Raffensperger and Meadows Testify in Key Hearing in Federal Court on Georgia Allegations

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.  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 “settlement 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.  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 didn’t happen.”

He also said he did not text the Georgia Secretary of State’s 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.


179 thoughts on “Raffensperger and Meadows Testify in Key Hearing in Federal Court on Georgia Allegations”

    1. anyone who says there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Georgia elections has his/her head in the sand since NOv. 3rd 2020. There is video, signed affadavids by the thousand, , drop box fraud, computer fraud , audio , etc., etc. I could write a short story of all the evidence of fraud in that election.

  1. Turley:

    “I thought both Meadows and Raffensperger did well on the stand. I was particularly interested in Raffensperger’s description of the call.”


    “Then why didn’t you tell us what he said?”

  2. Doesn’t it appear odd to anyone here that the trial dates dovetail so perfectly with the presidential campaign dates? If Trump is truly guilty, why the bums rush to persecute? Why can’t the general public decide for themselves if this man is worthy of office? All you are really saying is that he is guilty before being proven innocent by requiring this rush to judgment. This movement is actual election interference which any American can see if not blinded by political bias- just sayin

      1. “The general public already decided for ourselves that Biden was a better choice than Trump.”

        Yep and that worked out well—NOT

  3. Maybe Dennis would like to comment on Joe’s latest lie. He claimed that he “LITERALLY talked Strom Thurmond into voting for the civil rights act before he died”

    The civil rights act was passed in 1964. Joe Biden was 21 years old and battling Corn Pop at the time. Or was that when he was attending the historically black college. Or was that when he was finishing liar cum laude at law school.

    Strom Thurmond filibustered the civil rights act of 1964. He died 4 decades later in 2003. He was a democrat.

    Al Gore Jr’s father also filibustered the civil rights act. He was a democrat.

    Republicans in the senate voted for the civil rights act of 1964 30-2.

    Modern lefties would have you believe that the bigotry and racism of the democrat party was a century and a half ago. Horse manure.

    Unless Briben meant the civil rights act of 1957, which thurmond also voted against, when Pedo Joe was 14.



      1. No way! Dennis done said that Fani is a brilliant example of affirmative action. She “gonna show ’em how it’s done down heah in Jawja!”

        Tell ’em Dennis—-Fani gonna spank that orange fanny!

    2. Oh yea, Pedo Joe also said in the same speech the Ketanji Jackson was brilliant.

      But then again, he said Hunter was the smartest person he knows. (word is that Kamala was not happy about that statement)

  4. The Chinese parent company’s governing articles state: “The Company shall set up a Party organization and carry out Party activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China.”

    Company behind Michigan electric vehicle battery plant registered as Chinese foreign organization
    All businesses in China, including foreign ones, are required under the law to have such committees with three or more party members.

  5. More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate ’emergency’ a myth
    The global coalition of scientists say that politics and a journalistic frenzy has propelled a doomsday climate change hysteria. The signatories also ask other scientists to “address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming.”

    The declaration, put together by the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL), was made public this month and urges that “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific.”

    1. Science is NOT consensus. Do applaud these men and teach the rest the Scientific Method. Learned that before high school, and have been MORE than frustrated by the huge number of ‘scientists’ that have bowed and succumbed to the Marxist culture of grants, for desired results, with concocted parameters and data skewing until they reach the ‘requested’ or ‘substantiated consensus of the day’ for which government/globalists/bigpharma pay. I support the efforts of CLINTEL, but the statement of goals, but is milk toast at best. Announce that political interference marks any work as suspect. Would be best too, to understand that ‘government’ has been cloud seeding at least since the 60’s, so there is no doubt in my mind that they have bigger and better means, and can/will/have, used to make climate events as bad as possible, when it suits them. THAT is not being investigated, but should be. Start looking at the Maui inconsistencies between the ‘morning’ and ‘afternoon’ fires. The governors change in control 3 weeks earlier is suspect. I have no answers but do have the questions.

