X Close

Will Georgia survive Storm Trump? The state is readying itself for a furious political battle

Trump, possibly for the last time, moved through the world like a head of state.(Raedle/Getty Images)

Trump, possibly for the last time, moved through the world like a head of state.(Raedle/Getty Images)


August 28, 2023   8 mins

Coffee County, Georgia

Coffee County, Georgia, seems an unlikely setting for espionage. It sits far from the intrigues of Washington, far from the coming politico-criminal trials in Atlanta. Far, in a sense, from anywhere.

As they jetted in in January 2021, the team working on Trump’s behalf might have noticed the openness — the emptiness — of the landscape: now the gold of hay fields, now the green of peanuts. They touched down at the tiny airport where, just outside the runway fence, an apparently crashed passenger plane sits decaying, nose in the soil. On the main road they passed Harvey’s grocery, and The Painted Lady antiques shop. In downtown Douglas, the county seat, they met the Coffee County elections director, Misty Hampton. And today they’re under indictment for tampering with the literal machinery of democracy; for conspiring, in the end, to overthrow the will of the American people.

“It would seem like a lot to clean up,” Hampton’s successor, Christy Nipper, said this week. She sat in a small and spartan office, bristling with determination to restore the public trust. She’s had the job a little over three weeks. “I’m learning a lot.”

Over her shoulder, like a portrait of the Pope in a Catholic home, a picture of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger surveyed the room. The Secretary sent someone recently to do what Nipper called a “health check”, making sure Coffee County’s voting machines are maintained and kept secure.

“I do my best to be completely honest and transparent,” Nipper said. She meant that figuratively, in the sense that when her assistant is out she answers the phone herself, and will listen to anyone’s concerns. But she also meant it literally.

She jumped up from behind her desk and strode outside her office, where she faced a blank wall. In a room on the other side is where the business of modern vote counting — memory cards and flash drives and secured computers — happens. And in two days, the day before Trump surrenders himself to authorities in Georgia, Nipper will knock a hole in that wall to install an enormous window for the public.

“It’s gonna be four foot, top to bottom, and six foot wide,” she said. “They can stand here and watch.”

I’m reminded of an election worker named Lawrence Sloan, with whom I had spoken in Atlanta. Late on election night, 2020, he had been feeding ballots into an envelope-opening machine. When a tiny blade in the machine nipped his fingertip, he sat back and raised a middle finger in a salute to the machine. It had nipped him because a voter had left the voting instruction sheet in the envelope, so Sloan balled that up and tossed it aside. Then he leaned in close to the machine and whispered. “Oh, fuck you,” he said. “Do not do this to me right now; it is too fucking late. We have a better relationship than this.”

Several hours later he got a message from a friend: Have you seen this video? The link showed Sloan arguing with the machine and tossing away the paper. Someone had recorded it, added narration, and posted it. “I wonder what’s going on here,” the narrator says. “If that’s not voter fraud, I don’t know what is.”

In the hours that followed, more than five million people watched the video online, television news showed it, and threats rolled in from around the world. Sloan fled the count across downtown Atlanta, and ended up in hiding for weeks. All because someone could view and record him doing mundane envelope work. So in an electorally crucial state like Georgia — and beyond it the full United States — is transparency enough?

Nipper returned to the desk. Her short hair is the colour of steel, and she wore her plaid shirt with the sleeves rolled up. Trump would arrive soon in Georgia, she knew. The coming trial will mark one of the most furious political battles in the history of the United States. She knew that, too.

“The world is watching,” she said. “I’ll let ’em see it all.”

***

Meanwhile, in Atlanta, satellite trucks surrounded the Fulton County Courthouse. Television reporters camped under tents, sweating, struggling to keep hair and makeup from wilting in the heat. The sun conspired against them with the pavement and granite of downtown Atlanta. Temperatures on the streets reached more than 43 degrees Celsius.

In a culture that wrings every salty droplet from its political news, this is something unprecedented: a former American president indicted by a state for election meddling. His attorney and alleged co-conspirator, Rudy Giuliani, pioneered the anti-racketeering techniques that now ensnare both of them and 17 other defendants. Fulton prosecutor Fani Willis has assembled a case that sweeps from the heights of American power down to those humble peanut fields.

Trump’s own trial is likely to centre on his famous phone call to Secretary of State Raffensperger. In that conversation, Trump leaned on Raffensperger — whose office oversees elections in Georgia — to “find” more than 11,000 votes that he needed to win the state.

The indictment also accuses lesser-known figures, such as Trevian Kutti, whose story Mark Bowden and I revealed in The Steal, about efforts to overturn the election. She’s a Chicago publicist who had worked for Kanye West, but travelled to Georgia and pressured an election worker — a grandmother named Ruby Freeman — to confess fabricated election crimes. Freeman refused, and suffered a campaign of harassment online and on her doorstep.

In a twist unique to the American electoral system, the indictment also includes several “fake electors”: people such as David Shafer, former chair of the Georgia Republican Party, who met at the state capitol with other Republicans and signed a false Electoral College document. That is, they certified to the US Congress that Trump had won their state, instead of Biden. The indictment charges him with forgery and impersonating a public officer, among other things; Shafer has since claimed he was acting at Trump’s behest.

The indictment is a vast, wide-ranging thing that feels difficult to see all at once. But viewed as a whole it presents Georgia as a prize to which Trump felt entitled. For decades the state has voted Republican, and in 2020 its flip from red to blue shocked anyone — maybe including Trump — who wasn’t familiar with its deeper history. But for many years Georgia has undergone a demographic shift that made the flip inevitable, and that same shift has now culminated in a unique threat for Trump.

Georgia’s trajectory started at the very beginning, with an Englishman. Early in the 18th century, James Oglethorpe sailed from Kent to found the new colony according what was then a radical set of principles: Georgia should provide a haven for the oppressed and “unemployable”. Colonists should deal fairly with Native Americans. There should be no slaves.

Oglethorpe’s vision was imperfect, and generations of economic pressures corrupted it. Even so, Georgia carried a strand of plurality in its DNA that its neighbouring states never had. And after the upheaval of the Civil War, that strand emerged. “Georgia saw the emergence of a strong black community during Reconstruction and afterwards,” according to Audrey Haynes, a professor of politics at the University of Georgia. Black universities came to life. Black businesses thrived. Black citizens rose to power in government — including the district attorney’s office.

Atlanta calls itself Black Mecca, but Georgia has expanded beyond that now, to become a beacon for immigrants of all types. In 1990 about 170,000 Georgians were born overseas; by 2021 more than a million were. The state has become, according to Haynes, “a place where, despite national politics and the conflicts that have emerged, most of these communities work together”.

Some of the state’s politicians have fallen to the temptation of polarising, tribal national politics, she said, where victory matters more than principle. But just enough haven’t: just enough leaders, conservative and liberal, have held on to Oglethorpe’s vision of cooperation over conquest.

***

The heat continued to rise throughout the week, in Georgia.

Two days before the former president’s arrival, two conservatives — both key figures in Georgian politics — met at a coffee shop in Vinings. Jordan Fuchs and Gabriel Sterling sat outside, tucked into the shadow of the cafe. They spoke in the confidential tones of people who have survived a war together.

“I’m starting to enjoy that we played a part in these — these events,” Fuchs said.

“You are now,” Sterling shot back, grinning. “You weren’t, then.”

Fuchs is the deputy Secretary of State, and was present for Trump’s fateful phone call to her boss, Brad Raffensperger. Sterling is the chief operating officer for the Secretary, overseeing elections. Back in December 2020 — during the strange twilight after the elections and before the January 6 riots in Washington — the pair had sat at a different table, having lunch together when someone forwarded Sterling a social media post. In it a Trump supporter claimed a young election worker had been “caught committing treason”, and named him. The post included a video of a noose slowly swinging in the wind.

“I’ve got to do something,” Sterling had told Fuchs, at the time. They called a press conference on the capitol steps, and Sterling spoke. “I am going to do my best to keep it together,” he said, drawing out each word, “because—it—has—all—gone— too—far. All of it!” He cited multiple instances of violent rhetoric, including from people working on Trump’s behalf. “This is elections. This is the backbone of democracy. And all of you who have not said a DAMN WORD are complicit in this. It’s too much.”

Then Sterling addressed the president directly, in words that would prove prophetic on January 6: “Mr. President, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We’re investigating. There’s always a possibility, I get it, and you have the rights to go through the courts. What you don’t have the ability to do, and you need to step up and say this, is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get shot, someone is going to get killed. And it’s not right… It’s un-American.”

His voice rang against the walls of the capitol atrium: the sound of divisive national politics crashing into the bulwark of Georgia. After the press conference, Raffensperger called Sterling and Fuchs. “Well,” he said, “You didn’t tell me you were going to say that.” Afterward threats from around the world escalated until members of the Secretary’s staff kept bullet-proof vests within reach, at the office.

Now, over their coffees, Fuchs and Sterling ponder how to avoid disaster in 2024. “The problem with transparency without education is that people see things they don’t understand,” Sterling said.

But the problem runs deeper, he said. You can’t educate people out of bad intentions. “We’re more disconnected than ever before. Covid exacerbated that. People don’t go to church as much. That used to be a great balancer. You could be a bricklayer, a butcher, a lawyer, a doctor — you went to a church together,” he said. “Now it’s easier to be meaner.”

That quality — the meanness — makes any civic undertaking, like an election, feel impossible. “There is a flaw in this,” Fuchs said. Lying pays. Politicians can turn a loss into a cascade of donations, if they persuade voters an election was stolen. “You can be the most transparent. You can do the best job in the world. But still.”

Audrey Haynes, the professor, later agreed with Fuchs’s sentiment. “You will never generate trust among those who do not want to believe,” she said. James Madison, the architect of the US Constitution, “understood that institutional design was important to keeping any governing or related body operating with integrity. But it also requires that we pledge ourselves to principled behaviour. If leaders do not then they may gain in the short run but we all lose in the long run.”

Fuchs and Sterling emptied their coffee cups. The heat drained away conversation, and the old friends parted ways.

As he walked away Sterling mused on whether Trump would pose for a mug shot. “If they do, he’ll make a t-shirt of it.”

***

The former president has many opponents, but none has ever accused him of anticlimax. On Thursday, he arrived in Atlanta somehow embodying both gravity and bombast, like a monarch landing in hostile territory.

“Thank you very much,” he told the press, as he descended the stairs from his plane.

From the airport his motorcade forayed into a different Georgia, far from the open fields of Coffee County, or the granite cleanness of downtown Atlanta, and an infinite distance from the decorum of the White House or even the golden crust of Mar-a-Lago. The once-president visited a neighbourhood dominated by chain link fences and liquor stores, loops of barbed wire and payday lenders. At the centre of it loomed the Fulton County Jail, although no one here uses that name. They know it as Rice Street Jail, one of the worst in the nation. The US Department of Justice recently opened an investigation into the jail, after an inmate’s dead body was found infested inside and out by insects.

Trump’s arrest — in that neighbourhood, at that jail, submitting to fingerprints and yes, the mug shot — is singular in American history. A sordid moment, regardless of party. But the expectedness of the situation — moving a former president in and out of a known location, at an anticipated time — required a massive display of Secret Service, state police, local sheriff’s deputies, SUVs and motorcycles, two ambulances, drones overhead, lights and sirens: a spectacular eruption of power and protection. Trump, possibly for the last time, moved through the world like a current head of state.

