Trump's phone call with the GA SOS about finding votes to overturn the election

[it's just me]

That's appropriate since he's the worst president in history.

Not even close.

 

[paul342160]

Criminal investigation should begin immediately

 

[HangLow]

It's a lot like THIS, too.

View attachment 67311605

She is cute...

 

[roguenuke]

Yet,he is right. You are unaware of the facts

No, he's not. I'm well aware of the facts.

 

[roguenuke]

Despite the partisan framing from the Washington Post – that the call somehow reflected Trump making demands for votes from his Republican colleagues – the President actually does no such thing. Throughout the call, the President makes clear that his calls are for election transparency, full and transparent audits, and public access. At no point does the President imply he wants votes invented or confected, as the establishment media is portraying. He even offers to recuse himself from parts of the conversation and ends by asking for “the truth… it’s just that simple.”

You can read the entire transcript and listen to the entire call below:

Meadows: Okay. Alright. Mr. President, everyone is on the line. This is Mark Meadows, the chief of staff. Just so we all are aware. On the line is secretary of state and two other individuals. Jordan and Mr. Germany with him. You also have the attorneys that represent the president, Kurt and Alex and Cleta Mitchell — who is not the attorney of record but has been involved — myself and then the president. So Mr. President, I’ll turn it over to you.

Trump: Okay, thank you very much. Hello Brad and Ryan and everybody. We appreciate the time and the call. So we’ve spent a lot of time on this, and if we could just go over some of the numbers, I think it’s pretty clear that we won. We won very substantially in Georgia. You even see it by rally size, frankly. We’d be getting 25-30,000 people a rally, and the competition would get less than 100 people. And it never made sense.

But we have a number of things. We have at least 2 or 3 — anywhere from 250 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls. Much of that had to do with Fulton County, which hasn’t been checked. We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County — you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged. And we are quite sure that’s going to happen.


Another tremendous number. We’re going to have an accurate number over the next two days with certified accountants. But an accurate number will be given, but it’s in the 50s of thousands — and that’s people that went to vote and they were told they can’t vote because they’ve already been voted for. And it’s a very sad thing. They walked out complaining. But the number’s large. We’ll have it for you. But it’s much more than the number of 11,779 that’s — the current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That’s something I think everyone — at least that’s a number that everyone agrees on.

But that’s the difference in the votes. But we’ve had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we’re able to actually — we’ll get you a pretty accurate number. You don’t need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779. But you also have a substantial numbers of people, thousands and thousands, who went to the voting place on November 3, were told they couldn’t vote, were told they couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on their name. And you know that’s very, very, very, very sad.

We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted, but they weren’t on the voter registration roll, which they had to be. You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant, and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.

Continued>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I listened to the entire conversation, the whole hour. I know what he said and that the vast majority of what came out of Trump's mouth were lies or misinformation. There were not more voters than registered voters. There were not ballots being shredded. There were not dead people voting in the hundreds, let alone thousands (they found maybe 2). While investigations are still ongoing, far fewer than Trump claimed when it comes to felons are even possible to have voted fraudulently. No, people from other states did not vote. People who were not on the registration list did not vote. There absolutely were not "thousands and thousands" who were turned away at the voting places, told they already voted.

 

[BlueTex]

Illegal taping and revealing of a private conversation borders on treason.

LMAO... Here is the amusing part of all this "settlement discussion" bullshit.. The Trump campaign just got their ass handed to them by the federal judge in the lawsuit they filed on 12/31 that this was supposedly a "confidential settlement conference" about... They hadn't even SERVED Raffensperger or the state ... LMAO....





This BLOWS out any claim this was a confidential settlement discussion...

Update: Here is the notice of delivery of service... Note the date/time of delivery...

 

[roguenuke]

I think suit has been filed over that.....

No, actually it hasn't. The suit was filed on Dec 31st, making the same unsupported claims Trump made on the call, which will all be shot down and proven as the bullshit they are in court. Trump can't win any suit over release of the call because he brought it up first and had an uninvolved party, Mark Meadows, on the call to begin with.