  6. Jonathan: DJT is not happy about Judge Chutkan setting a trial date of 3/4/24 for Jack Smith’s case involving Jan. 6. DJT is really unhinged in this post about the trial date. He says in part:

    “Deranged Jack Smith & his team have been working on this Witch Hunt for almost 3 years, but decided to bring it smack in the middle of Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent’s campaign against him. Election Interference! Today, a biased, Trump Hating Judge gave me only a two month extension, just what our corrupt government wanted, SUPER TUESDAY. I will APPEAL!”. A few FACT CHECKS are in order:

    1. Jack Smith and his team haven’t been working on this case “for almost 3 years”. Smith wasn’t appointed Special Counsel until Nov. 2022. If you go back that long that was almost BEFORE the Jan. 6 insurrection!

    2. As to Judge Chutkan’s “two month extension” DJT can hardly complain. At the hearing on Monday Chutkan asked John Lauro, Trump’s attorney, to propose a reasonable trial date–not the April 2026 date he had proposed. Lauro refused to do so. So Chutkan had no other alternative but to set the trial for 3/4/2024–as required by the “speedy trial” provisions of federal law.

    And there was another reason for selecting that date. Although Lauro claimed he didn’t have enough time to prepare for trial another lawyer for DJT claimed just the opposite. Alyna Habba went on Fox and said the case was not that complicated. She said that DJT is not a normal person–he is “incredibly intelligent” and he “knows the facts” and he doesn’t have to be “prepped” when “you have done nothing wrong”. Poor, Habba, she has a habit of sticking her foot in her mouth.

    3. DJT says he will “APPEAL” the trial date ordered Judge Chutkan. Good luck with that one, Don. Trial dates are not appealable.

    So there you have it. More bizarre musings by the Trumpster that are completely disconnected from reality. But that is what we have come to expect from a guy who still thinks he is the “President”.


      1. “Just like I gagged myself on the word “wiretap” when Trump correctly said his campaign and transition was being surveilled.”—-Dennis

        1. “Just like I gagged myself on the word “recount”, when Trump clearly pointed out all of the instances where he felt fraudulent votes existed.”—-Dennis

          1. “Just like I gagged myself on the word “find” and tried to assign it a whole new meaning”—-Dennis

    1. Dennis says, “So there you have it. More bizarre musings by the Trumpster that are completely disconnected from reality. But that is what we have come to expect from a guy who still thinks he is the “President”.

      The rest of the world says: “So there you have it. More bizarre musings by Biden and his subservient Democrat propaganda Fake News media that are completely disconnected from reality. But that is what we have come to expect from a demented guy (Biden) who thinks he is the “President”.

      He’s not our legitimate president. And most of this country knows it.

    2. @marklevinshow
      The same DOJ seeking 33 years for Proud Boy leaders, sought and got early release for the Molotov cocktail throwing Ivy league lawyers in New York during the 2020 BLM riots. They not only threw a Molotov cocktail into a police cruiser and destroyed it, but they were making them available to other violent rioters. For the Biden regime and their DOJ, as well as so many federal judges, the issue comes down to who is doing the rioting or protesting. On the whole, the least harsh penalties are saved for violent anti-Trump supporters and Marxists.

      1. The US is now a lawless hellscape just like 60/70 years ago. 1 2 3 next stop……

        Charlton Heston: “You Plucking Morons” (Sic)

    3. “On the whole, the least harsh penalties are saved for violent anti-Trump supporters and Marxists.”

      FACTS matter, dum dum.

    4. @marklevinshow
      “DC Judge Chutkan, appointed by Obama, is either a blithering idiot or a radical left-wing bomb-thrower like her Marxist grandfather, or both. I vote the latter. I have not spent a lot of time reviewing what took place in her courtroom on Monday and it is a complete abomination. Her temperament, speeches, intimidation, and complete lack of professionalism — the fact that she doesn’t even think about protecting the due process rights of the defendants, especially President Trump, is a disgusting abomination. I will explain on radio in more detail but suffice it to say here that if there was justice, she would be removed from the federal bench as soon as possible.”

      TRUTH right here ^^^^ Who will IMPEACH this corrupt, partisan hacktivist, wearing a robe, and posing as a “judge”?

  7. Jonathan: It’s pretty clear that I am having a hard time convincing anyone that I have a brain. But give me moment to try to prove that I do, and that its just that i suck at using it.