Atlanta, though, also prepared for the moment. The mood on the street, as Trump surrendered himself, seemed festive. A nearby nightclub called Suite Lounge had created a flyer featuring Trump in an orange prison jumpsuit. “Free hookah for ladies,” it read. The club posted the flyer on Instagram, set to a song by rappers Jermaine Dupri and Ludacris:

“Welcome to Atlanta.”


Matthew Teague is a journalist and co-author of The Steal.

MatthewTeague

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

122 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago

If somebody other than Trump is the Republican candidate, he or she will also be hit by spurious charges, or people will suddenly appear claiming racist behaviour or sexual assaults from 15 years ago.
Remember how the media went after totally moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney?
And how the media dredged up rumours of McCain’s affairs? (He sued)

And how the media buried all mention of Hunter Biden’s laptops?

Last edited 9 months ago by Steven Carr
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I agree, we already saw this with DeSantis.
There is a good chunk of the GOP donor class that think Trump is the issue, and they should push him out of the way and then they’ll definitely win with a DeSantis or similar. I’m not sure that’s true, actually.
It is true that Trump seems to cause a very unique sort of radical derangement in bourgeois folks — they literally cannot think straight if his name is mentioned, they just start frothing at the mouth. But when Trump was quiet for a while 2021 and 2022, look what happened to DeSantis… he became the next most visible conservative (because of his governance in Florida) and the left and the major media immediately started setting up the narratives that he was a fascist, a racist, and a homophobe.
They’re starting to do it to Vivek now, because he did well in the debate this week and his profile is rising. Republicans have to understand that Trump declared war on the left and the ‘deep state’ / administrative state (whatever you want to call that permanent power base), and they’re still in war mode. This fight is existential for them. They’ve pushed the boat out really far — look at how they’re weaponising the justice system, the education system, the open border etc…
All bets are off, they’re going for broke. They’re going to try to put this ‘Trumpy’ anti-establishment movement down so hard that nobody ever even thinks about confronting this power base again. Republicans don’t get what’s happening here. The power base flexing it’s muscle right now is in a fight for it’s very survival, that’s why the gloves have come off. Once they dispatch Trump, they won’t put the guns away, they’ll immediately turn them on the next challenger. That’s how cultural revolutions play out.

Philip LeBoit
Philip LeBoit
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Lee Atwater, W’s campaign manager was behind the McCain illegitimate daughter story in the South Carolina primary. Michael Schnidt of the New York Times broke the Hillary email story, March 2, 2015. Trumps encouraging Russian hacking, and violence if he continues to be prosecuted has been public. Please don’t rush to his defense.

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
9 months ago
Reply to  Philip LeBoit

So neoliberals are just awful, got it. What does this have to do with political persecutions, and why is it ok this time?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

“Neoliberals”? Let’s just label anyone who doesn’t agree with my preferred conspiracy theory. Apart from being irrelevant to the argument, this is made even more absurd by the way that many Trump supporters were previously enthusiastic supported of G W Bush!

It isn’t “political persecution” to object to someone trying to influence election officials to find votes in his favour and then even to publish their names, so that they can be fair game for his unhinged supporters issuing death threats. Whatever else Trump may be, he is a bullying sleazeball.

I don’t support the progressive Left, but Trump did not win the 2020 election, or come anywhere near to doing so. Numerous court decisions do not support the motion of widespread and decisive electoral fraud.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

“Neoliberals”? Let’s just label anyone who doesn’t agree with my preferred conspiracy theory. Apart from being irrelevant to the argument, this is made even more absurd by the way that many Trump supporters were previously enthusiastic supported of G W Bush!

It isn’t “political persecution” to object to someone trying to influence election officials to find votes in his favour and then even to publish their names, so that they can be fair game for his unhinged supporters issuing death threats. Whatever else Trump may be, he is a bullying sleazeball.

I don’t support the progressive Left, but Trump did not win the 2020 election, or come anywhere near to doing so. Numerous court decisions do not support the motion of widespread and decisive electoral fraud.

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
9 months ago
Reply to  Philip LeBoit

So neoliberals are just awful, got it. What does this have to do with political persecutions, and why is it ok this time?

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I agree, we already saw this with DeSantis.
There is a good chunk of the GOP donor class that think Trump is the issue, and they should push him out of the way and then they’ll definitely win with a DeSantis or similar. I’m not sure that’s true, actually.
It is true that Trump seems to cause a very unique sort of radical derangement in bourgeois folks — they literally cannot think straight if his name is mentioned, they just start frothing at the mouth. But when Trump was quiet for a while 2021 and 2022, look what happened to DeSantis… he became the next most visible conservative (because of his governance in Florida) and the left and the major media immediately started setting up the narratives that he was a fascist, a racist, and a homophobe.
They’re starting to do it to Vivek now, because he did well in the debate this week and his profile is rising. Republicans have to understand that Trump declared war on the left and the ‘deep state’ / administrative state (whatever you want to call that permanent power base), and they’re still in war mode. This fight is existential for them. They’ve pushed the boat out really far — look at how they’re weaponising the justice system, the education system, the open border etc…
All bets are off, they’re going for broke. They’re going to try to put this ‘Trumpy’ anti-establishment movement down so hard that nobody ever even thinks about confronting this power base again. Republicans don’t get what’s happening here. The power base flexing it’s muscle right now is in a fight for it’s very survival, that’s why the gloves have come off. Once they dispatch Trump, they won’t put the guns away, they’ll immediately turn them on the next challenger. That’s how cultural revolutions play out.

Philip LeBoit
Philip LeBoit
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Lee Atwater, W’s campaign manager was behind the McCain illegitimate daughter story in the South Carolina primary. Michael Schnidt of the New York Times broke the Hillary email story, March 2, 2015. Trumps encouraging Russian hacking, and violence if he continues to be prosecuted has been public. Please don’t rush to his defense.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago

If somebody other than Trump is the Republican candidate, he or she will also be hit by spurious charges, or people will suddenly appear claiming racist behaviour or sexual assaults from 15 years ago.
Remember how the media went after totally moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney?
And how the media dredged up rumours of McCain’s affairs? (He sued)

And how the media buried all mention of Hunter Biden’s laptops?

Last edited 9 months ago by Steven Carr
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago

Of course, in 2016 there were faithless voters in Electoral College who did not vote for Trump. Nobody thinks they did anything illegal.

In Hawaii in 1960, the Democrats decided that , although the Republicans had won the count at the time of the finalisation of the electors (Dec 13), they were going to have their fake electors Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger vote for Kennedy.
Nobody thought they did anything illegal.
In fact, the Democrats pressed to overturn the result even after the ‘safe harbour’ deadline had expired. Nobody threw them in prison.
The charges against the Republicans are purely political, as shown by the way the media are desperate to ensure that the charges have a political impact.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steven Carr
j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

No doubt you’ll get some ticks from readers who want to believe firstly that something as malign happened in 60, and that here in 23 facts irrelevant now and it’s all political. However it’s utter cobblers on both elements.
Your reference to 60 of course is deliberately limited. Hawaii recounted Initial result as Nixon won by 140 votes – so a recount was of course inevitable. It’s not 11k like in Georgia 20 is it, where nonetheless they recounted 3 times. Kennedy won after the recounts. Courts confirmed that. A key difference is what Nixon then said essentially ‘,,,America cannot afford a Constitutional crisis’ and he did not contest the Court’s conclusions. He went on to say ‘In our campaigns, no matter how hard-fought they may be, no matter how close the election may turn out to be, those who lose accept the verdict, and support those who win’
Much the same as Gore in 2000.
You’re beginning to notice a major difference I suspect.
Separately in 60 some Southern Republicans tried to get their electoral college reps to change their votes and exerted considerable pressure with false legal arguments why it was legit, but it came to nothing and those reps felt obliged to respect the vote of the people in those States. Strange how you don’t mention that endeavour. Any reason?
I suggest you read through the multiple indictments now and then re-assess your view. It takes some time but it is overwhelming and given the importance of issues at stake beholds anyone interested in such issues to read, or really recognise one views not of great value. I strongly suspect many will not because many of us can cling to our beliefs way after logic and fact points elsewhere. The Sunk Cost fallacy never better demonstrated.

Last edited 9 months ago by j watson
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

So you have no problem with people setting up fake electors pending the results of a challenge (there were lawsuits pending in Georgia)

‘ Kennedy won after the recounts’
The recounts were after the safe harbour date.
And you have no problem with the result being changed after the ‘safe harbour’ date….
Provided, of course, it is changed after the safe harbour date in favour of the Democrats…..
That must be the ‘major difference’ I am meant to notice…..

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

None so blind….

Apart from the rather desperate fact that you are going back to 1960 for an example, and that Democratic Party was very different from today’s, the major difference is that neither the Democrats nor Republicans were previously going to risk a constitutional crisis while Trump and his fanatical supporters are. Otherwise we would have heard of previous “January 6th” incidents.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

None so blind….

Apart from the rather desperate fact that you are going back to 1960 for an example, and that Democratic Party was very different from today’s, the major difference is that neither the Democrats nor Republicans were previously going to risk a constitutional crisis while Trump and his fanatical supporters are. Otherwise we would have heard of previous “January 6th” incidents.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

As for the multiple indictments, here is how they were described.
New York Times: “Trump and 18 of his allies were indicted late Monday in a sprawling racketeering investigation…”
Washington Post: “A sprawling investigation…”
Wall Street Journal: “The sprawling indictment…”
Associated Press: “A sprawling case in Georgia…”
CNN: “A sprawling indictment…”
MSNBC: “The sprawling case…”
‘Sprawling’ is media-speak for ‘They are just throwing mud, but we can’t say that out loud’.
Even the Washington Post was running articles headlined ‘Is Georgia’s case against Trump one case too many?’
The indictment even says it was a crime for Trump to have declared victory on Election Night when he was leading in so many states, like Pennsylvania and Georgia….
And you are actually defending this garbage indictment – an indictment which says it is a crime for a candidate to say he is winning just because the count of votes is in his favour.
Wow! Have you no shame?

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Ah! So the media use the word ‘sprawling’ therefore he’s innocent. You should be a lawyer.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

In order to have standing, you have to have alternate electors. To allege fraud, you have to pretend that nobody understood what the electors were there for, when in fact everybody understood the legal status fo the alternate electors. This is an effort to make Republicans objecting to elections illegal. It’s a direct attack on the rule of law and the Constitution.

Last edited 9 months ago by Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

In order to have standing, you have to have alternate electors. To allege fraud, you have to pretend that nobody understood what the electors were there for, when in fact everybody understood the legal status fo the alternate electors. This is an effort to make Republicans objecting to elections illegal. It’s a direct attack on the rule of law and the Constitution.

Last edited 9 months ago by Douglas Proudfoot
j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Not sure your definition of ‘sprawling’ implies ‘throwing mud’, but those were media headlines and a judge will decide of course.
Having read the Indictments I can tell from the comments below many haven’t. They jumped straight to counter arguments and missed out the bit in the middle. Inevitable though I guess.
What I’d add while we on it is Trump has to defend a number of civil claims this Autumn too. These relate to his sexual predator behaviour and fraudulent business dealings. It’ll stretch further his supporters belief this is the sort of Man who should lead any Nation. So be ready to pull further contortions.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Ah! So the media use the word ‘sprawling’ therefore he’s innocent. You should be a lawyer.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Not sure your definition of ‘sprawling’ implies ‘throwing mud’, but those were media headlines and a judge will decide of course.
Having read the Indictments I can tell from the comments below many haven’t. They jumped straight to counter arguments and missed out the bit in the middle. Inevitable though I guess.
What I’d add while we on it is Trump has to defend a number of civil claims this Autumn too. These relate to his sexual predator behaviour and fraudulent business dealings. It’ll stretch further his supporters belief this is the sort of Man who should lead any Nation. So be ready to pull further contortions.

Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

So please tell us exactly what was Trump’s greatest crime in GA. Was it his statement to GA Sec. State to “find” the 11k votes? That is not a crime and clearly Trump didn’t think it was as there were many people on the call – he may not be bright but he is not that stupid.
There are numerous historical, national examples of votes from districts being lost or initially tallied incorrectly. Suggesting the governor “find” votes would be very suspect if Raffensperger was a co-conspirator, but his actions throughout the episode made clear he was not beholden to Trump.. Given their relationship, “find” clearly means find through legal means – why on earth would someone not beholden to Trump (and obviously not a fan) commit a major crime for him? It’s absurd and legally invalid in this context to claim find means commit fraud.
Again, strip away the RICO and conspiracy icing on this BS cake and tell us (since you read the indictment) what exactly was the crime Trump committed?
FYI – I want Trump gone ASAP but not by any means.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

“State to “find” the 11k votes? That is not a crime and clearly Trump didn’t think it was as there were many people on the call – he may not be bright but he is not that stupid.”
That’s an interesting point. Hitler thought that murdering all the Jews in Europe wouldn’t be a crime either. You’d say that absolves him?
Secondly, a case could be made that Trump’s narcissism is so total that he really believes the things he says. He ‘knows’ he won, irrespective of mere, vulgar vote counting, and thus he merely wants the lost votes found. What’s wrong with that? — you ask. Do you really need it explained?

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

So if Trump is really Hitler, then any means necessary are just fine, including outlaw moves, right? However, your assumption, that Trump really is Hitler, remains at best unporven. Since Tump’s son-in-law and daughter are Jewish, it’s a pretty big stretch. So in my fact cheking capacity, I give you 4 Pinocchios. Since My grandfather was Jewish, and my wife and 5 of my 6 grand children are Jewish, I think I’m qualified to rule on this issue.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

I didn’t say Trump was Hitler — that would be an insult to an evil genius — I said that one is not excused for one’s evil simply by claiming that one thought it was the right thing to do. My point is that there would have been zero convictions at Nuremberg if the nazis only had to claim that they thought they were doing the right thing. “Well then Herr Goering, you thought that what you were doing was admirable, so you’re free to go.” Yes?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago

He didn’t actually say that!.The quality of many of the arguments on here is truly abysmal.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

I didn’t say Trump was Hitler — that would be an insult to an evil genius — I said that one is not excused for one’s evil simply by claiming that one thought it was the right thing to do. My point is that there would have been zero convictions at Nuremberg if the nazis only had to claim that they thought they were doing the right thing. “Well then Herr Goering, you thought that what you were doing was admirable, so you’re free to go.” Yes?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago

He didn’t actually say that!.The quality of many of the arguments on here is truly abysmal.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

So if Trump is really Hitler, then any means necessary are just fine, including outlaw moves, right? However, your assumption, that Trump really is Hitler, remains at best unporven. Since Tump’s son-in-law and daughter are Jewish, it’s a pretty big stretch. So in my fact cheking capacity, I give you 4 Pinocchios. Since My grandfather was Jewish, and my wife and 5 of my 6 grand children are Jewish, I think I’m qualified to rule on this issue.

C Yonge
C Yonge
9 months ago

Exactly, like when Trump quipped that if Russia was so good at hacking that maybe they could find Hillary’s emails in front of thousands they suggest he was seriously requesting that from the Russians. I mean that was a classic riposte and they act like he was subverting democracy

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

As you know already the Indictments provided examples to support – efforts to pressure Georgia officials to undo the election results; a scheme to assemble false electors claiming to represent the state in the Electoral College, submission of documents that contained lies about ballot fraud and attempts to enlist the Justice Department to aid his pressure campaign; as just some. And one assumes not all evidence disclosed as yet. And that’s just Trump. Many of the other alleged conspirators have just as damning, if not more so, positions to try and defend. Why he’s already trying to distance himself from many of them. Watch them start to flip.
What’s important too is he had a right to context the results through the Cts, just as Gore contested Florida in 2000. When the Cts ruled, with many judges appointed under Trump and Republicans, he did what no other President has done – continued to seek ways to overturn. As you also well know if a Biden had phoned up a Democrat Governor after losing in the Courts asking him to find 11k votes you’d have been foaming at the mouth ‘lock him up’.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

“State to “find” the 11k votes? That is not a crime and clearly Trump didn’t think it was as there were many people on the call – he may not be bright but he is not that stupid.”
That’s an interesting point. Hitler thought that murdering all the Jews in Europe wouldn’t be a crime either. You’d say that absolves him?
Secondly, a case could be made that Trump’s narcissism is so total that he really believes the things he says. He ‘knows’ he won, irrespective of mere, vulgar vote counting, and thus he merely wants the lost votes found. What’s wrong with that? — you ask. Do you really need it explained?

C Yonge
C Yonge
9 months ago

Exactly, like when Trump quipped that if Russia was so good at hacking that maybe they could find Hillary’s emails in front of thousands they suggest he was seriously requesting that from the Russians. I mean that was a classic riposte and they act like he was subverting democracy

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

As you know already the Indictments provided examples to support – efforts to pressure Georgia officials to undo the election results; a scheme to assemble false electors claiming to represent the state in the Electoral College, submission of documents that contained lies about ballot fraud and attempts to enlist the Justice Department to aid his pressure campaign; as just some. And one assumes not all evidence disclosed as yet. And that’s just Trump. Many of the other alleged conspirators have just as damning, if not more so, positions to try and defend. Why he’s already trying to distance himself from many of them. Watch them start to flip.
What’s important too is he had a right to context the results through the Cts, just as Gore contested Florida in 2000. When the Cts ruled, with many judges appointed under Trump and Republicans, he did what no other President has done – continued to seek ways to overturn. As you also well know if a Biden had phoned up a Democrat Governor after losing in the Courts asking him to find 11k votes you’d have been foaming at the mouth ‘lock him up’.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Thank you sir. Ironic that even such an outright criminal as RMN yet had enough patriotism in himself that, tho he might be the sort of person who would order a burglary of a shrink’s safe, he would not stoop to treason. Didn’t he say something to the effect that: “They stole the election fair and square.”?

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

So Nixon said vote fraud in Chicago was OK in 1960. The vote fraud in Chicago got more and more blatant. In the 1982 Election, the Chicago Machine cast 100,000 fraudulent votes in the race for Governor of Illinois. The Republican, Jim Thompson won anyway, by just under 9,000 votes. Reagan’s DOJ successfully prosected 63 Machine Democrats for vote fraud. It held down the vote fraud in Chicago for a few elections.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

He didn’t say it was OK, but he understood that once Kennedy was Confirmed, it would do more harm than good to attempt to reverse the election. He got his revenge later, did he not? Every student of American history should know that, historically, the Rats have been far and away the more corrupt party. But that hardly justifies the GOP behaving in the same way.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

He didn’t say it was OK, but he understood that once Kennedy was Confirmed, it would do more harm than good to attempt to reverse the election. He got his revenge later, did he not? Every student of American history should know that, historically, the Rats have been far and away the more corrupt party. But that hardly justifies the GOP behaving in the same way.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

So Nixon said vote fraud in Chicago was OK in 1960. The vote fraud in Chicago got more and more blatant. In the 1982 Election, the Chicago Machine cast 100,000 fraudulent votes in the race for Governor of Illinois. The Republican, Jim Thompson won anyway, by just under 9,000 votes. Reagan’s DOJ successfully prosected 63 Machine Democrats for vote fraud. It held down the vote fraud in Chicago for a few elections.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

All 4 of Trump’s indictments have one thing in common. They are all novel legal theories.

In the New York case, Bragg is using an unprosecuted alleged federal campaign violation of misreporting the payoff of Stormy Daniels to build it into a state felony of business reporting fraud. The statute of limitations on the federal election violation has expired, hence the state charges. Nobody has ever been charged like this before.

In the federal case in Florida, Smith is charging Trump with violating the Epionage Act by fighting with the National Archives over whether he can keep 100 classified documents from his presidency. No other former president has ever been harassed like this by NARA. No other president, vice president or even cabinet level official has ever been charged with violating the Espionage Act.

The “Jan 6” indictment is that protesting possible election fraud and asking for Congress to take a look at it is obstructing a government proceding and treason. The government’s case assumes that the 2020 election was immaculate, or at least there wasn’t enough obvious fraud to change the outcome, and that any statement to the contrary is obviously misleading fraud on the federal government. Trump has no 1st Amendment right to petition Congress for redress of grevienaces, as provided in election law and the Constitution. Pay no attention to the millions of people, like me, who think there were a lot of things that were off about the 2020 election. The government position is that there’s no room for doubt here. The indictment assumes they don’t even have to prove there was an insufficient amount of fraud to change the outcome. It’s supposed to be obvious.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago

In the latest mug shot opportunity, the Constitution doesn’t seem to apply in Georgia, the state in the US, not the country near Russia. Trump doesn’t have the 1st Amendment right to petition Georgia State Government officials for redress of grievances, and he also doesn’t have the 6th Amendment right to counsel about election law, either. That’s why Trump’s election protests in Georgia are being prosecuted as racketeering , and his lawyers have been indicted with him.

I ain’t a lawyer, but this is the first time I’ve heard of that politics protected by the Constitution have been prosecuted as racketeering. The fact that it’s GOP politics, and not Chicago Machine politics, surprises me, but probably not the ghost of Mayor Richard J Dailey.

If this was a normal jurisdiction, not a political partisan proceeding, the charges would be dismissed in a pre trial hearing on Constitutional grounds. Since the judge, and likely the jury, will be politically partisan, the guilty verdict is certain. They will vote at the Party’s call, to expand the Party’s power, with no thought of what precidents they set.. After all the Party’s power is all important. Without it, how can we preserve “our democracy,” read as their hold on power.

Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
9 months ago

No 1st amendment right to petition? Tell me you’re a Democrat without telling me you’re a Democrat.

Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
9 months ago

No 1st amendment right to petition? Tell me you’re a Democrat without telling me you’re a Democrat.

Cal RW
Cal RW
9 months ago

The Florida classified documents case is a bit off topic here but I do have to take exception to your characterization of it. There have been numerous cases of government officials taking classified material home and being prosecuted for it. An example is when David Petraeus was CIA director he took classified home and showed it to a mistress (a military reservist with a clearance). He was charged, pled guilty to the crime, paid a fine, and was forced to resign his position. Another is the young enlisted military member, Jack Texeria who took classified materials home and posted them on-line to friends in a private web site. He was arrested, taken away in handcuffs, and has been in jail since his arrest. He is facing felony charges. There are literally countless examples of these kind of cases. There are also countless cases where people mishandle classified and are let off with mere reprimands. My experience (over 40 years working in this arena with these kind of documents) is that accidents happen, people get sloppy on occasion, sometimes knowingly break the rules to cut corners, but when confronted they usually acknowledge their error, admit to their mistakes, and take their lumps. Trump’s case is clearly different than the typical “administrative security deviation”. He doesn’t see it that way, and we can let the jury sort it out after hearing the evidence.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

“No other former president has ever been harassed like this by NARA.”

No other former president has needed to be ‘harassed’ like this. He is going to be proven to have lied to the NARA, that’s the felony. Sheesh, Biden had, what was it? four separate sweeps for classified documents? Some in the closet, some in the trunk of his car. Embarrassing. But he didn’t obstruct their return to the government.

