Last night, a Fulton County (Atlanta) grand jury indicted former President Trump based on the state of Georgia's RICO statute for allegedly illegally trying to change the results of the Georgia presidential election in 2020. In all, the grand jury indicted 19 people including at least three of Trump's legal advisors, people who had publicly claimed that Trump rightfully won the election (Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell). Also charged was Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
There is a lot for me to get my arms around. Much of the alleged conspiracy revolves around Trump's famous phone conversation with Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state (a Republican) in which he (Trump) referred to finding 11,780 votes. There are many ways to interpret that sentence. One could infer that Trump was telling the official to manufacture the votes, a la finding them in the trunk of a car, for example. Or, he could have merely been insisting that there were more votes to be counted, which he felt would go his way. But as I read the transcript, I come away with the impression that Trump is stressing his conviction that there were many thousands of fraudulently cast ballots for Biden, far in excess of 11,700. Here is a transcript of the roughly one-hour conversation between Trump, several of his lawyers/advisors, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. This copy was obtained by CNN. And here is the part where Trump most explicitly refers to finding the 11,780 votes.
"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
The context in which Trump made the above statement and others is important. His defense will be that he was trying to get Raffensperger to root out fraudulent ballots-which would, indeed, change the result of the election in Trump's opinion. That theme runs throughout the conversation. In addition, we all know that Trump speaks recklessly, but even though Raffensperger was a Republican, to my knowledge, he was not someone whom Trump would ask to manufacture false votes for him. The call was recorded and several people were participating, including a Raffensperger assistant. Would Trump really be so reckless if he wanted to resort to chicanery? The DA in Fulton County, Fani T. Willis, alleges that Trump et al knew that the claims of fraud in the election were false. Whether Trump's claims were true or not, how does she plan to prove that?
In addition, Willis, is being roundly criticized for the manner in which she piled on these charges. We will have to await the evidence to see whether people like Giuliani, Powell, and Eastman overstepped their legal boundaries in advising Trump. The question of whether attorney-client privilege is being stomped upon is sure to arise. In her press conference last night, in which Willis took a few questions from reporters, she indicated that she would like to try all of the defendants together and do it within 6 months. That has raised the eyebrows of many legal commentators.
Even more interesting, during the day and prior to the grand jury even voting, the Fulton County Clerk posted a copy of the indictment, which reportedly is identical to that finally released late last night. The clerk's office has stated merely after taking it down that the document was "fictitious". When asked about this, Willis declined to answer stating that she was unfamiliar with how the clerk's office works (I am paraphrasing). Given the fact that this document was posted on the clerk's official website and was posted prior to the grand jury vote, someone needs to get to the bottom of this. It stinks, and unless there is an innocent explanation, it can only add to the perception of millions of people that Trump is being railroaded by a corrupt and weaponized judicial system.
A final note: Changing channels, while Fox News was discussing many of the irregularities, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was interviewing a plainly gleeful Hillary Clinton, who was lecturing us on openness and honesty. This from the woman whose very presidential campaign in 2016 initiated what evolved into the infamous Steele Dossier, the centerpiece of the FBI's equally infamous "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation designed by top officials of that agency to derail the Trump candidacy with a false story of collusion with Russians to interfere in our election. How ironic.
With the last indictment, you stated that "(Jack Smith) has charged Trump for saying that the 2020 election was stolen."
ReplyDeleteAnyone who reads the indictment itself knows that this is simply not so, as it even clearly states that Trump had every right to say whatever he wanted about the election - whether he thought he was telling the truth or not.
Your analysis this time, while not as brazenly inaccurate, is still off the mark. Yes, the "find me those votes" phone call certainly is a dramatic moment, but anyone who reads even a summary of the indictment knows that this is hardly the center point of the conspiracy. The conspiracy involves dozens of charges - the biggest being the creation of fake electors and the attempt to steal data from the voting machines. (I mean, if it's all about the phone call, what about all the other people being indicted here?)
Look, one can have the opinion that all of this is a "witch hunt" just as Trump would have us believe, although it baffles me how. Still, that's something one can possibly make an argument for.
But Fouse, you're just plain old getting the facts wrong. It's almost the same question as with Trump - do you know that these are lies? Do you actually think you are saying things that are true?
Or do you just not care, and the only important thing is tribalism and making the libs lose?
Oh, it's you again.
ReplyDeleteAs I have often pointed out, you need to read what I write more carefully. Go back and highlight what I wrote that you object to, what was false. I have raised questions, but I don't recall pronouncing Trump innocent of any wrongdoing. I stand by my belief that this is politically motivated.
But if you prefer, just keep watching CNN and MSNBC as they parade one expert after another building the case against Trump. They are convicting him before any of the trials even begin.
Funny how you tell me to read more carefully, and yet you don't address what I say AT ALL.
ReplyDeleteI never said that you pronounced Trump to be innocent. I'm saying that you're not accurately addressing what the case even is.
You think it's politically motivated? Fine. That's an opinion that can be discussed.
You say that the last indictment was about what Trump said and this one is about that phone call. Both of those things are false statements.
"Go back and highlight what I wrote that you object to, what was false."
That's exactly what I did! I even quoted your exact words!
I wonder if you're being this dense just to befuddle me. I could at least respect that, as opposed to you really being this dense.
Oh, and I don't watch cable news. I read the indictments.
"Much of the alleged conspiracy revolves around Trump's famous phone conversation with Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state (a Republican) in which he (Trump) referred to finding 11,780 votes."
ReplyDeleteThat is a false statement?
I will be the first to concede that when it comes to the electors process, I know nothing about it, soI am keeping an open mind on that question, but as I understand it, Trump was following the advice of his lawyers. Here comes the question of criminal intent.
And if you want to continue the back and forth on this site, let's dispense with the personal insults, OK?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"That is a false statement?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
I'm not saying that it's not part of the whole thing, but it's hardly the main point. If it never happened, the conspiracy is still there.
And I'm trying to be delicate about this, but if you are blogging about this issue and you know "nothing" (your word) about the false electors, then you need to read up a bit more. There are 161 acts by Trump and the others that are outlined in the indictment. The phone call is just one thing. I think that the media just fixates on it because it's sensational. I even probably agree with you that they're making too much out of that one thing.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-is-fake-electors-scheme-trump-supporters-tried-after-his-2020-loss-2023-07-18/
And back to your statement on the previous indictment that "(Jack Smith) has charged Trump for saying that the 2020 election was stolen." (I'm quoting you here.)
I was unable to copy/paste for some reason, so I included a link to the full text of the indictment. You only need to get to the 3rd paragraph to see that it specifically states that Trump had every right to say whatever he wanted about the election, and he also had the right to pursue legal means to question the results.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2023-08-01/read-full-text-of-donald-trumps-indictment-in-2020-election-probe-case
Again, believe whatever you want about motivations or the validity, but you're saying that the charges are something that they clearly aren't.