    I am going to ignore what you really said and keep saying you claim he was asking for a recount. Because I am a disingenuous jacka$$ who can’t make a point without obfuscating and mischaracterizing, I’m gonna ignore that you said “or further investigation” I’m also gonna act like I don’t know the difference between a recount and a forensic audit. Maybe I am that stupid. You decide. I watch Fox all the time, so I know what you said there—NOT.

    I am gonna call you out for contradicting yourself even though I do the same thing, almost daily. For instance, one day I said DJT’s mugshot looked like Al Capone, and the next day I said that he looked “NOTHING” like Al Capone. I said democrats love violence when it suits their purpose, then i said Trump is the only one calling for violence…in the SAME post. So I should know a contradiction when I see one, because I’m the king.

    So now I’ll join the libtard Tony Michael Kreis (yea, I know no one has ever heard of him, nor gives 2 sh!ts what he has to say) in claiming that its about recounts and whether it made any sense to do a fourth one. Whats that you say? Did a third recount make more sense than a fourth one? Don’t bore me with minutia, I am a brilliant legal mind and you are lucky I’m not charging my going rate of $850/hr!!!

    It don’t matter no how. Fani gonna spank that fanny for DJT. She is one brilliant affirmative action success story. So what if she “don’t know about all that computer stuff” or “how that indictment got on the website” before it was handed down. Thats not indicative of the clown show that is Fulton County, Ga. She gonna show y’all how we do it down heah in Jawja!

    I bring this up here because I need to come up with some more mental gymnastics to somehow mitigate the a$$ whooping that Fani got in the Meadows hearing. Gimme time, I’ll show you some cartwheels and backflips later today.

    My contortions, combined with my keyboard diarrhea should have you convinced by now that I gotta brain, just can’t use it. Marc Elias said so too. I rest my case.

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

  8. Meadows was the key liaison between the WH and the “war room” over at the Willard Hotel. There still hasn’t been public testimony about what that clandestine effort was working on. But, let’s not assume it will remain a secret under pressure of subpoena, and the threat of prison time. It could be highly damaging to Trump and his gang if the Willard group was working with right-wing, militant groups to foment a Capitol protest aimed at stopping the EC Count on Jan 6th, or a step still further, to foment violence as a pretext for a declaration of martial law. We deserve to know if that is the case. Since nobody at the Willard war-room is willing to talk, that activity looks quite suspicious. Meadows knows what they were doing, since he shuttled over there in the evenings.

    1. Dude. Conspiracy theories have gotten the better of you.

      Right wing militia groups.

      Delay the 6-Jan.

      If anything has shown how far off base you are, Nancy’s BS hearing about 6-Jan collusion would have come up.

    2. The continuing Obama Coup D’etat in America was and remains illegal and unconstitutional.

      Russia, Russia, Russia!

      Special Counsel John Durham:

      – The FBI did not have an adequate predicate to launch Crossfire Hurricane.

      – The FBI failed to examine exculpatory evidence and interview key witnesses.

      – The FBI abused its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities.

    3. “Since nobody at the Willard war-room is willing to talk, that activity looks quite suspicious.”

      Don’t you think it is more suspicious that Nancy Pelosi refused to release tapes, her involvement, hid Byrd, won’t tell us why she denied permission for 10-20,000 troops, why she didn’t want Sund to testify? Isn’t it suspicious that much of the testimony was behind closed doors and taped so that snippets could be produced leaving out the rest of the comments?

      1. Was he provided the right to release the tapes?

        That should have been the first question you asked yourself, but you didn’t. It shows an intellect that is very low on the scale.

  9. Jonathan: It’s pretty clear you are having a hard time convincing anyone, except your loyal followers on this blog, that the Jan. 2 , 2012 call between DJT and Raffensperger was just an attempt to get another recount–rather an attempt to commit election fraud by DJT. In that infamous call DJT never specifically asked Raffensperger for another recount. On Fox you continue to make the false claim that all DJT was demanding was another recount. On this issue you have contradicted yourself. On Jan. 3, 2021 you posted this on Twitter (now X): “Telling Raffensperger to ‘find’ the votes on the Saturday before the certification is breathtaking. I am as mystified by the request as I am the logic. Such an opportunistic move to secure the 16 electoral votes would not work to change the outcome”.