“The government’s case assumes that the 2020 election was immaculate”

The government’s case doesn’t even mention that. The case is that, once legitimate means have been exhausted, sending a mob to sack the Capitol to prevent the certification of the election — and hang Pence — is treason, which it is. Trump can claim that he’s Jesus Christ if he wants to. He can claim he won the election. He can’t incite a mob however, and he can’t conspire to send phony electors to the Certification. Nor can he phone Brad R. asking for non-existent votes to be ‘found’.

Is Trump really the best the right can do? Is this what the Party of Lincoln has become? God, that’s sad.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago

In the latest mug shot opportunity, the Constitution doesn’t seem to apply in Georgia, the state in the US, not the country near Russia. Trump doesn’t have the 1st Amendment right to petition Georgia State Government officials for redress of grievances, and he also doesn’t have the 6th Amendment right to counsel about election law, either. That’s why Trump’s election protests in Georgia are being prosecuted as racketeering , and his lawyers have been indicted with him.

I ain’t a lawyer, but this is the first time I’ve heard of that politics protected by the Constitution have been prosecuted as racketeering. The fact that it’s GOP politics, and not Chicago Machine politics, surprises me, but probably not the ghost of Mayor Richard J Dailey.

If this was a normal jurisdiction, not a political partisan proceeding, the charges would be dismissed in a pre trial hearing on Constitutional grounds. Since the judge, and likely the jury, will be politically partisan, the guilty verdict is certain. They will vote at the Party’s call, to expand the Party’s power, with no thought of what precidents they set.. After all the Party’s power is all important. Without it, how can we preserve “our democracy,” read as their hold on power.

Cal RW
Cal RW
9 months ago

The Florida classified documents case is a bit off topic here but I do have to take exception to your characterization of it. There have been numerous cases of government officials taking classified material home and being prosecuted for it. An example is when David Petraeus was CIA director he took classified home and showed it to a mistress (a military reservist with a clearance). He was charged, pled guilty to the crime, paid a fine, and was forced to resign his position. Another is the young enlisted military member, Jack Texeria who took classified materials home and posted them on-line to friends in a private web site. He was arrested, taken away in handcuffs, and has been in jail since his arrest. He is facing felony charges. There are literally countless examples of these kind of cases. There are also countless cases where people mishandle classified and are let off with mere reprimands. My experience (over 40 years working in this arena with these kind of documents) is that accidents happen, people get sloppy on occasion, sometimes knowingly break the rules to cut corners, but when confronted they usually acknowledge their error, admit to their mistakes, and take their lumps. Trump’s case is clearly different than the typical “administrative security deviation”. He doesn’t see it that way, and we can let the jury sort it out after hearing the evidence.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

“No other former president has ever been harassed like this by NARA.”

No other former president has needed to be ‘harassed’ like this. He is going to be proven to have lied to the NARA, that’s the felony. Sheesh, Biden had, what was it? four separate sweeps for classified documents? Some in the closet, some in the trunk of his car. Embarrassing. But he didn’t obstruct their return to the government.

“The government’s case assumes that the 2020 election was immaculate”

The government’s case doesn’t even mention that. The case is that, once legitimate means have been exhausted, sending a mob to sack the Capitol to prevent the certification of the election — and hang Pence — is treason, which it is. Trump can claim that he’s Jesus Christ if he wants to. He can claim he won the election. He can’t incite a mob however, and he can’t conspire to send phony electors to the Certification. Nor can he phone Brad R. asking for non-existent votes to be ‘found’.

Is Trump really the best the right can do? Is this what the Party of Lincoln has become? God, that’s sad.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Dershowitz disagrees, and I suspect he knows more about the law than you do.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

I don’t have the impression that you are somebody who would change his beliefs when ‘logic and facts point elsewhere’. You’d challenge the facts and deny the logic just like everyone else. But you should at least be able to see how damaging it is to the rule of law when prosecutors bring cases that they know will be overturned on appeal in order to gain a political advantage. What will you say when actors you don’t approve of start doing it too? You won’t have any grounds to complain.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

So you have no problem with people setting up fake electors pending the results of a challenge (there were lawsuits pending in Georgia)

‘ Kennedy won after the recounts’
The recounts were after the safe harbour date.
And you have no problem with the result being changed after the ‘safe harbour’ date….
Provided, of course, it is changed after the safe harbour date in favour of the Democrats…..
That must be the ‘major difference’ I am meant to notice…..

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

As for the multiple indictments, here is how they were described.
New York Times: “Trump and 18 of his allies were indicted late Monday in a sprawling racketeering investigation…”
Washington Post: “A sprawling investigation…”
Wall Street Journal: “The sprawling indictment…”
Associated Press: “A sprawling case in Georgia…”
CNN: “A sprawling indictment…”
MSNBC: “The sprawling case…”
‘Sprawling’ is media-speak for ‘They are just throwing mud, but we can’t say that out loud’.
Even the Washington Post was running articles headlined ‘Is Georgia’s case against Trump one case too many?’
The indictment even says it was a crime for Trump to have declared victory on Election Night when he was leading in so many states, like Pennsylvania and Georgia….
And you are actually defending this garbage indictment – an indictment which says it is a crime for a candidate to say he is winning just because the count of votes is in his favour.
Wow! Have you no shame?

Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

So please tell us exactly what was Trump’s greatest crime in GA. Was it his statement to GA Sec. State to “find” the 11k votes? That is not a crime and clearly Trump didn’t think it was as there were many people on the call – he may not be bright but he is not that stupid.
There are numerous historical, national examples of votes from districts being lost or initially tallied incorrectly. Suggesting the governor “find” votes would be very suspect if Raffensperger was a co-conspirator, but his actions throughout the episode made clear he was not beholden to Trump.. Given their relationship, “find” clearly means find through legal means – why on earth would someone not beholden to Trump (and obviously not a fan) commit a major crime for him? It’s absurd and legally invalid in this context to claim find means commit fraud.
Again, strip away the RICO and conspiracy icing on this BS cake and tell us (since you read the indictment) what exactly was the crime Trump committed?
FYI – I want Trump gone ASAP but not by any means.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Thank you sir. Ironic that even such an outright criminal as RMN yet had enough patriotism in himself that, tho he might be the sort of person who would order a burglary of a shrink’s safe, he would not stoop to treason. Didn’t he say something to the effect that: “They stole the election fair and square.”?

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

All 4 of Trump’s indictments have one thing in common. They are all novel legal theories.

In the New York case, Bragg is using an unprosecuted alleged federal campaign violation of misreporting the payoff of Stormy Daniels to build it into a state felony of business reporting fraud. The statute of limitations on the federal election violation has expired, hence the state charges. Nobody has ever been charged like this before.

In the federal case in Florida, Smith is charging Trump with violating the Epionage Act by fighting with the National Archives over whether he can keep 100 classified documents from his presidency. No other former president has ever been harassed like this by NARA. No other president, vice president or even cabinet level official has ever been charged with violating the Espionage Act.

The “Jan 6” indictment is that protesting possible election fraud and asking for Congress to take a look at it is obstructing a government proceding and treason. The government’s case assumes that the 2020 election was immaculate, or at least there wasn’t enough obvious fraud to change the outcome, and that any statement to the contrary is obviously misleading fraud on the federal government. Trump has no 1st Amendment right to petition Congress for redress of grevienaces, as provided in election law and the Constitution. Pay no attention to the millions of people, like me, who think there were a lot of things that were off about the 2020 election. The government position is that there’s no room for doubt here. The indictment assumes they don’t even have to prove there was an insufficient amount of fraud to change the outcome. It’s supposed to be obvious.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Dershowitz disagrees, and I suspect he knows more about the law than you do.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

I don’t have the impression that you are somebody who would change his beliefs when ‘logic and facts point elsewhere’. You’d challenge the facts and deny the logic just like everyone else. But you should at least be able to see how damaging it is to the rule of law when prosecutors bring cases that they know will be overturned on appeal in order to gain a political advantage. What will you say when actors you don’t approve of start doing it too? You won’t have any grounds to complain.

David Barnett
David Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I have looked up the Hawaii 1960 business. It’s not really how you have described it. The election was extremely close and there was more than one recount, with Kennedy finally being declared the winner by 115 votes. Accordingly the Democratic electors were certified.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago
Reply to  David Barnett

It was exactly as I described it. Exactly.
The recount was after the ‘safe harbour’ date for the choosing of delegates to the Electoral College, and the Democrats produced a list of fake electors , pending the results of their challenge to the count.
The procedure of choosing fake electors pending the results of a challenge is now being called ‘racketeering’ by Democrats.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steven Carr
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago
Reply to  David Barnett

It was exactly as I described it. Exactly.
The recount was after the ‘safe harbour’ date for the choosing of delegates to the Electoral College, and the Democrats produced a list of fake electors , pending the results of their challenge to the count.
The procedure of choosing fake electors pending the results of a challenge is now being called ‘racketeering’ by Democrats.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steven Carr
j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

No doubt you’ll get some ticks from readers who want to believe firstly that something as malign happened in 60, and that here in 23 facts irrelevant now and it’s all political. However it’s utter cobblers on both elements.
Your reference to 60 of course is deliberately limited. Hawaii recounted Initial result as Nixon won by 140 votes – so a recount was of course inevitable. It’s not 11k like in Georgia 20 is it, where nonetheless they recounted 3 times. Kennedy won after the recounts. Courts confirmed that. A key difference is what Nixon then said essentially ‘,,,America cannot afford a Constitutional crisis’ and he did not contest the Court’s conclusions. He went on to say ‘In our campaigns, no matter how hard-fought they may be, no matter how close the election may turn out to be, those who lose accept the verdict, and support those who win’
Much the same as Gore in 2000.
You’re beginning to notice a major difference I suspect.
Separately in 60 some Southern Republicans tried to get their electoral college reps to change their votes and exerted considerable pressure with false legal arguments why it was legit, but it came to nothing and those reps felt obliged to respect the vote of the people in those States. Strange how you don’t mention that endeavour. Any reason?
I suggest you read through the multiple indictments now and then re-assess your view. It takes some time but it is overwhelming and given the importance of issues at stake beholds anyone interested in such issues to read, or really recognise one views not of great value. I strongly suspect many will not because many of us can cling to our beliefs way after logic and fact points elsewhere. The Sunk Cost fallacy never better demonstrated.

Last edited 9 months ago by j watson
David Barnett
David Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I have looked up the Hawaii 1960 business. It’s not really how you have described it. The election was extremely close and there was more than one recount, with Kennedy finally being declared the winner by 115 votes. Accordingly the Democratic electors were certified.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
9 months ago

Of course, in 2016 there were faithless voters in Electoral College who did not vote for Trump. Nobody thinks they did anything illegal.

In Hawaii in 1960, the Democrats decided that , although the Republicans had won the count at the time of the finalisation of the electors (Dec 13), they were going to have their fake electors Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger vote for Kennedy.
Nobody thought they did anything illegal.
In fact, the Democrats pressed to overturn the result even after the ‘safe harbour’ deadline had expired. Nobody threw them in prison.
The charges against the Republicans are purely political, as shown by the way the media are desperate to ensure that the charges have a political impact.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steven Carr
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago

There is one thing I take exception to in this article, because I got tricked by this particular framing by other media, and have since found out that the context (deliberately removed) matters a great deal here…

Trump’s own trial is likely to centre on his famous phone call to Secretary of State Raffensperger. In that conversation, Trump leaned on Raffensperger — whose office oversees elections in Georgia — to “find” more than 11,000 votes that he needed to win the state.

