smith’s team prior to the raid at Mara Lago?
Not so fast, Anonymous! The really disconcerting aspect of the federal and state prosecutions is that they are being initiated and coordinated for a political purpose.
Good news is, all of the little bug boys posts will be removed shortly, leaving only the ridicule of his rantings and ravings.
LMAO
Tom,
Exactly!!
As if he never existed.
Meadows is not a š¬
No judge should allow political prosecutions.
No one is fooled by these cases
The basis’ aren’t just thin on every one of them.
And, they not only will they be allowed to proceed they will at some level be successful and achieve the desired effect of putting a former president behind bars.
Is this the great and impartial US judicial system?
Willis is just one more useful idiot the Democrats haul out whenever their backs are against the wall.
This Quetion, because move to federal court, and then promptly dismissed
Restraint in charging Mark Meadows ? Felony Fanny threw that out the window a long time ago. I’m surprised she didn’t include a larceny charge for not returning a movie to Blockbuster Video. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
@skyraider,
She would have… but Meadows never lived in ATL or GA.
meanwhile Democrats ARE allowed to commit EVER more crimes…Russian Hoax, “Emails from Hunter’s laptop also reveal business partners referred to Biden as the ‘big guy'” Hillary destroying subpoenaed evidence, etc
You are correct, Guyentner! The Democratāsā strategy here is a ā3Dā strategy: DISTRACT, DEFLECT and DESTROY.