    So now you have to do back flips trying to walk back your earlier comment. It won’t work. Georgia State law professor Tony Michael Kreis has called you out for your defense of the Jan. 2 phone call: “I’m not asking every law professor out there to agree with my view. But….would a fourth recount weeks after certification and just a couple of days before Congress convened have changed the election? No. This argument is insane. Simply because it is devoid of logic and reason”.

    Your contorted attempt to re-write the Jan. 2 phone call has prompted Marc Elias to remark: “Jonathan Turley is Mike Lindell with tenure”. I rest my case.

    1. Dennis McIntyre: Your comments/responses have become much more hateful and derisive over the last several months that I have been following this blog. That tells me that commenters here (and vicariously, JT) have honed in on the flaws of your (and Gigi’s) thinking and hit home.
      Please try to opine with facts, logic, not pseudo-condescension and deflection.
      P.S. Does it frighten you that Marc Elias (whom the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to drop sanctions against) does not appear as a legal scholar, commenter, or columnist, let alone a law professor when his envious smears at JT are published?
      Methinks you need to find yourself a more honorable mentor.
      Thanks for adding so much colour to this blog.

        1. “Your comments, on the other hand, have been derisive all along.”

          A new high water mark for lack of self awareness by the little bug boy.

          1. Hey Dennis, don’t you just love it when Gigi comes in here and craps all over your brilliant commentary, by spewing easily provable falsehoods, and then gets crushed for it??? vvvvv

            No wonder you asked her to stop “thanking” you.


    2. Dennis, thank you once again for an excellent analysis. Turley has yet to addess the “willful blindness” legal doctrine that will likely sink Trump. From MSN, quoting an op ed in the NYT published 8/28/23: “Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys have signaled that they will defend him by claiming that he could not have been trying to defraud the United States in the wake of the 2020 election because he sincerely believed he won.

      However, a Supreme Court opinion authored in 2011 by conservative Justice Samuel Alito could knock this defense flat on its face.

      In a legal analysis published by The New York Times on Monday, New York University Law School professor Burt Neuborne walks through how the 2011 opinion affirmed that proving willful blindness to the falsity of one’s words and actions is legally equivalent to proving someone’s consciousness of guilt.

      In one particular relevant passage in the ruling, Alito argued that “many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances.”

      As for how this would apply to Trump, Neuborne argued that testimony from multiple former Trump administration officials and campaign officials provides a track record to show that Trump had been told again and again that he had legitimately lost the 2020 election.

      Neuborne concludes that “while this argument is not a slam dunk, there’s an excellent chance that 12 jurors will find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Trump hid from the truth by adopting willful blindness.””

      In the call to Raffensberger, Trump declared that he “won” Georgia–this was made up because he had NO reasonable grounds to make such a claim. In fact, now, three years later, there’s still no evidence of widespread voter fraud, errors, ballot harvesting, suitcases full of fake ballots, dead people voting, false IDs, Republicans being denied the right to cast a ballot or any of the other nonsense Trump has been spewing.

      Turley is, of course, paid to spin the facts to fit his employer’s narrative, but most legal experts agree that Meadows was not acting within the scope of his duties as a federal official when he aided Trump’s efforts to change the outcome of the vote totals in Georgia. This is reaffirmed by the fact that Trump campaign officials were also in on the call with Raffensberger, and the Hatch Act forbids civil-service employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and vice president, from engaging in some forms of political activity. It became law in 1939. Meadows tried to paint his duties with the broadest-possible brush, but that’s not the test for removal–the conduct he is charged with had to have arisen out of his official duties. Aiding Trump in trying to bully a Secretary of State to “find” votes, based on the lie that Trump really did win, is not part of the duties of a Chief of Staff.

      1. “Dennis, thank you thank you thank you (gug-gug-gug-gug). Does that feel good?
        Here let me add some…blah blah blah blah….(gug-gug-gug)(spit). Did I do it right Daddy??”

        Hey Gigi the serial liar

        Who did the FBI really get Hunter’s laptop from?

        What were the inflation rates for June and July 2023?

        How many oil fired power plants remain in the US and are any in Texas?

        Who does the DCNG answer to (all parties)?

        Who is Amos Hochstean and what is his connection to Hunter and Pedo Joe?