This presentation; instead of giving us the full quote, makes it seem very clear that Trump is asking Raffensperger to commit fraud. I admit to having been taken in by it, as I’ve read it in multiple media articles and heard it in more than 3 news segments.
But the tape is out now, and when you hear these words in context of the sentences that surround it, it has almost the opposite meaning — Trump was convinced (and others in his circle were too) that they had already won Georgia, and that a recount would show it. The full tape appears to be Trump saying ‘No, we won this state, for sure — we need to do the recount, we only need 11,000 [which we definitely will have, I’m sure of it’].
That’s very different than how media are presenting it, which is more like Trump knew he lost, and was requesting that they go and commit fraud on his behalf, faking votes.
Trump is a man of many flaws, I don’t think his actions need this level of embellishment. Personally I think the NY case is BS, and so is the DC case (…that one will have also have 1st and 14th Amendment issues). However the Florida documents case does now appear more solid, if recent reports on the State’s evidence are accurate.

This Georgia case seems the most dangerous, when you consider what they’re trying to do here. The evidence is weak, so they hope to use RICO to pressure a large numbers of “co-conspirators”, and using the power of numbers to get some to flip on Trump and confess to a ‘conspiracy’ in exchange for immunity or some other plea. Given the stakes, this seems utterly reckless. There are things the Democrats have done in the past few years that are just beyond my comprehension.

This case does not have the appearance of propriety, it looks like a communist style hit job. And the fact that they’ve thrown 4 cases at him at once (at least 3 of which are very specious) means they’re both terrified of him, and do not care at all about the consequences of these actions. I find that scary. The public will not simply shrug if they try to jail Trump on what most people think are bogus charges.

Last edited 9 months ago by JJ Barnett
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Pray, how could Trump ‘know’ he’d already won apart from the verdict of the people doing the counting? Try to think about this. The people holding the stop-watches say I lost the race, but I say I just set a new world record and I ask them to just — mind, the analogy works backwards — to ‘unfind’ a few seconds from my finishing time. Trump ‘knows’ he won but the people who count the ballots — the *only* people who can even form a meaningful opinion — say he lost. How does that work?

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Pray, how could Trump ‘know’ he’d already won apart from the verdict of the people doing the counting?

The tone of your question was rather patronising, but perhaps you didn’t mean it to be, so I’ll answer the question straight: Each party sends poll watchers, and their ‘ground teams’ do extensive exit polling. So the parties (and candidates) are constantly being fed info, and making judgements as the day unfolds about where they stand in a certain constituency based on that info.
Take the viciously contested Bush / Gore election; same thing happened there too. Gore was adamant that the info being fed back to him by the ‘ground teams’ should have equalled a clean win, and that therefore there must be shenanigans going on, or at a minimum screw ups with the counting. He was adamant about it — he felt that if there should be recounts and investigations, and he would be shown to be the winner.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

My tone was meant to be exasperated sarcasm because it sets my hair on fire that an intelligent person can let partisanship blind them so completely. (BTW, just to set the record straight, I’m a deep conservative who detests wokeism and who prays for a decent conservative to lead America back from disaster. Remember when conservatives supported law? I still do.)

“Gore was adamant that the info being fed back to him by the ‘ground teams’ should have equalled a clean win”

But those exit polls are never better than approximate. In *fact* Gore won, but only by a tiny number of votes, *not* a ‘clean win’. And please note that he didn’t make personal phone calls to anybody asking them to ‘find’ a few more votes, he challenged the results publicly and via proper channels. Then, note, SCOTUS screwed him and, patriot that he is, — like Nixon! — he let the matter drop. He did not sent mobs to sack the Capitol.

Nuts, in a civilized country, even phoning a vote counting official in the way Trump did to just chat about the weather or wish him/her a happy birthday would be *clearly* out of bounds. I beseech thee to admit this. When conservatives have lost respect for law and even honesty, what hope is there? The adults have left the room.

Last edited 9 months ago by Ray Andrews
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

The entire point of my [original] comment is that when you actually listen to the tape it sounds very clear that Trump was not pressuring an election official to do something illegal, he was pushing for a recount (as Gore did, and many others have). My point was, with the way the media framed this I too was under the impression that Trump brazenly asked someone to cheat for him.
But then I heard the longer clip and it is almost the opposite (in it’s meaning) to what I was being told. That’s extremely deceitful. It’s also very effective. It gets people raging and “setting [their] hair on fire”. It isn’t true though, it’s anger based on a partial fiction. As I said, Mr Trump is a very imperfect person, so this kind of embellishment is not needed. Let’s stick to the facts.
On this point:

[Gore] did not sent mobs to sack the Capitol.

Right. Neither did Trump though.

I’m British, so this isn’t a matter that I intend to set my hair on fire over. But the level of egregious lying and borderline hysteria around Trump thinking he won the election is just a bit too much. Overboard.
A lot of people who despise Trump point out his somewhat loose relationship with the truth. I think that’s a totally fair critique. But it becomes grossly hypocritical to be levelling that claim… if you intend to follow it up with such blatant falsehoods as “[Trump] sent mobs to sack the Capitol”. No, he did not. Which is why he has not been charged with anything remotely like that. Because that did not happen.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing.

Patti Dunne
Patti Dunne
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

well, it all comes down to intent and we don’t know what Trump’s intent was. We can reason this way and that to illustrate a point, but to prove it beyond unreasonable doubt? That is going to be a hard task.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Patti Dunne

That’s the thing. You have to prove that Trump believed there was no voter fraud and still told them to find 11,000 votes. How do you prove that? You need some evidence that he truly thought there was no fraud.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“How do you prove that? You need some evidence that he truly thought there was no fraud.”
But ‘proving’ what’s in someone’s head is always next to impossible, no? And that’s why the phone call *itself* must be forbidden. Otherwise you’d have every losing candidate in every election trying to lean on the vote counters — threats, bribes — and then just shrugging their shoulders and saying they honestly thought they had won.

This isn’t rocket science folks, it appalls me that such basic stuff even needs to be discussed. Perhaps you’d all see it more clearly if it was Biden doing it. Say he loses the next election by one state — Ooops, I mean he wins the next election ‘by a lot’ (he *knows* he won it irrespective of the vote-count) so he phones his good buddy the SS of that state and asks, politely, for the ‘missing’ votes to be found. There could be consequences if they aren’t found! What do you all think of that scenario? Don’t like it? Well then, Biden just shrugs his shoulders and says he thought he won — nothing to see here folks. Honestly, is this the state of democracy in the US of A?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

I’m actually on the fence about this and I’m certainly no Trump fan. There should be proof though – an email, a text, a conversation – that Trump thought he lost the election. It’s inconceivable that a person like Trump thought he lost the election and never said a word to anyone.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

I’m actually on the fence about this and I’m certainly no Trump fan. There should be proof though – an email, a text, a conversation – that Trump thought he lost the election. It’s inconceivable that a person like Trump thought he lost the election and never said a word to anyone.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“How do you prove that? You need some evidence that he truly thought there was no fraud.”
But ‘proving’ what’s in someone’s head is always next to impossible, no? And that’s why the phone call *itself* must be forbidden. Otherwise you’d have every losing candidate in every election trying to lean on the vote counters — threats, bribes — and then just shrugging their shoulders and saying they honestly thought they had won.

This isn’t rocket science folks, it appalls me that such basic stuff even needs to be discussed. Perhaps you’d all see it more clearly if it was Biden doing it. Say he loses the next election by one state — Ooops, I mean he wins the next election ‘by a lot’ (he *knows* he won it irrespective of the vote-count) so he phones his good buddy the SS of that state and asks, politely, for the ‘missing’ votes to be found. There could be consequences if they aren’t found! What do you all think of that scenario? Don’t like it? Well then, Biden just shrugs his shoulders and says he thought he won — nothing to see here folks. Honestly, is this the state of democracy in the US of A?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Patti Dunne

That’s the thing. You have to prove that Trump believed there was no voter fraud and still told them to find 11,000 votes. How do you prove that? You need some evidence that he truly thought there was no fraud.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Permit me to doubt your conservatism, Mr. Andrews. Trump filed several court challenges to the vote count in Georgia. He started making phone calls only when most of the cases never got an initial hearing, and Raffensburger didn’t do what he promised in terms of looking for uncounted ballots.

Trump’s Constitutional Rights under the 1st and 6th Amendments are being taken from him with this indictment. You’re cheering it on. What makes you think that prosecutors will stop with taking Trump’s rights away, and won’t continue taking away other folk’s rights as well?

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

“He started making phone calls only when most of the cases never got an initial hearing”

Which rather makes my point — there are proper channels and Trump in effect admitted that when he used them. Losing, as he did, he then started using improper channels.

Interfering with due process in anything is NOT a constitutional right. Going back in history, would you say that Al Capone’s 1st Amendment rights would protect his ‘right’ to have private phone conversations with the judge, prosecutors and jury during his trial? After all, he ‘knows’ he’s innocent, so helping the jurors to see his innocence would surely be ok.

Silly, isn’t it? Both Capone and Trump have every right to *publicly* lie through their teeth of course, but they don’t have the right to ‘influence’ due process directly. You must know this.

BTW, please don’t confuse conservatism with Trumpism. Conservatives believe in the Constitution, the law, due process and adult behavior. Donald Trump is the opposite of a conservative (which is why he was a Democrat for most of his life and funded Hillary, so they say).

Last edited 9 months ago by Ray Andrews
Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Petitioning government officials for redress of grievances is protected by the 1st Amendment. The right to counsel is protected by the 6th Amendment. If you supported the Constitution, Mr. Andrews, you would allow that even Trump has these rights. Exercising them ain’t a legitimate basis for RICO indictment of Trump, let alone his lawyers.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

He certainly does. Via legal channels. He tried legal means and lost, so he started using illegal means. It’s easy if you want to see it. If you don’t want to see it you won’t see it.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Well, I guess well have to see what happens. What do you think the odds are that he is convicted?

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Well, I guess well have to see what happens. What do you think the odds are that he is convicted?

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

He certainly does. Via legal channels. He tried legal means and lost, so he started using illegal means. It’s easy if you want to see it. If you don’t want to see it you won’t see it.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Petitioning government officials for redress of grievances is protected by the 1st Amendment. The right to counsel is protected by the 6th Amendment. If you supported the Constitution, Mr. Andrews, you would allow that even Trump has these rights. Exercising them ain’t a legitimate basis for RICO indictment of Trump, let alone his lawyers.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

“He started making phone calls only when most of the cases never got an initial hearing”

Which rather makes my point — there are proper channels and Trump in effect admitted that when he used them. Losing, as he did, he then started using improper channels.

Interfering with due process in anything is NOT a constitutional right. Going back in history, would you say that Al Capone’s 1st Amendment rights would protect his ‘right’ to have private phone conversations with the judge, prosecutors and jury during his trial? After all, he ‘knows’ he’s innocent, so helping the jurors to see his innocence would surely be ok.

Silly, isn’t it? Both Capone and Trump have every right to *publicly* lie through their teeth of course, but they don’t have the right to ‘influence’ due process directly. You must know this.

BTW, please don’t confuse conservatism with Trumpism. Conservatives believe in the Constitution, the law, due process and adult behavior. Donald Trump is the opposite of a conservative (which is why he was a Democrat for most of his life and funded Hillary, so they say).