 

[BlueTex]

No, actually it hasn't. The suit was filed on Dec 31st, making the same unsupported claims Trump made on the call, which will all be shot down and proven as the bullshit they are in court. Trump can't win any suit over release of the call because he brought it up first and had an uninvolved party, Mark Meadows, on the call to begin with.

See my post above... They hadn't even served Raffensperger or the state... There is NO legal claim of confidentiality... none... zip... nada...

 

[roguenuke]

I am not going to respond to the hypothetical. It is a red herring and irrelevant.



I have just completed listening to the tape of the conversation provided on the CNN site here: Full transcript: Trump's audio call with Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger - CNNPolitics

First, I am going to admit that it was hard to listen to. Trump was very petulant, opinionated, and sometimes misinformed as to some of the facts. In all honesty, his constant interruptions of both his own advisors and the Georgia participants coupled with an unwillingness to accept and discuss certain responses wore on my nerves.

Having said all that, one point is clear. He never told anyone to "find votes to overturn the election" as the thread title states (and MSM/Social Media reporting asserts). His repeated point was that based on what he has been told by his "advisors" there were possibly hundreds of thousands of votes which were either not properly counted/recorded, or were fraudulent for a number of reasons. That those numbers were well above the "11799 votes" he lost by. He was not asking anyone to make up/create votes for him. NO, he wanted them to simply look at the "hundreds of thousands of votes" which were either fraudulent and should not be counted, or votes which should have been counted for him.



You are entitled to your opinion. But what I heard was a man frustrated over a messy election with massive changes that (to his mind by his own words) caused a "phony election."

While I did not appreciate his attitude, tone, and typical abrasiveness, I am also forced to recall that he is a man who has been under constant attack from both inside and outside his Administration. Had I not been a "witness" to such shenanigans over the last 4 years, I might be less forgiving of his demeanor.

In the meantime I just want the facts to come out, one way or the other. Which is why I support the Republicans in Congress who intend objections on 01/06/20. If for no other reason (win or lose) than to get them in the Congressional Record.

Still, if/when Joe Biden is sworn in as President of the USA after all legal and Constitutional "objections" have been concluded, then as far as I am concerned he is the President of the United States and I will give him a chance to show his merits.

The problem with your analysis of Trump's part of the conversation is that he didn't just say that there were possibly hundreds of thousands of votes. He stated it as fact several times, even after being refuted about multiple things he said that were wrong. He insisted that it was not only fact, true (his information), but also that the SoSGa was doing something illegal by not changing/recalculating the vote totals. That is illegal. It's called a "veiled threat". Not that hard to discern if one has even an ounce of knowledge and reason.

The facts have been put out. Trump and his supporters have been rejecting them. Gabriel Sterling went over pretty much everything that Trump brought up in the call and much more, stating straight out why Trump is wrong.

 

[roguenuke]

See my post above... They hadn't even served Raffensperger or the state... There is NO legal claim of confidentiality... none... zip... nada...

Oh, I know there wasn't a legal claim. That isn't how such things work anyway. You don't get to lie about the contents of a conversation and then complain when someone releases the audio to prove how wrong you are.

 

[roguenuke]

And I'll say your 'likely attributable' leaves out the fact that Democrats learned from 2016 and werent going to take the election for granted this time. The voter registration drives and commercials and campaigns were everywhere. The Donald could have benefited from that too.

Then add the fact that a huge number of people were even more motivated this time...not caring about who...but just voting to get rid of The Donald. Many of us would have voted for almost anyone to take out the trash. And we turned out in droves.

The Donald was not a popular president. Not at any point in 4 years. His polling remained in the 30-40% range the entire time. Feel free to provide a con-sponsored poll that showed differently. So then what makes you think he'd get more votes????