        These are just a handful of the provable lies you have told.

        Why don’t you answe these questions, liar?

        1. Why don’t you get yourself from help with your obsessive need to engage in ad hominem attacks against people who comment on Trump, unless you are paid to engage in such attacks. If it’s the latter, why not disclose the fact that you are paid to troll those who respond to Turley’s posts with FACTS? I listed two sources (USA Today and Mediaite) for how the laptop was given to Giuliani before the FBI got it and that he copied it and distributed it to the NY Post and others. I didn’t lie. I listed a story from NBC about petroleum being used to generate electricity during the excessive heat wave in Texas. I didn’t lie. I listed the website of the DC National Guard that described the chain of command, which proves that Nancy Pelosi was not in control of the DC National Guard and didn’t tell them to stand down. I didn’t lie. I have no idea who Amos Hochstean is, and have never claimed to. As to inflation that was above 8% when Trump left office, it has consistently gone down month by month, thanks to Joe Biden’s fiscal responsibility and leadership. There was a one-tenth of one percent increase in July, which is an anomaly. I didn’t lie. This will be the last time I address these matters with you.

          1. If calling you out for your lies, Bump, is an ad hominem attack, I hate it for you. Easy remedy…stop lying.
            Answer the questions if you feel you’re being attacked.

          2. Yea, I bet its the last time. But it wont be the last time i call you out for it, sorry. Continuing to repeat false information after its been proven false makes you a LIAR. Thats not ad hominem, its EARNED.

            I didnt ask you where u got your lies. I asked you specific questions that you didnt answer.

            Do you still believe that Rudy gave the laptop to the FBI?? If so, there is no hope for you and you are a serial liar. You think it matters if you believe your lies??? Fani begs to differ.

            You don’t know who Amos is because you are an uninformed, ill informed TROLL.
            You think citing sources gets you off the hook, troll? Not here. We deal in facts, not alternate realities. You say there is no “proof” a thousand times, and you are not even aware of all of the evidence that has been made public. Wise up and stop licking Dennis’ boots.

            You should be really pissed off at your “reliable sources” who have fed you these falsehoods over and over. Instead you’d prefer to act like a petulant child, stick your finger in your ears and say “LALALALALALALA”

          3. “As to inflation that was above 8% when Trump left office,”—gigi the liar

            Holy crap, YOU ARE a serial liar!!! You really cant help it can you???

            The inflation rate when Trump left office (Jan 2021) was 1.4%, you LIAR

            It didnt eclipse 8% until Mar of 2022, over a year into the Biden presidency. Thanks to his “leadership” LMAO


            The word LIAR doesn’t do you justice.

            1. “Thanks to Joe Bidens fiscal resonsibilty and leadership”, 85% of Americans think the country is headed in the WRONG direction. Do you get that numbskull?? It doesn’t matter how many times you come on here and lick the boot and spew lies, you’re not fooling anyone. You couldn’t get 85% of Americans to agree an orange is orange. Yet here we are.

              Bidens presidency reminds me of what someone once said about the reactor accident at 3 Mile Island. The actions the operators took that day, contrary to everything they had been trained to do, made the problem much much worse.
              “They would have been better off, literally, if they had gone outside, sat down, and eaten a ham sandwich.”

          4. “Why don’t you get yourself from help with your obsessive need to engage in ad hominem attacks . . .”

            Please, for once, look in the mirror:

            “Turley is, of course, paid to spin the facts to fit his employer’s narrative . . .”

            Ad hominem is the Left’s stock-in-trade. And it reveals an anti-intellectual movement that is bereft of ideas.

          5. Gigi: I don’t think you are getting anywhere in arguing with Tom. A shouting match with him is a hopeless endeavor. I totally ignore him because all he says to us is “LIARS, LIARS, LIARS–your pants are on fire!”. By the way, my next comment is in response to JT’s futile attempt (see “Fani Willis Fights for a Mass Trial”) to argue Meadows has a valid claim to remove his case to federal court.

            1. Good one Dennis. So full of facts and truth as usual—NOT.

              Gigi knows that’s a lie as well. Just like the one where you claimed you were here for discussion. LIAR. You are here to satisfy some narcissistic need to prove how “smart” you are. What you don’t like is someone proving that you are anything but. Besides, there can be no discussion when people like you and Gigi insist on spewing your alternate realities.

