Georgia’s top election official reportedly testified this week that former President Donald Trump’s infamous call to him about the state’s 2020 election results did not amount to applying pressure to cheat on Trump’s behalf, as the mainstream media has long claimed.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s testimony may be what undermines the criminal case against Trump for seeking to overturn the election, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
Turley attended the hearing when Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, petitioned the court to move Democratic Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case to federal court.
In the news: Trump Pleads Not Guilty In Georgia Election Case
Turley, in a column on his website, noted that Raffensperger’s comments in the case supported Trump’s defense, and revealed that the mainstream media again lied about Trump’s questioning of the election results.
To recap, Turley criticized The Washington Post for claiming that Trump ordered Raffensperger to “find” the nearly 12,000 votes he needed to win Georgia in 2020. Turley noted the Post has essentially declared that Trump wanted the elections official “to simply declare the existence of the votes” and make Trump the winner.
But that is not what Trump said, as revealed by a transcript of the call released soon after it occurred.
“All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won this state, and flipping the state is a great testament to the country,” Trump said. “I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. It’s just not possible to have lost Georgia. It’s not possible.”
In the news: Georgia Republican Seeks To Defund Or Remove Anti-Trump Prosecutor From Office
In spotlighting why the Trump haters were wrong, Turley noted in his column on Tuesday of Raffensperger’s testimony, “Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation.”
“I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation,” Turley added. “Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings. Raffensperger described the call in the same terms.”
“He correctly described the call as ‘extraordinary’ in a president personally seeking such an investigation, particularly after the completion of the earlier recount,” Turley noted. “However, he also acknowledged that this was a ‘settlement negotiation.’ So what was the subject of the settlement talks? Another recount or further investigation.”
“That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. … However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investigation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation.”
In the news: Former Trump Attorney Sidney Powell Pleads Not Guilty In Georgia Election Case
Turley suggested that Raffensperger’s comments may help sink the case against Meadows and mean it could be moved to federal court, where the Biden administration would have to prosecute it. Others among the 19 defendants may do likewise.
As Turley wrote in an earlier piece, “The importance made of the call in the … indictment will be one of the greatest ‘tells’ as to what Willis has in terms of evidence. If the call is a critical linchpin to the prosecution, it will look like a political stunt out of the Bragg-school of prosecution.”
Android Users, Click To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook and Twitter. Signup for our free newsletter.
We can’t do this without your help; visit our GiveSendGo page and donate any dollar amount; every penny helps