So it's not remotely surprising that MORE Americans turned out to vote to get rid of a man that considered dying of the Trump virus, "it is what it is' when he got the finest medical treatment in the world and just shrugged it off. Those 200,000 dead people? They have lots of family that voted.

Gabriel Sterling brought up something interesting that I think played a part too (including into something that was brought up elsewhere). He stated that there was a change to Georgia law that allowed curing of absentee ballots, mistakes that were made in 2019. He also said that Democrats set up teams and basically were very prepared for this change (they certainly had plenty of time), and were able to efficiently ensure that ballots that were questioned could have those who cast them contacted and their information properly verified quickly. Republicans did not have the same level of drive for curing ballots. That easily explains the big difference in the drop of their rejection levels from past elections (and it was already getting better anyway). Because they realized before 2020 that it was an issue that people could not correct mistakes and remedied that through a change to their voter laws. Republicans stubbornly decided to ignore it or reject it, and it likely hurt them to at least a small degree.

 

[BlueTex]

Gabriel Sterling brought up something interesting that I think played a part too (including into something that was brought up elsewhere). He stated that there was a change to Georgia law that allowed curing of absentee ballots, mistakes that were made in 2019. He also said that Democrats set up teams and basically were very prepared for this change (they certainly had plenty of time), and were able to efficiently ensure that ballots that were questioned could have those who cast them contacted and their information properly verified quickly. Republicans did not have the same level of drive for curing ballots. That easily explains the big difference in the drop of their rejection levels from past elections (and it was already getting better anyway). Because they realized before 2020 that it was an issue that people could not correct mistakes and remedied that through a change to their voter laws. Republicans stubbornly decided to ignore it or reject it, and it likely hurt them to at least a small degree.

Stacey Abrams is setting up the ground game to CRUSH Kemp in 2022... The Georgia GOP is toast.... Keep an eye on Fani Willis, the new Fulton County DA to be sworn in on Friday...

 

[Slartibartfast]

Stacey Abrams is setting up the ground game to CRUSH Kemp in 2022... The Georgia GOP is toast.... Keep an eye on Fani Willis, the new Fulton County DA to be sworn in on Friday...

At this point, I hope that Abrams replaces Tom Perez as head of DNC. She is pretty much a miracle worker.

 

[roguenuke]

No. I was very clear on what I said.



He believes he won the State. He believes it was stolen from him by fraud, etc.. He can thus state his "opinion" on that, much difference it makes if it is proven untrue.



If the votes are "found," then it is not "mythical."



IMO it is completely "disingenuous," much as has been the Main Stream and Social Media history of bias via misrepresentation and false reporting over the last 4.5 years.

There is no way for him to "find" votes, since all the votes in Georgia (and the US Presidential election 2020 as a whole) have been counted.

And Trump was not simply "expressing his opinion". He was stating his opinion as fact, multiple times and brought up "what you are doing is illegal" or something close to it against the SoSGa multiple times. That is a veiled threat. (He also showed how childish he is multiple times too by saying that people were laughing at the SoSGa and the Governor, that they were angry at him, that they wouldn't get reelected, and such other petty insults.)

 

[BlueTex]

At this point, I hope that Abrams replaces Tom Perez as head of DNC. She is pretty much a miracle worker.

I would LOVE that but I think she really, really wants to Georgia governor...

 

[American]

LOL more proof of selective myopism in a follower.

The text also said she was legally allowed to vote under her married name

Good lord, the best examples are the simplest. Thanks!

You're easily distracted from what matters. You base your thoughts on this election on one ****ing vote. Laughable. Tons of illegal shit going on, and you zero in on this nonsense. The world is hopeless with people that think like you.

 

[Paradoxical]

She is cute...

Thanks. I suppose you think she cheated too? Just because she is cute doesn't mean anything. Are you black by the way? She told me she never as much spoke to a black person.

