President Trump sues Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger

Source: American Thinker.

Interesting turn of events. If it is true that the phone call was a “settlement discussion,” then leaking the recording to the press was illegal.

I would guess, too, that if the phone call was a “settlement discussion,” then the allegation Trump committed extortion is without merit.

49 thoughts on “President Trump sues Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger

  1. Trump has always been a one-trick pony – sick the lawyers on THEM when HE has committed a crime. He has done this with contractors he has ripped off, investors he has gypped and with women he has raped. It is the only thing he seems to be good at.

    He cannot help himself, but anybody with ANY capability to think for themselves has no excuse. Anyone who listens to the actual tape and is ready to believe and spread this lame attempt at jujitsu is just plain sorry. IMHO.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Do you hear ANYTHING that was in any way appropriate coming out of Trump’s mouth? The “ask” itself was criminal under the statutes in Georgia.

        When are you people going to face the truth? You have been constantly duped, lied to and taken for granted by this criminal con man. He even told you what he thought of you with his murder on Fifth Avenue bragging but you won’t listen – even to him. Sad.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. RE: ” The ‘ask’ itself was criminal under the statutes in Georgia.”

          I doubt that. I heard the President state his interest and position. I wouldn’t call it an “ask.”

          Like

          1. I wouldn’t call it an “ask.”

            LOL! Get real.

            The “ask” was absolutely specific (find 11780 votes) and instructions on how it would be spun (You can say you recalculated). The “ask” was laced with threats of criminal charges. That makes it extortion.

            If you really and truly listened to the ravings on this call by Trump and still believe in him then . . . well, never mind.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. The projection by the AT piece is unbelievable. Calling into question the mental state of a REPUBLICAN SecState because he doesn’t go along with with the ravings of an apparent madman is VERY VERY Trumpian. And so far form the pale that one has to wonder what has happened to the actual conservatives that used to be prevalent in the GOP. The souls have been sold to the devil in the Oval Office.

    And how in G-d’s green earth was that phone call a “settlement discussion”? What was there to settle? That the GA election has been verified three different times through recounts and audits? A demand to “find” over 11,000 votes? I listened to the phone call and just shook my head the entire time. When Raffensberger told Trump his data was wrong, that would have been the end of the call if a rational person was on the other end.

    My wife’s comment this morning: “What an idiot.” And she wasn’t talking about the gentleman from Georgia.

    This extremely unamerican and anti-democratic madness has got to stop.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. And how in G-d’s green earth was that phone call a ‘settlement discussion’?”

      According to the AT piece: “because there is ongoing litigation regarding events in Georgia, this was a settlement discussion. That means that it was confidential, and, apparently, Trump’s team made that clear at the outset of the call.”

      Like

      1. “Trump’s team made that clear at the outset of the call.”

        If that were true, I find it highly unlikely that the head lawyer for the state of Georgia would have released the call.

        AT and JTR are just making things up again. None of it is sticking to the wall so someone is going to have to clean up a lot of fertilizer off the floor.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. AT, JTR, FPM, all peddling in conspiracy bullshit.

            OK, so Trump is going to sue Georgia’s SECSTATE for releasing a phone call. It is just another suit that will get tossed by the courts as there is no “active litigation” in Georgia for which a “settlement discussion” was warranted. The claim was made, but I do not recall hearing that as part of the call.

            It is desperation. Period.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “It is just another suit that will get tossed by the courts as there is no ‘active litigation’” in Georgia for which a ‘settlement discussion’ was warranted.”

            Trump v. Kemp is an active case currently.

            Like

          3. RE: “Uh, Mr. Kemp’s lawyers were not part of this call.”

            So what? Trump v. Kemp wasn’t the topic under discussion, either.

            Like

          4. “So what?”

            LOL!

            Your “So whats” are always pathetic but this one is particularly so. YOU defended the status of this meeting as a “settlement discussion” by stating that Trump vs Kemp was still an active case in Georgia. Your defense of this nonsense is therefore nonsense. That’s what.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “If Trump v. Kemp wasn’t the topic under discussion, there there is no ‘settlement’ issue to be discussed?”

            You assume too much. The question isn’t whether a specific settlement was discussed, but whether the conversation could legally be defined as a “settlement discussion” that is protected by confidentiality rules. I’m no lawyer but I would guess that parties can meet for a “settlement discussion” and talk only about the weather, if they wish.

            As I pointed out, that’s the very question the suit will try.

            Like

          6. At this point those who live in the real world are just beating a dead conspiracy horse and it’s getting abusive. Regardless of whether it is someone not seeing reality for what it actually is or just someone in willful denial, flogging them with facts while they struggling to deal with something they can’t understand is just mean..

            IMHO.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. “YOU defended the status of this meeting as a “settlement discussion” by stating that Trump vs Kemp was still an active case in Georgia.”

          I answered Mr. Green by pointing out there is active litigation, which he had denied.

          Like

      2. “Settlement discussion” is what Meadows was hoping for when he asked for a “spirit of cooperation and compromise”.

        “Compromise” is the right word all right. Trump unabashedly demanded Raffensperger compromise his integrity to throw the election via a “recalculation”…wink, wink.

        How is this a settlement call?

        This is a weird case of plea bargaining offers for an innocent person.

        “Gimme 12,000 votes and I’ll put in a good word for the judge. That goes for you to, Germany. Shame to waste a good legal career…”

        Quotes mine for emphasis. The real transcript is worse.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. RE: “How is this a settlement call?”

          The AT piece explains how. But in any case, that is the question at issue.

