“There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated."
-
@larry said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
You've yet to say a thing that is accurate.
Well, @Larry , the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.
-
This is so mind boggling horrible, even for Trump’s standards. Normally this would be the political scandal of the decade of not century! But he has watered down the expectations of the office so much that this won’t really matter. Plus folks know he lost (by more than a landslide) so for many this is just one more scandal as he leaves.
@89th said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
Normally this would be the political scandal of the decade of not century!
Aw, c'mon, 89th, don't exaggerate. This isn't the first time Trump has used the phone to pressure a higher-up to do his bidding. At least he didn't offer military aid to Georgia.
-
@larry said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
You've yet to say a thing that is accurate.
Well, @Larry , the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.
@89th said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
@larry said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
You've yet to say a thing that is accurate.
Well, @Larry , the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.
No, the data YOU have is wrong.
-
After I listened to the full hour last night, one thing that struck me was everyone on the Secretary’s side of the call I think I understood the magnitude of the call from a historical and legal perspective, and were careful about what they would say, whereas everyone on Trump’s side of the call seemed to treat it like just another Saturday night casual call.
-
After I listened to the full hour last night, one thing that struck me was everyone on the Secretary’s side of the call I think I understood the magnitude of the call from a historical and legal perspective, and were careful about what they would say, whereas everyone on Trump’s side of the call seemed to treat it like just another Saturday night casual call.
@89th said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
After I listened to the full hour last night, one thing that struck me was everyone on the Secretary’s side of the call I think I understood the magnitude of the call from a historical and legal perspective, and were careful about what they would say, whereas everyone on Trump’s side of the call seemed to treat it like just another Saturday night casual call.
You do realize that what you were hearing was negotiations in an attempt to settle a lawsuit, dont you? Perhaps it also escaped your attention that such conversations always involve back and forth negotiations, and are by law private and covered by attorney/client priviledge, and the real problem here is the crime committed by leaking it, which was done so the gullible sheep like you would jump in with your typical responses?
Nah. None of that occurred to you because by God you know everything already.
-
@george-k Was the recording "secretly" recorded? Was it it even "private" (did the Georgia party agree that the call was supposed to be "private")? It would be reasonable to think that when a state official hold meetings with candidates/campaigns to talk about elections, that such meetings would be on official records rather than "off the record"/"private", no?
-
@89th said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
After I listened to the full hour last night, one thing that struck me was everyone on the Secretary’s side of the call I think I understood the magnitude of the call from a historical and legal perspective, and were careful about what they would say, whereas everyone on Trump’s side of the call seemed to treat it like just another Saturday night casual call.
You do realize that what you were hearing was negotiations in an attempt to settle a lawsuit, dont you? Perhaps it also escaped your attention that such conversations always involve back and forth negotiations, and are by law private and covered by attorney/client priviledge, and the real problem here is the crime committed by leaking it, which was done so the gullible sheep like you would jump in with your typical responses?
Nah. None of that occurred to you because by God you know everything already.
-
Was the recording "secretly" recorded? Was it it even "private" (did the Georgia party agree that the call was supposed to be "private")? It would be reasonable to think that when a state official hold meetings with candidates/campaigns to talk about elections, that such meetings would be on official records rather than "off the record"/"private", no?
State laws vary. In many states, if both parties are not aware the conversation is being recorded, it is illegal.
But if that's the standard y'all wish to use, fine. Just tell me the rules and we'll play to win.
Assuming Demonrats play by the rules...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Was the recording "secretly" recorded? Was it it even "private" (did the Georgia party agree that the call was supposed to be "private")? It would be reasonable to think that when a state official hold meetings with candidates/campaigns to talk about elections, that such meetings would be on official records rather than "off the record"/"private", no?
State laws vary. In many states, if both parties are not aware the conversation is being recorded, it is illegal.
But if that's the standard y'all wish to use, fine. Just tell me the rules and we'll play to win.
Assuming Demonrats play by the rules...
@jolly said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
In many states, if both parties are not aware the conversation is being recorded, it is illegal.
Do you know that both parties were not aware that the conversation was being recorded? Have you read any claim from any one that was in that meeting that he/she was surprised to learn that it has been recorded?
-
Michael Bromwich (former DOJ Inspector General) on the legality of the matter:
Jennifer Rubin's analysis on the legality of the matter:
Threatening Raffensperger with criminal consequences is also arguably extortion. Title 18 Section 875 of the U.S. Code reads: “Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Alternatively, the state attorney general of Georgia might investigate and bring applicable charges under state law. That would have one clear advantage: Trump cannot receive a federal pardon for state crimes. -
Heres my reading
Raffensperger had a private call with Trump and was going to keep it that way, until Trump tweeted out stuff that didnt reflect accurately what was said, and then Brad simply leaked out the call to show the world Trump was lying about the call.
Privileged info? I think Donald should figure out by now if he his going to lie to the nation, that someone will call him out on it and privilege be damned.
-
Heres my reading
Raffensperger had a private call with Trump and was going to keep it that way, until Trump tweeted out stuff that didnt reflect accurately what was said, and then Brad simply leaked out the call to show the world Trump was lying about the call.
Privileged info? I think Donald should figure out by now if he his going to lie to the nation, that someone will call him out on it and privilege be damned.
he's saving his best criminal acts for the end. Love it. This thread should grow to many many pages soon. Love how the Trumpsters here are already circling the wagons in his defense.
He asked the SecState of Georgia to find 11,000 plus votes for him! He threatened them with punitive action if they didn't.
Parse it out all you want. This is a felony crime he just committed. Lord knows how many unrecorded calls he has made demanding the same stuff with other states. He knows no boundaries and thinks he is above the law. And yet, millions still support him. There are alot of dumb ignorant people in this country. Moral pygmies they all are.
-
@89th said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
After I listened to the full hour last night, one thing that struck me was everyone on the Secretary’s side of the call I think I understood the magnitude of the call from a historical and legal perspective, and were careful about what they would say, whereas everyone on Trump’s side of the call seemed to treat it like just another Saturday night casual call.
You do realize that what you were hearing was negotiations in an attempt to settle a lawsuit, dont you? Perhaps it also escaped your attention that such conversations always involve back and forth negotiations, and are by law private and covered by attorney/client priviledge, and the real problem here is the crime committed by leaking it, which was done so the gullible sheep like you would jump in with your typical responses?
Nah. None of that occurred to you because by God you know everything already.
@larry said in “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.":
You do realize that what you were hearing was negotiations in an attempt to settle a lawsuit, dont you?
Haha. They tried that excuse but had to deprecate it once it became clear that the whole conversation had been recorded.
