‘I Just Want to Find’ vs. ‘Find Me the Votes’: Indictment Could Hinge on Georgia Call

[mystery-ak]

‘I Just Want to Find’ vs. ‘Find Me the Votes’: Indictment Could Hinge on Georgia Call

Joel B. Pollak 14 Aug 2023

A Georgia indictment of former President Donald Trump that is expected this week could depend on a grand jury’s interpretation of an often-misreported phone call that Trump had with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the aftermath of the 2020 vote.

The indictment in Fulton County would likely charge Trump and several associates with using improper pressure and methods to convince state officials to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election in the state, through their aggressive challenges.

But while Trump is often accused of telling Raffensperger to “find me the votes,” the transcript of the conversation shows that Trump said something different: “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”

It may not have been a command, but rather the expression of Trump’s desire to document what he appears to have believed was his actual victory in the state, which he appeared to be winning on Election Night before Joe Biden triumphed in the mail-in vote.

As George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley noted Monday, Trump’s remark has been widely misreported, and his critics have barely bothered to notice that Trump might have meant something other than what they have insisted he meant:

    Thus far, the focus has been on the controversial call that Trump had with Georgia officials — a call widely cited as indisputable evidence of an effort at voting fraud. Yet, the call was similar to a settlement discussion, as state officials and the Trump team hashed out their differences and a Trump demand for a statewide recount. Trump had lost the state by less than 12,000 votes. That might be what he meant when he stated, “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”

    While others have portrayed the statement as a raw call for fabricating the votes, it seems more likely that Trump was swatting back claims that there was no value to a statewide recount by pointing out that he wouldn’t have to find a statistically high number of votes to change the outcome of the election. It is telling that many politicians and pundits refuse to even acknowledge that obvious alternate meaning.

For his part, Trump has been attacking the credibility of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, accusing her on his Truth Social platform of neglecting crime in Atlanta in her pursuit of his indictment, which would be the fourth that he faces.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/14/i-just-want-to-find-vs-find-me-the-votes-indictment-could-hinge-on-georgia-call/

[DefiantMassRINO]

Isn't using Federal Government resources for campaigns illegal under the Hatch Act?

Isn't that exactly what President Trump was doing when he called from the White House, on a White House phone, acting in capacity as President Trump, not candidate Trump, to threaten a state elections official with illegal Federal prosecution if alleged votes weren't found?

There's still long odds that a RICO indictment could come out of this 2020 Trump election fraud activity.

A candidate, or his campaign, has every right to lobby state election officials to resolve potential irregularities or discrepancies.  A sitting Federal Office holder has not right to lobby election state officials on behalf of a candidate.

This reason I think RICO (Federal, state, criminal, civil) is possible because there was an organized enterprise that was committing fraud, and other crimes, to the benefit of the head of that organized effort, President Trump.

Depending on how laws are written, Trump may not have had to give the "order".  He just had to be the beneficiary of a corrupt enterprise.

Release the RICO Kraken!

[Kamaji]

Isn't using Federal Government resources for campaigns illegal under the Hatch Act?

Isn't that exactly what President Trump was doing when he called from the White House, on a White House phone, acting in capacity as President Trump, not candidate Trump, to threaten a state elections official with illegal Federal prosecution if alleged votes weren't found?

There's still long odds that a RICO indictment could come out of this 2020 Trump election fraud activity.

A candidate, or his campaign, has every right to lobby state election officials to resolve potential irregularities or discrepancies.  A sitting Federal Office holder has not right to lobby election state officials on behalf of a candidate.

This reason I think RICO (Federal, state, criminal, civil) is possible because there was an organized enterprise that was committing fraud, and other crimes, to the benefit of the head of that organized effort, President Trump.

Depending on how laws are written, Trump may not have had to give the "order".  He just had to be the beneficiary of a corrupt enterprise.

Release the RICO Kraken!

RICO won't apply unless one can find a sufficient number of so-called "predicate acts", which are defined by statute, and don't include just any sort of wrong-doing whatever.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Lemme check the Spray Tan Putsch's January 5th PowerPoint to see if I can find any predicate acts ..

https://www.arkansasonline.com/1212powerpoint/

[Kamaji]

Lemme check the Spray Tan Putsch's January 5th PowerPoint to see if I can find any predicate acts ..

https://www.arkansasonline.com/1212powerpoint/

The law is what the law is; if you don't like it, take it up with the legislature.

[DefiantMassRINO]

We'll see in time.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[DefiantMassRINO]

 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSOR85cP9jM

[Hoodat]

‘I Just Want to Find’ vs. ‘Find Me the Votes’: Indictment Could Hinge on Georgia Call

It should rely on the sworn testimony of one Brad Raffensperger.  Cross examination by a competent attorney representing a smart defendant would tear this case to shreds and possibly get Raffensperger indicted.  I'm not holding my breath though.