          Like

        1. A settlement not call?

          “Gimme $1000 and Rocco won’t break your legs. Don’t have that much. Ok, I’ll settle for $500.”

          That kind of settlement call?

          Intimidation, threats, promises…these are so against the law for a president to demand a state elected official to overturn election results.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I read the transcript now. There was no extortion. There was a presentation of the basis for litigation and an offer to avoid the suit if conditions of transparency in the election were met.

            That is explicitly a settlement meeting and divulging it was criminal and cause for disbarment

            Like

          1. Just heard Karl Rove make a point on “Outnumbered” that seems plausible.

            Some of Trump’s lawyers have lied to him, and Trump has made assertions based on those statements leaving him making claims that can be refuted.

            Like

          2. Whew. That makes it so much better. So now we have a president who can’t even pick good attorneys or bother to question looney conspiracies.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Well, Raffenberger could easily put it to rest by producing the auditable ballot records for Fulton and DeKalb counties.

            If they check out, then Trump would certainly look the fool.

            But for 64 days, Raffenberger has refused to produce those documents for examination. Why? Do they show fraud, or have they been destroyed?

            Like

          4. Cobb County was the choice of the Trump campaign.

            No luck there? Try Fulton? Hmmm…how about this, then that, then

            Raffensperger’s reputation is solid with regards to honesty and integrity. His word is good and Trump’s data is not.

            Liked by 3 people

          5. ‘Some of Trump’s lawyers have lied to him”…

            You never will hold him responsible for his own actions. Defending the indefensible through fertilizer spreading…. Crops must be thriving at the Compound.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. I think you are fishing again. That is NOT what Rove said. He said Trump should not have been on the call and it should have been just his lawyers presenting ideas they would like to discuss.

            ““I don’t think the president should have made the call,” he added. “This is one that was for the lawyers to make. Say we want to have a meeting. Can we find some agreement? We’ve got some things that we are concerned about.”

            ““But it is unseemly for him to be on that call, making those kinds of comments, and begging for Raffensperger to somehow find 11,780 votes to flip Georgia,” he declared, adding: “The president has been ill-served in this whole process.”

            Rove further took issue with some of the bogus claims Trump made during the call, specifically his outlandish assertion that he’s “certified” that 50,000 Georgian voters showed up on Election Day but weren’t allowed to vote.”

            Desperate men do desperate things.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Rove also said that the 50K number came from one of the lawyers and that the lawyers were serving him poorly by feeding him misinformation that he wanted to hear.

            But I do agree that Trump is showing signs of desperation and I would prefer he, at this point, gave up on trying to reverse the outcome and instead focused on getting the guilty parties sent to prison.

            Like

          8. But he hires the “best” people…

            The ONLY way to interact with your boy IS to lie and tell him what he wants to hear.

            What is surprising?

            Liked by 3 people

        2. Buzz, false.

          I have just finished word searching the entire transcript. The word “settlement” arises only in Trump’s complaints about the state’s agreement with Tracey Abrams’ organization (4x) and once in a proposal for a future meeting to review signatures.

          Besides, which case do you think this was a “settlement discussion” of?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “Ryan, I would like to suggest that just four categories that have already been mentioned by the president that have actually hard numbers of 24,149 votes that were counted illegally. That in and of itself is sufficient to change the results or place the outcome in doubt. We would like to sit down with your office, and we can do it through purposes of a compromise and settlement, just like this phone call, just to deal with that limited category of votes. ”

            Explicitly refers to this call as a settlement discussion.

            Like

          2. My answer to Trump would be “You first, Donnie-boy.”

            Raffensberger has done his job IAW the laws of his state. “Find” me 11,00 plus votes is NOT asking him to do his job. It is a request to commit election fraud. Solicitation of a crime is a criminal offense and should be investigated immediately by both state and federal law enforcement agencies. If, as you often state, you believe in the Rule of Law, you cannot disagree with that sentiment without being, well, a hyp….

            Liked by 2 people

          3. If the attorney’s in Georgia, for the state or Raffensberger, thought for one minute this truly was a “settlement” discussion, they would never have allowed the tape to be released.

            It is the lawyer for Trump that was part of the call that should be considered for disbarment. She is aiding and abetting an attempt at election interference and fraud.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Laughable

            That is a proposal for a future meeting.

            If the current meeting is a “settlement meeting” for which you claim a special legal status, what case is it in settlement of? You people are very loose with your claims of criminal behavior in your defense of what is clearly criminal behavior by Mr. Trump.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. This president is doing one thing – continuing his attempt (which he seriously put into action in 2016) to turn our country into something with no resemblance to the America we have respected and loved for so long.

    He knows he has lost this election but now his desire is to continue keeping America in a state of chaos.

    The sh-t show that he wants to see on Wed., is probably coming and we all know he’s HOPING for violence.

    If that were NOT true, he WOULDN’T be verbally suggesting it with his ‘WILD’ comments.

    I doubt those people he’s sueing give a hoot who he sues.

    The GOP leaders backing him are as un-American as he is. And, that includes those who side with Trump’s GOP minions, non-stop.

    They yammer daily about the Constitution-this & the Constitution-that; yet, they turn blind eyes to what this ACTUAL ‘illegetimately’ elected president says and does, 24/7, (as I see it – considering his 2016 request of Putin/Russia.)

    So, I think those elected officials in Georgia who daily do their jobs are doing them well, and should just keep on quietly signalling that DJT simply go screw himself.

    He seems to seriously need help, and his family members need to step in. If for no other reason, because he’s pretty much their meal-ticket.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s