 

[Paradoxical]

I listened to the entire conversation, the whole hour. I know what he said and that the vast majority of what came out of Trump's mouth were lies or misinformation. There were not more voters than registered voters. There were not ballots being shredded. There were not dead people voting in the hundreds, let alone thousands (they found maybe 2). While investigations are still ongoing, far fewer than Trump claimed when it comes to felons are even possible to have voted fraudulently. No, people from other states did not vote. People who were not on the registration list did not vote. There absolutely were not "thousands and thousands" who were turned away at the voting places, told they already voted.

I don't care if you re-listened to it a million times. The point is that Trump reamed o=him out and gave him the facts and he didn't want to listen. He is a RINO being controlled by Stacey Abrams because she's an obese bully. The actual transcript of the call is all the proof anyone needs that Trump was in the right.

 

[Paradoxical]

No, actually it hasn't. The suit was filed on Dec 31st, making the same unsupported claims Trump made on the call, which will all be shot down and proven as the bullshit they are in court. Trump can't win any suit over release of the call because he brought it up first and had an uninvolved party, Mark Meadows, on the call to begin with.

So, you're an attorney now like Blue Tex?

 

[BlueTex]

So, you're an attorney now like Blue Tex?

How does one have a "confidential settlement negotiation" for a lawsuit that you haven't even been served?

 

[Paradoxical]

How does one have a "confidential settlement negotiation" for a lawsuit that you haven't even been served?

I will leave the law to legal experts such as you and Roganuk. You must have judged thousands of cases.

 

[BlueTex]

I will leave the law to legal experts such as you and Roganuk. You must have judged thousands of cases.

LOL.. The answer is no you can’t.. another Trump supporter LIE smacked down

 

[OlNate]

Here's the problem.

We have assertions of evidence showing fraud. Almost NONE of this evidence has been evaluated on the merits in Court. Which brings us to the constant meme "60 failed challenges," where the vast majority were neither filed by the Trump campaign, nor were they dismissed on the merits. In most cases they were dismissed on procedural grounds without any examination of the evidence. Therefore, when I see members exulting over legal losses, I shrug because the evidence was never given a fair hearing in Court.

Then there were the original claims by the MSM, Social Media, and political talking heads of no fraud, which quickly turned into no evidence of "widespread" fraud. This because it was soon shown there WAS evidence of various forms of fraud, which had to quickly be countered by the assertion "insufficient to affect the election."

Now my problem is this. What is the fear of allowing the evidence a fair hearing?

I think the answer is this. IMO this one-way effort by Courts to avoid dealing with the issues happened because hearing the cases would threaten their existence. We already saw arguments being made by the Democrats/Progressives/Socialists seeking to "stack the Court(s)" for political purposes. Having a fair hearing of evidence which might actually show the election was not "fair" would not only destroy any faith in our election system, but the Judicial system as well.

That is of concern to me, because the more people are led to believe the system is not "fair and equitable," the more rapidly it is likely to fail, and that would mean the failure of our nation's continued existence.

If this is of concern to you, Cap'n, and I agree with you, it is wildly concerning, then you should be for the most rapid and direct course to putting Trump in the rearview.

Look, he said he was going to do this, long before there was an election. He told you! He planted seeds, he spoke in cryptic riddles, he did everything he could to cast doubt on the election before it ever happened. What you're dealing with now is what he promised to deliver. Nothing more, nothing less. How this is getting traction among people intelligent enough to tie their own shoes is beyond me - and I mean no disrespect by that, not to you personally...I literally don't understand it.

But, whatever the reason, the people who, according to your Constitution, make the decisions here, have made their decision. That's how your system works. I think you need to reflect on that, as you contemplate the failure of your nation's continued existence. Certainly it's salvation is not found in the conspiracy theories of a failed reality tv star and his enthusiasts. Your courts have spoken. Time to go home. Or destroy your country... Up to you guys, I guess.

 

[BlueTex]

 

[Paradoxical]

LOL.. The answer is no you can’t.. another Trump supporter LIE smacked down

OK, Clarence Darrow