Last edited 9 months ago by Ray Andrews
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

The entire point of my [original] comment is that when you actually listen to the tape it sounds very clear that Trump was not pressuring an election official to do something illegal, he was pushing for a recount (as Gore did, and many others have). My point was, with the way the media framed this I too was under the impression that Trump brazenly asked someone to cheat for him.
But then I heard the longer clip and it is almost the opposite (in it’s meaning) to what I was being told. That’s extremely deceitful. It’s also very effective. It gets people raging and “setting [their] hair on fire”. It isn’t true though, it’s anger based on a partial fiction. As I said, Mr Trump is a very imperfect person, so this kind of embellishment is not needed. Let’s stick to the facts.
On this point:

[Gore] did not sent mobs to sack the Capitol.

Right. Neither did Trump though.

I’m British, so this isn’t a matter that I intend to set my hair on fire over. But the level of egregious lying and borderline hysteria around Trump thinking he won the election is just a bit too much. Overboard.
A lot of people who despise Trump point out his somewhat loose relationship with the truth. I think that’s a totally fair critique. But it becomes grossly hypocritical to be levelling that claim… if you intend to follow it up with such blatant falsehoods as “[Trump] sent mobs to sack the Capitol”. No, he did not. Which is why he has not been charged with anything remotely like that. Because that did not happen.

Patti Dunne
Patti Dunne
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

well, it all comes down to intent and we don’t know what Trump’s intent was. We can reason this way and that to illustrate a point, but to prove it beyond unreasonable doubt? That is going to be a hard task.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Permit me to doubt your conservatism, Mr. Andrews. Trump filed several court challenges to the vote count in Georgia. He started making phone calls only when most of the cases never got an initial hearing, and Raffensburger didn’t do what he promised in terms of looking for uncounted ballots.

Trump’s Constitutional Rights under the 1st and 6th Amendments are being taken from him with this indictment. You’re cheering it on. What makes you think that prosecutors will stop with taking Trump’s rights away, and won’t continue taking away other folk’s rights as well?

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

My tone was meant to be exasperated sarcasm because it sets my hair on fire that an intelligent person can let partisanship blind them so completely. (BTW, just to set the record straight, I’m a deep conservative who detests wokeism and who prays for a decent conservative to lead America back from disaster. Remember when conservatives supported law? I still do.)

“Gore was adamant that the info being fed back to him by the ‘ground teams’ should have equalled a clean win”

But those exit polls are never better than approximate. In *fact* Gore won, but only by a tiny number of votes, *not* a ‘clean win’. And please note that he didn’t make personal phone calls to anybody asking them to ‘find’ a few more votes, he challenged the results publicly and via proper channels. Then, note, SCOTUS screwed him and, patriot that he is, — like Nixon! — he let the matter drop. He did not sent mobs to sack the Capitol.

Nuts, in a civilized country, even phoning a vote counting official in the way Trump did to just chat about the weather or wish him/her a happy birthday would be *clearly* out of bounds. I beseech thee to admit this. When conservatives have lost respect for law and even honesty, what hope is there? The adults have left the room.

Last edited 9 months ago by Ray Andrews
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Pray, how could Trump ‘know’ he’d already won apart from the verdict of the people doing the counting?

The tone of your question was rather patronising, but perhaps you didn’t mean it to be, so I’ll answer the question straight: Each party sends poll watchers, and their ‘ground teams’ do extensive exit polling. So the parties (and candidates) are constantly being fed info, and making judgements as the day unfolds about where they stand in a certain constituency based on that info.
Take the viciously contested Bush / Gore election; same thing happened there too. Gore was adamant that the info being fed back to him by the ‘ground teams’ should have equalled a clean win, and that therefore there must be shenanigans going on, or at a minimum screw ups with the counting. He was adamant about it — he felt that if there should be recounts and investigations, and he would be shown to be the winner.

C Yonge
C Yonge
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

I made a reply to this comparing the “find votes” statement to asking russia to find Hillary’s emails in front of thousands(as if he would commit a crime in TV) and unherd deleted my comment for what that’s worth. Actually, my comment reappeared later

Last edited 9 months ago by C Yonge
harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Your take is much the same as Dershowitz’s, which in my opinion gives it much merit. The others, esp. those whose authors obvious glee at Trump’s predicament shines through, not so much.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Pray, how could Trump ‘know’ he’d already won apart from the verdict of the people doing the counting? Try to think about this. The people holding the stop-watches say I lost the race, but I say I just set a new world record and I ask them to just — mind, the analogy works backwards — to ‘unfind’ a few seconds from my finishing time. Trump ‘knows’ he won but the people who count the ballots — the *only* people who can even form a meaningful opinion — say he lost. How does that work?

C Yonge
C Yonge
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

I made a reply to this comparing the “find votes” statement to asking russia to find Hillary’s emails in front of thousands(as if he would commit a crime in TV) and unherd deleted my comment for what that’s worth. Actually, my comment reappeared later

Last edited 9 months ago by C Yonge
harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Your take is much the same as Dershowitz’s, which in my opinion gives it much merit. The others, esp. those whose authors obvious glee at Trump’s predicament shines through, not so much.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
9 months ago

There is one thing I take exception to in this article, because I got tricked by this particular framing by other media, and have since found out that the context (deliberately removed) matters a great deal here…

Trump’s own trial is likely to centre on his famous phone call to Secretary of State Raffensperger. In that conversation, Trump leaned on Raffensperger — whose office oversees elections in Georgia — to “find” more than 11,000 votes that he needed to win the state.

This presentation; instead of giving us the full quote, makes it seem very clear that Trump is asking Raffensperger to commit fraud. I admit to having been taken in by it, as I’ve read it in multiple media articles and heard it in more than 3 news segments.
But the tape is out now, and when you hear these words in context of the sentences that surround it, it has almost the opposite meaning — Trump was convinced (and others in his circle were too) that they had already won Georgia, and that a recount would show it. The full tape appears to be Trump saying ‘No, we won this state, for sure — we need to do the recount, we only need 11,000 [which we definitely will have, I’m sure of it’].
That’s very different than how media are presenting it, which is more like Trump knew he lost, and was requesting that they go and commit fraud on his behalf, faking votes.
Trump is a man of many flaws, I don’t think his actions need this level of embellishment. Personally I think the NY case is BS, and so is the DC case (…that one will have also have 1st and 14th Amendment issues). However the Florida documents case does now appear more solid, if recent reports on the State’s evidence are accurate.

This Georgia case seems the most dangerous, when you consider what they’re trying to do here. The evidence is weak, so they hope to use RICO to pressure a large numbers of “co-conspirators”, and using the power of numbers to get some to flip on Trump and confess to a ‘conspiracy’ in exchange for immunity or some other plea. Given the stakes, this seems utterly reckless. There are things the Democrats have done in the past few years that are just beyond my comprehension.

This case does not have the appearance of propriety, it looks like a communist style hit job. And the fact that they’ve thrown 4 cases at him at once (at least 3 of which are very specious) means they’re both terrified of him, and do not care at all about the consequences of these actions. I find that scary. The public will not simply shrug if they try to jail Trump on what most people think are bogus charges.

Last edited 9 months ago by JJ Barnett
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

I really don’t like the writing style the author decided to use for this story. This is hard news and the style should be straight forward and to the point – just the facts please.

Instead, he uses a scene-setting style that is better suited to human interest features. I don’t need to know that; “Jordan Fuchs and Gabriel Sterling sat outside, tucked into the shadow of the cafe. They spoke in the confidential tones of people who have survived a war together.”

Although the writer is clearly gifted, the style was inappropriate for the subject matter and is frankly a distraction that doesn’t add any authenticity to the arguments. How do you even know the two men spoke in confidential tones? I consider myself a moderate and this article did not alleviate any of my concerns about the way this is being handled.

I’m really on the fence about this whole thing. IMO Trump is a POS who would stoop to anything to get his way. Yet, I don’t trust the Dems and I know the security state and judiciary will carry water for them. I want to say let’s just throw the guy in prison and put the whole sordid affair behind us and move on. But will it solve anything? Is this the way to build trust in the millions of Americans who no longer trust the institutions?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

America feels like a powder keg ready to go off. This form of political lawfare is not good for the country whatever the outcome. I also wonder if this is why mainstream news media sites are predicting that COVID will return this fall. It would be a convenient excuse to suppress the ‘wrong’ sort of dissent.

r ll
r ll
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

COVID will return and used as a weapon because it scares people to panic (except me and others) as I know its a scam and delaying tactic to keep voters at home and now we are finding what our “dear leaders” have done with their buddies at teh pharma companies and other government agencies scrambling to cover it all up before they go to jail (i wish).

r ll
r ll
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

COVID will return and used as a weapon because it scares people to panic (except me and others) as I know its a scam and delaying tactic to keep voters at home and now we are finding what our “dear leaders” have done with their buddies at teh pharma companies and other government agencies scrambling to cover it all up before they go to jail (i wish).

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

As a complete outsider peeking in, i agree with you that the tone of this article – let’s call it “conspiratorial” – seems inappropriate. Yep, how could some of that detail be known, in any way except as an attempt to tell a story rather than an attempt at factual reportage. Perhaps that’s the point: there are no facts, only factions.

Then i thought, “but this is America” which itself is a “story” and one that’s unravelling before our very eyes. This article therefore encapsulates precisely that, and therefore succeeds in its most important goal.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Murray
Rob Nock
Rob Nock
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

The section about Lawrence Sloan struck me as odd. How does the author know what happened with LS that night. Maybe it is all recorded and crystal clear but it sounded as if one person’s account was being treated as fact.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
9 months ago
Reply to  Rob Nock

I was also struck by that. Employee is filmed throwing away a ballot and giving an election machine the finger 
 and here’s a very lame story as to why.

Patti Dunne
Patti Dunne
9 months ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I understood that he was throwing away the instructions that the voter put in the envelope. Those machines are calibrated to reject items over a certain weight. The weight being what the ballot plus envelope should weight. I know nothing about this situation, just my understanding from reading the article and experience from working in a bank processing center that used machines of this type.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
9 months ago
Reply to  Patti Dunne

Mr. Teague did not finish this story–was Lawrence Sloan fired or disciplined for destroying extra paper that came in with the ballot? However extreme the public reaction was to the video, election office workers know they are being filmed and know that extraneous items that come in with ballots cannot just be balled up and discarded.
It seems that this human-interest anecdote was used to illustrate the hysterical over-reaction to a trivial event, but such actions are prohibited exactly because of the perception of cheating that they create.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
9 months ago
Reply to  Patti Dunne

Mr. Teague did not finish this story–was Lawrence Sloan fired or disciplined for destroying extra paper that came in with the ballot? However extreme the public reaction was to the video, election office workers know they are being filmed and know that extraneous items that come in with ballots cannot just be balled up and discarded.
It seems that this human-interest anecdote was used to illustrate the hysterical over-reaction to a trivial event, but such actions are prohibited exactly because of the perception of cheating that they create.

Patti Dunne
Patti Dunne
9 months ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I understood that he was throwing away the instructions that the voter put in the envelope. Those machines are calibrated to reject items over a certain weight. The weight being what the ballot plus envelope should weight. I know nothing about this situation, just my understanding from reading the article and experience from working in a bank processing center that used machines of this type.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
9 months ago
Reply to  Rob Nock

I was also struck by that. Employee is filmed throwing away a ballot and giving an election machine the finger 
 and here’s a very lame story as to why.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I thought the writer described the atmosphere of Georgia and the mood very well. I’ve never been there but I felt like I had.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I thought he did a great job creating a sense of mood and tone, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for this type of story. It works better in soft stories where mood is just as compelling as accuracy.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I have spent some time in Atlanta and I liked it. It feels very cosmopolitan and quite, er…., homely for big city. Like most big cities today it suffers from the fact that its downtown area is very boring.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I thought he did a great job creating a sense of mood and tone, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for this type of story. It works better in soft stories where mood is just as compelling as accuracy.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I have spent some time in Atlanta and I liked it. It feels very cosmopolitan and quite, er…., homely for big city. Like most big cities today it suffers from the fact that its downtown area is very boring.

