‘Decisions are imminent’ on charges in Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election

https://sos.ga.gov/page/2020-genera...November 2020 General,tally of all votes cast.

Following the November 2020 General Election, the Secretary of State selected the presidential contest for a statewide risk limiting audit ("RLA"). Due to the tight margin of the race and the principles of risk-limiting audits, this audit was a full manual tally of all votes cast. The audit confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner of the election.

 

What did you think it was about? He was trying to challenge the results.

 

We are now into February , where are those imminent charges?

 

Is that a yes?

 

The assertion is that Presidents are not above the law. Clinton was a President, let's test the assertion. Was he above the law?

 

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

Trying to insert his own policy.

 

He was trying to get the SOS to CHANGE the results.

This was Jan 2, he needed the results declaring him the winner by Jan 6th. Do you honestly think that even if the SOS agreed to do the audit you are claiming he was asking for (and audit that had already been done by the way) that they could have completed it in four days? Do you think TRUMP thought it could be done in four days?

No, he wanted the result changed. The result had been certified. Changing it at that point would have been election fraud. Trump was soliciting the SOS to commit that fraud. Trump is guilty of violating GA 21-2-604

 

No, he was not. He should have been removed from office after he was impeached.

Do you think Trump is above the law?

 

It was YOU who originally claimed, in our discussions, that "all he wanted was a recount." And it is an objective fact that he didn't just want a recount or an audit. Get your facts straight, and I'll keep wishing upon a star that one day, maybe, just maybe, you will FINALLY read the ****ing Eastman memo. Because if you had read it (and you demonstrate daily that you are either unwilling or unable to do so), you'd know this wasn't just about recounts or audits.

 

Are you suggesting that any former president should be immune from the law?

 

Can you quote him saying that's all he wanted? And can you explain why your new excuse (after your "he only wanted a recount" excuse failed) is contradicted by the Eastman memo? Speaking of legal, did you ever finally look up the law on which EC votes are legit and which are fake? Last I checked you were still trying to pass off illegal, fake EC votes as just being legal and "alternate."

 

I thought it was pretty clear that Trump did not instigate the excesses of the great trespass of 1/6 but the deep state, with the apparent aid of people such as apparently Ray Epps. Hard to believe this non-sense is still on going. But I guess when someone gives 3rd hand testimony that 80 year old Trump busted through bullet proof glass to choke out an Uzi toting secret service agent, y'gotta believe them.

 

Yeah, there are signed affidavits of witnesses attesting to seeing stacks of mail in balllots in sequential numerical order being counted. Stacks of mail in ballots uncreased, being counted and stacks of mail in ballots all with only a vote for President with no other votes made and truckload of mail in ballots being shipped from one state to another. Recounts of these same ballots does nothing to uncover potential fraud.

 

Source?

 

He could no more do that, then he could do anything about the coronavirus. Which makes this laughable. As to the statute, it dealt with criminal behavior. Not what amounts to an election dispute(which is what this is.). If they want to criminally legislate and regulate this behavior, they may do so by passing another ordinance.

But there is no ordinance that covers what happened. Or put it another way, you can't retroactively claim a crime when it wasn't legislated as such prior to it. The DA knows it, and I know that as well.

 

The crime Trump is guilty of is SOLICITATION to commit election fraud. He asked the SOS to change a certified vote total. Changing a certified vote total is a crime. Trump asked him to do it, that is solicitation.
There you go, solicitation to commit election fraud. The law covers it very specifically.

 

Nixon likely would have been charged, except for the Ford pardon.

I don't accept that Trump cannot, or won't, be indicted...

I agree with you on sitting POTUS...

 

So, let's look up the legal definition of solicitation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/solicitation Or see: Bribery, it's not so distinct cousin. Trump asking about the 11,000 votes is in no way solicitation. Because to quote myself "He can no more do that, then he could do anything about the coronavirus.". Asking for the impossible, is not a solicitation. It's just that it couldn't be done.

It would be as if I asked someone to kidnap an famous political figure. One can't charge me with a conspiracy of attempted kidnapping for the simple fact of asking someone to do something. There would need to be the actionable attempt(ie: payoffs, or describe the time and place where the target would be)

Now had Trump attempted to curry favor with the official in order to commit the act, that would actually fall under solicitation/bribery.

Law is Philosophy, Philosophy is Law. Our laws are based on rhyme and reason, not passion.

 

You couldn't be charged with CONSPIRACY because no action was taken to further the activity.

Legally, a Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons join together and form an agreement to violate the law, and then act on that agreement.

ASKING someone is solicitation. Trump asked the SOS to change the vote totals of a certified election.
It would not be impossible for him to change he vote totals, it would have been illegal. The fact that the SOS did nothing to further the request does not change the fact that he was solicited.

The crime of "solicitation to commit a crime" occurs when a person "encourages, solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause" another person to attempt or commit a crime, with the purpose of thereby facilitating the attempt or commission of that crime.

He requested that the SOS change the total of a certified vote tally.

You can't equate solicitation with bribery.

 

And I'm not saying he was right in those claims, in fact I do not I think he was getting bad information and the GA SecState was right to turn him down on the phone call. But Trump was NOT demanding he engage in a fraud, a crime. It was a dumb phone call and that's it.

 

A change based on fraudulent votes Trump believed he would find in a full audit. He was trying to get him to conduct the full audit which would find fraudulent votes and the result would change because of it. Not to just cross out a number and insert another.

I think it was a totally dumb stupid phone call on Trump's part and it was never gonna happen and even if it did it would not find that many fraudulent votes.

I also believe the phone call was not illegal, just dumb and stupid.

 

Fani Willis, the statistics:

Took office 2021.

Fulton County crimes before and after she took office

Agg Assault 2020 - 699
Agg Assault 2021 - 2,483

Auto Theft 2020 - 1,158
Auto Theft 2021 - 3,115

Burglary 2020 - 481
Burglary 2021 - 1,636

Homicide 2020 - 44
Homicide 2021 - 149

Larceny 2020 - 1,268
Larceny 2021 - 5,135

Robbery 2020 - 277
Robbery 2021 - 806



It would appear that crime has exploded in Fulton county under her watch. Maybe she should spend a little less time playing a partisan hero in national politics and spend a little more time doing her job to help keep dangerous people off the street.

 

Here is what I said first

"The fact is he was asking to FIND actual fraudulent votes he believe existed not to create fake votes. "

And that requires an audit.

then

" He wanted them to do an audit "

Then

"This was not about a RECOUNT, you've been corrected on that falsehood many many many many times. He wanted an AUDIT "

 

I believe the phone call was illegal.
Furthermore the Fulton County DA believes the phone call was illegal
I’m willing to bet the special grand jury believes the phone call was illegal
Finally I think a jury will believe the phone call was illegal

Your thinking is based on the idea that Trump is not guilty. My thinking is based on reading (and understanding) the law.