              I list the lies and ask you to answer to them. Instead you move on to the next lie.

              It’s really simple. If you don’t want to be called a liar, then stop lying.

              I don’t even argue the debatable stuff I just go for the easily provable outright lies.

              The irony is, you’re the one who got me on your a$$ when you jumped into a post that I called Gigi out on for lying. I bet you regret that. You’ve demonstrated a good deal of cowardice since that moment of false bravado. Adressing Gigi in this post was your latest showing.

              By the way, do you like the way Dick Head, your other half, keeps making you look ridiculous? I mean that stuff is entertainmant gold for the readers here. Do your handlers know what a spectacle he is making of your daily troll-type? I bet they would cut your pay if they did. Kinda clever how he refers to himself, but we all know he is talking about you.

              1. “who respond to Turley’s posts with FACTS? I listed two sources (USA Today and Mediaite) for how the laptop was given to Giuliani before the FBI got it and that he copied it and distributed it to the NY Post and others. I didn’t lie.”

                Here, Gigi doubles down on her lie. Giuliani was NEVER in possession of the laptop. He had a copy of the hard drive. He made other copies as well. She originally said that Giuliani gave the laptop to the FBI. Now she lies again and claims that is not what she said. Now it’s “before the FBI got it”. LIAR

                It’s starting to look as though Gigi likes being called a LIAR. In attempting to absolve herself of a lie, she tells another one. Incredible.

            2. You might not be responding, but you’re not ignoring. If you wanted to debate me on the merits you could. Instead you run off to your next lie like a little school girl. You tolerate being made to look ridiculous because the alternative is trying to have an original thought instead of plagiarizing someone else’s. Without cut and paste, you got nothing and everyone knows that now. Scouring all those rags for some article thats relevant takes a lot of time, i get it. When u cant find one to copy from, you just use an off topic one, like that brilliant piece from media-ite. I hope you’re being compensated well for having zero self respect.

    3. Joke Biden is going down and Dennis the Meana– is desperate.

      He is forced to tag team with comradette NUTCHACHACHA.

      What’s that tell you?

      At some point, the adults are going to rein in the miscreants.

      At some point, the judicial branch is going to grasp that communism and communists are antithetical, illegal and unconstitutional in America.

      Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me

      The political deity in America is the Constitution.

      The Communist Manifesto and the principles of communism constitute an illegal, criminal, unconstitutional, false and other deity before America.

    4. The flaw in the logic of “finding votes” as a criminal request is that a couple of weeks after the election and before the call, another county did indeed actually discover that a batch of around 2600 votes had not been entered into their systems. Indeed that one error alone reduced the Biden lead by nearly a quarter. In light of that incontrovertible fact, it is quite reasonable to demand that a search be done to check all other counties and precincts as well to ensure that they did accurately count the received ballots.

      As for arguments made that Trump, Meadows, and others who were federal officials at the time were acting in some other capacity, the removal statute itself shuts that argument out entirely, as it specifically spells out in 28 USC 1442 (a)(1)

      a)A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
      (1)The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

      Note the language “in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office”. “Under color of” means any claim of authority, whether it exists or not. And also note that “individual capacity” is explicitly covered as well. And of course, as the President was convinced that crimes were committed during the election, that is covered as well.

  10. I received a phone call this morning from a friend who was taking his midmorning stroll in Washington DC and ended up on 2nd Street between East Capital and A streets. He heard a tremendous amount of quaking. He stopped, wondering what the entire ruckus was about. Looking around he saw 9 ducks in a circle quaking at each other. He couldn’t make out what all they were saying but did get the drift they were talking about their individual duties concerning the cleanup of the crap that was left on the steps by the single-minded Mutts from 950 Pennsylvania Street. Concerned about their stature and the odor eliminating from the crap left behind, they wondered back into their protective lagoon and left the crap for others to clean up.

    This is a tale of feckless Mallards afraid to spread their wings to protect the flock.

    (Law and order/Constitution be Damned)!!!

  11. The item to move to Federal Court not addressed. IANA but I would think and believe that Meadows and DT cases would should be moved to Federal court. They both held Federal office at the time and if one local DA can move in this regard, then the barn door is opened. Yes, Fani thought meadows would flip on DT.