Rob Nock
Rob Nock
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

The section about Lawrence Sloan struck me as odd. How does the author know what happened with LS that night. Maybe it is all recorded and crystal clear but it sounded as if one person’s account was being treated as fact.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I thought the writer described the atmosphere of Georgia and the mood very well. I’ve never been there but I felt like I had.

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I thought it was very good. But I also got a few things out of your remark. Thank God for UnHerd

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Thanks for commenting about the inappropriate style of this article, which does have a bearing on its content. Many readers seem to ignore the content of articles and jump right into holding forth with opinions that do not critique–or even marginally relate to–the subject in question or the way that subject is presented.

Last edited 9 months ago by DA Johnson
Robert Detlefsen
Robert Detlefsen
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Agree with the gist of your comment except for: “the writer is clearly gifted.” To me it read like something written by a kid in a freshman creative writing class.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

America feels like a powder keg ready to go off. This form of political lawfare is not good for the country whatever the outcome. I also wonder if this is why mainstream news media sites are predicting that COVID will return this fall. It would be a convenient excuse to suppress the ‘wrong’ sort of dissent.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

As a complete outsider peeking in, i agree with you that the tone of this article – let’s call it “conspiratorial” – seems inappropriate. Yep, how could some of that detail be known, in any way except as an attempt to tell a story rather than an attempt at factual reportage. Perhaps that’s the point: there are no facts, only factions.

Then i thought, “but this is America” which itself is a “story” and one that’s unravelling before our very eyes. This article therefore encapsulates precisely that, and therefore succeeds in its most important goal.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Murray
Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I thought it was very good. But I also got a few things out of your remark. Thank God for UnHerd

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Thanks for commenting about the inappropriate style of this article, which does have a bearing on its content. Many readers seem to ignore the content of articles and jump right into holding forth with opinions that do not critique–or even marginally relate to–the subject in question or the way that subject is presented.

Last edited 9 months ago by DA Johnson
Robert Detlefsen
Robert Detlefsen
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Agree with the gist of your comment except for: “the writer is clearly gifted.” To me it read like something written by a kid in a freshman creative writing class.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

I really don’t like the writing style the author decided to use for this story. This is hard news and the style should be straight forward and to the point – just the facts please.

Instead, he uses a scene-setting style that is better suited to human interest features. I don’t need to know that; “Jordan Fuchs and Gabriel Sterling sat outside, tucked into the shadow of the cafe. They spoke in the confidential tones of people who have survived a war together.”

Although the writer is clearly gifted, the style was inappropriate for the subject matter and is frankly a distraction that doesn’t add any authenticity to the arguments. How do you even know the two men spoke in confidential tones? I consider myself a moderate and this article did not alleviate any of my concerns about the way this is being handled.

I’m really on the fence about this whole thing. IMO Trump is a POS who would stoop to anything to get his way. Yet, I don’t trust the Dems and I know the security state and judiciary will carry water for them. I want to say let’s just throw the guy in prison and put the whole sordid affair behind us and move on. But will it solve anything? Is this the way to build trust in the millions of Americans who no longer trust the institutions?

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
9 months ago

Political prisoners. Take away the human interest angle and the spectator sport aspect indulged by current reporting, and we see a great republic in decline. Half of American voters had their collective mugshot displayed on the front pages. I don’t understand how this can end well.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
9 months ago

This Democrat-waged warfare is destructive and every American should consider it thus. The Democrats have shown no nuance and have not taken their foot off the pedal for decades now
.seems like they’re okay with running the country into the ground.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
9 months ago

This Democrat-waged warfare is destructive and every American should consider it thus. The Democrats have shown no nuance and have not taken their foot off the pedal for decades now
.seems like they’re okay with running the country into the ground.

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
9 months ago

Political prisoners. Take away the human interest angle and the spectator sport aspect indulged by current reporting, and we see a great republic in decline. Half of American voters had their collective mugshot displayed on the front pages. I don’t understand how this can end well.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
9 months ago

One way to restore trust would be for election officials to follow the law. Georgia law requires signature verification of mail in ballots but that wasn’t done in 2020 and election officials refused to do it even on the recount. That could easily have meant the difference.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
9 months ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

That is the main point in all this. The very selective and subjective enforcement of laws is nauseating and if this happened the other way round it would cause the left to be more apoplectic than they were when they contracted TDS, the night of the 2020 election, where they proclaimed they would impeach the bad orange man before he was sworn in.

Last edited 9 months ago by Warren Trees
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

All hail the expert on Georgia election law!
Educated at Breitbart and the War Room – he don’t need no stupid book learnin’ to know tell us the law!

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago

All hail Marxist truth! It’s the oxymoron that replaced military intellegence.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Sure sure, Dershowitz was educated at Breitbart, then became a successful Harvard Law professor. He says the only indictment with any legal merit is the Florida documents indictment, which he also deems to be a ‘technical’ violation i.e. one that would never have been prosecuted had anyone other than Trump done it.
But hey, a clearly uber-partisan hack knows better.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago

All hail Marxist truth! It’s the oxymoron that replaced military intellegence.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Sure sure, Dershowitz was educated at Breitbart, then became a successful Harvard Law professor. He says the only indictment with any legal merit is the Florida documents indictment, which he also deems to be a ‘technical’ violation i.e. one that would never have been prosecuted had anyone other than Trump done it.
But hey, a clearly uber-partisan hack knows better.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
9 months ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

That is the main point in all this. The very selective and subjective enforcement of laws is nauseating and if this happened the other way round it would cause the left to be more apoplectic than they were when they contracted TDS, the night of the 2020 election, where they proclaimed they would impeach the bad orange man before he was sworn in.

Last edited 9 months ago by Warren Trees
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

All hail the expert on Georgia election law!
Educated at Breitbart and the War Room – he don’t need no stupid book learnin’ to know tell us the law!

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
9 months ago

One way to restore trust would be for election officials to follow the law. Georgia law requires signature verification of mail in ballots but that wasn’t done in 2020 and election officials refused to do it even on the recount. That could easily have meant the difference.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago

This is a fully virtual civil war now which I expect to become fully actual in 18 months time – and bloodily too.
And I suspect the Democrats wouldn’t mind that either, a chance to put the entire MAGA movement in Guantanamo – those who survived.
No Republican will be allowed to become President until they sign up to neocon principles and promise to rebalance the Supreme Court to ensure that woke equities prevail – postal voting alone will ensure that.

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
9 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

Brilliant idea: throw all the MAGA cultists into Guantanamo cells and throw away the keys!

Shrunken Genepool
Shrunken Genepool
9 months ago

You are the problem

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

Half of a brilliant idea. To make it fully brilliant, throw all the woke/trans/CRT/BLM cultists in with them. AOC and Jim Jordan could share a cell.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

In some ways they are both Apocalyptic cults. One set are Gnostics/Hermiticists, the other apocalyptic survivalists.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

In some ways they are both Apocalyptic cults. One set are Gnostics/Hermiticists, the other apocalyptic survivalists.

Shrunken Genepool
Shrunken Genepool
9 months ago

You are the problem

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
9 months ago

Half of a brilliant idea. To make it fully brilliant, throw all the woke/trans/CRT/BLM cultists in with them. AOC and Jim Jordan could share a cell.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

I expect 2024 to be a replay of 2020 when, to influence the 2020 elections, fires were started along Oregon Hwy 18 and 101 and Interstate 5. Men caught starting the fires were arrested with gasoline cans only to be let go to start more fires. People were burned alive including a boy and his dog not to mention all the wildlife. Yes, 2024 will be just another bloody election in America.

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
9 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

Brilliant idea: throw all the MAGA cultists into Guantanamo cells and throw away the keys!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

I expect 2024 to be a replay of 2020 when, to influence the 2020 elections, fires were started along Oregon Hwy 18 and 101 and Interstate 5. Men caught starting the fires were arrested with gasoline cans only to be let go to start more fires. People were burned alive including a boy and his dog not to mention all the wildlife. Yes, 2024 will be just another bloody election in America.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago

This is a fully virtual civil war now which I expect to become fully actual in 18 months time – and bloodily too.
And I suspect the Democrats wouldn’t mind that either, a chance to put the entire MAGA movement in Guantanamo – those who survived.
No Republican will be allowed to become President until they sign up to neocon principles and promise to rebalance the Supreme Court to ensure that woke equities prevail – postal voting alone will ensure that.

AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago

Trump is, of course, innocent – until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence (once a liberal value) has become an early casualty of lawfare.
I look forward with interest to see how the loss of this presumption plays out when used against one or more Bidens.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

You want to explain to us how fatso isn’t innocent until proven guilty? Has he been incarcerated? Execute without trial? Exiled to a faraway land that he can’t find on a map?
No. He has been indicted by a grand jury of his peers and is still free to grift the morons who support him for more and more of their cash. I assume that includes you?

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Man, you’re a nasty piece of work. Not too bright either.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Did you send him money this morning? You did didn’t you, you silly boy!!!

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Did you send him money this morning? You did didn’t you, you silly boy!!!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago

Calling names is juvenile, Champagne Socialist. Your comments remind me of those hurled at our civil rights leaders in the 1950s.

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
9 months ago

Both the NY and Georgia AG’s stood on platforms to “get Trump”. First identify the criminal, then find a crime.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Man, you’re a nasty piece of work. Not too bright either.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago

Calling names is juvenile, Champagne Socialist. Your comments remind me of those hurled at our civil rights leaders in the 1950s.

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
9 months ago

Both the NY and Georgia AG’s stood on platforms to “get Trump”. First identify the criminal, then find a crime.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

You want to explain to us how fatso isn’t innocent until proven guilty? Has he been incarcerated? Execute without trial? Exiled to a faraway land that he can’t find on a map?
No. He has been indicted by a grand jury of his peers and is still free to grift the morons who support him for more and more of their cash. I assume that includes you?

AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago

Trump is, of course, innocent – until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence (once a liberal value) has become an early casualty of lawfare.
I look forward with interest to see how the loss of this presumption plays out when used against one or more Bidens.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
9 months ago

I think the prosecutions have a ‘little boy who cried wolf problem.’ I mean – how many times have they done this. It is just boring. The other more serious problem is that is is clear to any objective onlooker that the Biden clan were running some kind of ‘pay to play’ racket for access to Joe Biden. Most people have a sense of fair play – and the differential treatment is not fair play.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

It’s clear is it? Maybe to a Tucker Carlson fan but to us folks who can actually read and stuff like that no such thing is clear.
This is where you say something stupid about a laptop. Go ahead – prove me right!

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago

It’s a well known feature of bribery law that payments to children of politicians are considered bribery payments directly to the politician, except when the politician is President Big Guy. Then the rule of law doesn’t apply. What is a straight forward investigation becomes so complicated that it takes years and years, if it involves President Big Guy and his family. In fact, it took the DOJ so long to investigate Hunter for obvious tax fraud that the statute of limitations ran out on his 2 biggest revenue years, so he doesn’t have to pay his fair share, or even anything, in taxes for those years. And, at the rate the investigation is continuing, the statute of limitation on all of Hunter’s crimes may have completely expired before any case can be brought against him. But remember, nobody is above the law!