[kevindavis007]

It should rely on the sworn testimony of one Brad Raffensperger.  Cross examination by a competent attorney representing a smart defendant would tear this case to shreds and possibly get Raffensperger indicted.  I'm not holding my breath though.

Except fraud didn't happen.

[Kamaji]

It should rely on the sworn testimony of one Brad Raffensperger.  Cross examination by a competent attorney representing a smart defendant would tear this case to shreds and possibly get Raffensperger indicted.  I'm not holding my breath though.

Hardly.  The examination would be limited to what Trump said, not what else Raffensperger may or may not have done.

[Hoodat]

The key piece of evidence here is a recorded phone call.  If the call is admitted, then the parties of that call can be brought up for cross-examination by the defense.  You can't allow Raffensperger's words to be admitted as testimony without allowing the defense the opportunity to cross-examine.

[Kamaji]

The key piece of evidence here is a recorded phone call.  If the call is admitted, then the parties of that call can be brought up for cross-examination by the defense.  You can't allow Raffensperger's words to be admitted as testimony without allowing the defense the opportunity to cross-examine.

And what would they be cross-examining about?  Cross-examination is not an invitation to a fishing expedition.  They would be limited to examining whether the recording is true, and what the state of mind of the participants on that call was.  Crossing for the deponent's credibility is probably not a big issue since the phone call was recorded and the recording itself would be admitted into evidence, so there would be no need to cross on the credibility of a witness who was proferring an out-of-court statement for its truth.

[Hoodat]

And what would they be cross-examining about? 

- Why were you compelled to record the conversation?
- Was this standard procedure to record phone conversations?
- Did you record conversations you had with Dominion?  Facebook?
- Why do you think Trump believed you could do a better job at counting votes?
- In light of the fact that you failed to perform signature checks on absentee ballots as required by law, could Trump have thought that enforcement of that law would have garnered the margin needed for victory?
- Were there any other conversations with the Trump campaign team?  Did you record those?

etc.

[Kamaji]

- Why were you compelled to record the conversation?
- Was this standard procedure to record phone conversations?
- Did you record conversations you had with Dominion?  Facebook?
- Why do you think Trump believed you could do a better job at counting votes?
- In light of the fact that you failed to perform signature checks on absentee ballots as required by law, could Trump have thought that enforcement of that law would have garnered the margin needed for victory?
- Were there any other conversations with the Trump campaign team?  Did you record those?

etc.

What relevance does any of that have to Trumps conduct? 

[Hoodat]

What relevance does any of that have to Trumps conduct?

Doesn't matter.  Trump has a right to question his accusers.  it is in the Constitution.

[Kamaji]

Doesn't matter.  Trump has a right to question his accusers.  it is in the Constitution.

Yes, it does matter.  The right to confront witnesses against one’s self is not an invitation to an open-ended fishing expedition.  Any cross-examination must relate to the issues in the case, and whether Raffenberger did or did not break the law does not relate to the charges in the indictment, all of which relate to Trumps own actions and the state of mind that is a necessary element of each one.

[Hoodat]

The issue is that Trump believed Biden won Georgia, but asked Raffensperger to change the results.  Raffensperger can indeed be asked these questions as it pertains to what Trump believed.

[Kamaji]

The issue is that Trump believed Biden won Georgia, but asked Raffensperger to change the results.  Raffensperger can indeed be asked these questions as it pertains to what Trump believed.

The questions you have listed are not relevant to what Trump believed.  They are relevant to what Raffensperger believed, but his state of mind is not relevant.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The issue is that Trump believed Biden won Georgia, but asked Raffensperger to change the results.

Well, the transcript can be interpreted in other ways. It's Trump's own fault we have to do this at all.

[Hoodat]

Well, the transcript can be interpreted in other ways. It's Trump's own fault we have to do this at all.

Trump's own fault?  Absolutely.  No question about that.  But just because someone chooses to be an idiot does not mean their right to confront a hostile witness in open court should be denied.  The interpretation of the transcript is subjective, based on additional facts.  The defense has the right to challenge the interpretation offered by the prosecution.  Raffensperger's testimony is part of that interpretation.
And that is Raffensperger's fault. .

[Kamaji]

Trump's own fault?  Absolutely.  No question about that.  But just because someone chooses to be an idiot does not mean their right to confront a hostile witness in open court should be denied.  The interpretation of the transcript is subjective, based on additional facts.  The defense has the right to challenge the interpretation offered by the prosecution.  Raffensperger's testimony is part of that interpretation.
And that is Raffensperger's fault. .

The right to confront witnesses against one's self does not give one license to engage in a fishing expedition.

Raffensperger's alleged violations of the law are not relevant to what is on that transcript.

[Hoodat]

Isn't using Federal Government resources for campaigns illegal under the Hatch Act?

Yes.  But that isn't what Trump did.  Trump (stupidly) made a call to a State official AFTER the election campaign ended, asking him why in the hell he allowed votes to continue to be added to the tally after the legal State deadline had passed.  Not a Hatch Act issue.  Not even close.