    1. I love that theory, “flip”.
      What we really have is a lying conniving prosecutor pushing for false testimony.
      We heard it in nearly every criminal political prosecution, in the THOUSANDS the demoncrats have pushed now for half a decade plus.
      The mob lines up 30 charges or more, then begs for lies in some sick deal so they can commit more crimes “in the name of justice”.
      Lucky I’m not in charge.

      1. Canary vs Composer. Dershowitz talks about this a lot.

        Only difference, Fani gonna give ’em the words to the song.

    2. That Trump held a federal office is not the only consideration (and Meadows didn’t hold any federal office, though he did hold a federal position). Trump was arguably acting in his capacity as a candidate, not as President, and Meadows was likewise arguably acting on behalf of Trump’s campaign, not the on behalf of the federal government.

      1. Maybe. But if they both believed there was a significant risk that the election was fraudulent, requesting that votes be examined to eliminate illegal ones could just as easily be seen to be a government function not merely a political one. They would, after all, be seeking to prevent a coup d’etat. Certainly a President should be able to ask election officials to check the legitimacy of ballots to ensure that he is not being unlawfully removed from office.

        1. As Marc Short, Pence’s CoS, pointed out, had they been working in their federal roles, they would have had federal lawyers involved, not outside lawyers like Cleta Mitchell, and they also wouldn’t have been circumventing the WH Counsel’s advice.

          1. Did the President rely exclusively on Government and WH lawyers in his two impeachment trials in the Senate? He did not.

            1. That’s hardly analogous. The WH Counsel’s office isn’t there to represent him personally in an impeachment, as that’s not a situation where it’s the Office of the President that’s impeached rather than the individual. They are there to represent the Office of the President, and they should have been involved had it been him in his official capacity rather than him as candidate calling.

            2. “As Raffensperger testifies, Cross plays several excerpts from the call. In one excerpt, Meadows raises the prospect of getting “access to the secretary of state’s data” to either validate or invalidate claims of election fraud. Who wanted that data? Cross asks. “The Trump campaign,” Raffensperger replies. …
              “On redirect, Cross asks Raffensperger a single question: When the federal government investigates voter fraud allegations, do they ask you to hand over data to the campaign? No, Raffensperger says. They ask you to send data to the FBI agents on the case.”

              1. When the FBI gets ahold of Hunter’s laptop, what do they do with it? Nothing.

                Transparency and sunlight. No one stops the FBI from getting data, but there is no reason the data can’t go to more than one place.

                As usual you show your stripes and despotic desires hiding material fact from the people.

        2. Daniel, that is an excellent point:

          “But if they both believed there was a significant risk that the election was fraudulent, requesting that votes be examined to eliminate illegal ones could just as easily be seen to be a government function not merely a political one. They would, after all, be seeking to prevent a coup d’etat.”

  12. Does Trump’s 1st Amendment right to petition the government to redress grievances provide him any protection beyond his right to free speech? Or is it merely redundant?

  13. I cant help but laugh. Here we have Ralph once again ranting about how Turley’s article is outrageously anti Trump. Then we have the little bug boy screeching about how Turley is a pro Trump operative.

    Funny how we’ve gotten to the point that fairness and honesty are vilified by extremists on both sides.

  14. And what the little bug boy doesnt want people to understand is that recounts are designed to make sure the “count” was correct in close races. They are NOT designed nor intended to detect and cure FRAUD.

    Sorry bug boy, you need to read your audience. That red herring won’t ever swim here.

  15. This is so classic: Lefties can’t provide evidence of acts taken to support their hyperbole, so they just shout louder that the motivation was nasty. They’ve been navel-gazing so long, they can see into the minds of others! God help this country!

  16. “no self respecting law professor agrees with him.”

    Thanks law dog, but that crap don’t fly around here. Trump didnt mention recount because he knew what you cant see to grasp…recounting the same illegal votes would of course net the same result. Trump had already laid out where he thought the votes could be found.

    Once the ballots are out of the envelope, the genie is out of the proverbial bottle. And every fraudster knows it.

    Amazing what passes for self respect these days.

Leave a Reply