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Maybe you and Trump should be running mates. You both employ the exact same rhetorical style – call people names and say stupid stuff. At least Trump is funny every once in awhile.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Thicker than a brick, and way more arrogant with no grounds.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
9 months ago

It’s a well known feature of bribery law that payments to children of politicians are considered bribery payments directly to the politician, except when the politician is President Big Guy. Then the rule of law doesn’t apply. What is a straight forward investigation becomes so complicated that it takes years and years, if it involves President Big Guy and his family. In fact, it took the DOJ so long to investigate Hunter for obvious tax fraud that the statute of limitations ran out on his 2 biggest revenue years, so he doesn’t have to pay his fair share, or even anything, in taxes for those years. And, at the rate the investigation is continuing, the statute of limitation on all of Hunter’s crimes may have completely expired before any case can be brought against him. But remember, nobody is above the law!

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Maybe you and Trump should be running mates. You both employ the exact same rhetorical style – call people names and say stupid stuff. At least Trump is funny every once in awhile.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

Thicker than a brick, and way more arrogant with no grounds.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

Peter, you ask “how many times have THEY done this.” about Trump. Only four times, so far. Martin Luther King was booked 29 time so the Donald has 25 more to go.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

It’s clear is it? Maybe to a Tucker Carlson fan but to us folks who can actually read and stuff like that no such thing is clear.
This is where you say something stupid about a laptop. Go ahead – prove me right!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

Peter, you ask “how many times have THEY done this.” about Trump. Only four times, so far. Martin Luther King was booked 29 time so the Donald has 25 more to go.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
9 months ago

I think the prosecutions have a ‘little boy who cried wolf problem.’ I mean – how many times have they done this. It is just boring. The other more serious problem is that is is clear to any objective onlooker that the Biden clan were running some kind of ‘pay to play’ racket for access to Joe Biden. Most people have a sense of fair play – and the differential treatment is not fair play.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
9 months ago

A few “allegedly”s missing from this article.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
9 months ago

A few “allegedly”s missing from this article.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
9 months ago

Fuchs and Sterling ponder how to avoid disaster in 2024. “The problem with (electoral) transparency without education is that people see things they don’t understand”‘
And here is the problem with politics today and the reason why Trump has so many dedicated followers. The idea that you have to be clever to understand what is happening in the world frightens normal voters. They feel that the clever ba*ta*ds are trying to trick them. As Michael Sandel demonstrates in his book, “The Tyranny of Merit”, the Democrat voters have become more and more those people with degrees, who hold important jobs, the experts, the people on TV during the Covid lockdowns, the ones who have let things get worse and worse by showing ‘facts’ which are not facts, graphs which are doctored for affect.
“The Tyranny of Merit”, like all books, is overstated and repetitive and misses one important criterion – that populations are getting older. The old people are also voting for Trump because he claims to represent the old America, the one of the ‘American Dream’. Older people have more problems in keeping up with modern ideas, things like gender, immigration, the decline of the family. But they are still voters and their opinions have to be considered. The Democrats are ignoring the old people in their rush to create new trends.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

The problem which you touch upon is that of the educated class. For decades, US universities have engaged in a fervent form of academic capitalism; this has resulted in a surplus of idiots who believe that not only does a degree confer intellectual superiority, but also a greater degree of moral superiority. This is why we now have a class politicians who are extremely stupid but also dangerously arrogant.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

“extremely stupid but also dangerously arrogant”
Self-awareness isn’t your thing, is it?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

But it is yours the sound of it?
Sadly, your conceit exceeds your intellect by quite a large margin.

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

It certainly isn’t yours.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

Hello, my internet friend. Did they let you into the computer room again?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

But it is yours the sound of it?
Sadly, your conceit exceeds your intellect by quite a large margin.

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago

It certainly isn’t yours.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

Hello, my internet friend. Did they let you into the computer room again?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

“extremely stupid but also dangerously arrogant”
Self-awareness isn’t your thing, is it?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

The problem which you touch upon is that of the educated class. For decades, US universities have engaged in a fervent form of academic capitalism; this has resulted in a surplus of idiots who believe that not only does a degree confer intellectual superiority, but also a greater degree of moral superiority. This is why we now have a class politicians who are extremely stupid but also dangerously arrogant.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
9 months ago

Fuchs and Sterling ponder how to avoid disaster in 2024. “The problem with (electoral) transparency without education is that people see things they don’t understand”‘
And here is the problem with politics today and the reason why Trump has so many dedicated followers. The idea that you have to be clever to understand what is happening in the world frightens normal voters. They feel that the clever ba*ta*ds are trying to trick them. As Michael Sandel demonstrates in his book, “The Tyranny of Merit”, the Democrat voters have become more and more those people with degrees, who hold important jobs, the experts, the people on TV during the Covid lockdowns, the ones who have let things get worse and worse by showing ‘facts’ which are not facts, graphs which are doctored for affect.
“The Tyranny of Merit”, like all books, is overstated and repetitive and misses one important criterion – that populations are getting older. The old people are also voting for Trump because he claims to represent the old America, the one of the ‘American Dream’. Older people have more problems in keeping up with modern ideas, things like gender, immigration, the decline of the family. But they are still voters and their opinions have to be considered. The Democrats are ignoring the old people in their rush to create new trends.

r ll
r ll
9 months ago

One thing is certain, a Pandora’s Box is opened and the Democrats should expect the same treatment in the future, it will not be forgotten about,and righfully so.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  r ll

The big difference is that the Democrats haven’t committed any crimes.
You see how that works, skippy?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Just because they haven’t been prosecuted for crimes, doesn’t mean the Dems haven’t committed them. It has to be clear by now that the DOJ, FBI and CIA will move mountains to protect and promote the Bidens. There are so many examples, from the suppression of the laptop, the timing of the announcement of the Whitmore kidnapping charges, the testimony of IRS agents, the judge’s decision to reject the Hunter Biden plea deal. It’s getting to be kind of comical by now.

Last edited 9 months ago by Jim Veenbaas
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Your tinfoil hat must be on a little tight today, Jimmy! “It has to be clear..” I’m afraid no such thing is clear to anyone who doesn’t lap up the drivel served on Fox and Breitbart. Is that you, Jimbo?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

I was wondering how you would respond. A fully functioning, reasonably informed, human adult can acknowledge there are issues with Trump, but see there are also issues with Biden and the Dems. The people wearing tinfoil hats are those who see issues in only one direction.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

I was wondering how you would respond. A fully functioning, reasonably informed, human adult can acknowledge there are issues with Trump, but see there are also issues with Biden and the Dems. The people wearing tinfoil hats are those who see issues in only one direction.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Your tinfoil hat must be on a little tight today, Jimmy! “It has to be clear..” I’m afraid no such thing is clear to anyone who doesn’t lap up the drivel served on Fox and Breitbart. Is that you, Jimbo?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Just because they haven’t been prosecuted for crimes, doesn’t mean the Dems haven’t committed them. It has to be clear by now that the DOJ, FBI and CIA will move mountains to protect and promote the Bidens. There are so many examples, from the suppression of the laptop, the timing of the announcement of the Whitmore kidnapping charges, the testimony of IRS agents, the judge’s decision to reject the Hunter Biden plea deal. It’s getting to be kind of comical by now.

Last edited 9 months ago by Jim Veenbaas
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
9 months ago
Reply to  r ll

It’s been opened years ago. One side going after Clinton with Lewinsky, the other trying to push it through the courts to stop Bush winning. The first team then again with all the nonsense about Obama being foreign and not being eligible to the President and now Trump getting dragged through the courts. Refusing to accept the result seems a feature of the American system rather than anything out of the ordinary

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  r ll

The big difference is that the Democrats haven’t committed any crimes.
You see how that works, skippy?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
9 months ago
Reply to  r ll

It’s been opened years ago. One side going after Clinton with Lewinsky, the other trying to push it through the courts to stop Bush winning. The first team then again with all the nonsense about Obama being foreign and not being eligible to the President and now Trump getting dragged through the courts. Refusing to accept the result seems a feature of the American system rather than anything out of the ordinary

r ll
r ll
9 months ago

One thing is certain, a Pandora’s Box is opened and the Democrats should expect the same treatment in the future, it will not be forgotten about,and righfully so.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago

Martin Luther King was booked in the same jail for sitting at a lunch counter. Somebody should put King’s and Trump’s mug shots side by side and label one “booked for sitting at a lunch counter” and the other “booked for asking a question””

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago

Martin Luther King was booked in the same jail for sitting at a lunch counter. Somebody should put King’s and Trump’s mug shots side by side and label one “booked for sitting at a lunch counter” and the other “booked for asking a question””

Iris C
Iris C
9 months ago

Is there a cut-off date for the receipt of postal votes in America? . From our limited coverage of the event here, I had a feeling (perhaps wrongly) that postal votes were being received and accepted in Georgia after the polling stations had closed.
Postal votes have the potential to be corrupted unless they are strictly monitored. For example:.
Unopened postal votes should be put into sealed boxes and the boxes kept in a vault until being transferred to the counting venue, where they will be opened and counted at the same time as the votes of personal voters. Ditto with electronic voting.
Only then can one be assured that there is no hocus-pocus..

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Iris C

Yes, Iris, mail in ballots are lawfull when received by the voting DAY but in 2020 were accepted four days after election day. Observers from both parties must watch the process but were forced to leave in many states and the windows were boarded over including Georgia (Atlanta), Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), Michigan(Detroit), etc. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unlawfully changed voting and ballot rules after voting started when ONLY the Pennsylvania state legislature is allowed to make election rules. Ballot counting was stopped at 10 p.m. in five swing states, observers forced to leave and “counting” restarted when they were gone.
While the US has had many stolen elections such as John Kennedy in 1960 and Harry Truman, the Senator from Pendergast (Kansas boss) in 1940, etc., 2020 topped them all in too many ways to count. The US can give Zimbabwe lessons in election stealing.
No court has allowed the 60 election suits to go forward for technical reasons and the Supreme Court refused Texas’ + many other states’ suit for “lack of standing.”
81 million votes for biden??? c’mon man

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Another specialist in election law from Fox News U!!!!

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The American electoral system is one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional of any democracy in the west, and it happens on both sides of the aisle. Since 1982, there have been 1,150 election fraud convictions in the US. I would suggest that’s more than Europe, Canada and the entire west combined – by a large margin.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Jim, you might want to read John Fund’s book STEELING ELECTIONS and Karl Rove’s article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal reviewing stolen elections back to 1800.
Not only elections are stolen here in the US, there is also stolen valor as when Lyndon Johnson got a Silver Star for riding in an airplane in WWII and John Kerry got medals for Vietnam.
and speaking of Vietnam and the lies Johnson told (Gulf of Tonkin for one) to get us involved, well…

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I’ll check it out

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I’ll check it out

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

as I say, United States is way ahead of Zimbabwe and every other country when it comes to election fraud.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Jim, you might want to read John Fund’s book STEELING ELECTIONS and Karl Rove’s article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal reviewing stolen elections back to 1800.
Not only elections are stolen here in the US, there is also stolen valor as when Lyndon Johnson got a Silver Star for riding in an airplane in WWII and John Kerry got medals for Vietnam.
and speaking of Vietnam and the lies Johnson told (Gulf of Tonkin for one) to get us involved, well…