Trump’s Call to Georgia: It’s as bad as you think.

Donald Trump’s party call to Georgia on January 2nd as reported by the Washington Post: a partial transcript.

Some people say this was leaked to WP from someone inside the Trump Administration. To me, when I first heard it, I thought it was recorded on the Georgia side. Makes more sense to me, but I don’t really care which party it was. It’s incriminating to Trump, and security for Raffensperger. Raffensperger played it straight and offered very little.

Trying to transcribe this is a mess because Trump speaks in a complete, jumbled mess. I mostly went verbatim, but cleaned up a little.

I skipped large chunks of it. There’s much more of the same throughout the hour plus recording, I just focused on the more continuous sections.

Trump speaks for probably 90% of the call. The first 15 minutes are an endless cult conspiracy theory rehash by Donny.

I want to say, these kind of phone calls, are probably what Donny has been doing for the past 2 months when he isn’t golfing. He clearly could just bullshit on the phone all day long, every day. In this particular instance, he is very comfortable playing the mob boss, handing out “suggestions” with accompanying veiled threats if those suggestions are not followed. He is honestly quite good at this.

In his own madman style, he does quite well in not finishing sentences or scattered thoughts that imply the type of action he wants, or the type of consequence that will follow if those actions are not met, while simultaneously not directly connecting the two. I will highlight those sentence/thought fragments.

It is worse than his Ukraine call. Much worse. Trump more clearly states he wants fraud to be committed on his behalf in order to win an election. Even if not as a legal matter, that this conversation happened at all, is not acceptable. I do not doubt that a similar conversation was had with other state(s).

Parties: Trump, Mark Meadows, and Trump lawyer Cleta Mitchell: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Sec. State Legal Counsel Ryan Germany.

*****************************

Trump: By the way, a little information, I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots, because they have to get rid of the ballots. ‘Cause the ballots are unsigned, because the ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new and they don’t have seals and there’s a whole thing with the ballots. But, the ballots are corrupt and you’re going to find that they are…which is totally illegal, it’s more illegal for you then it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal offense. You know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk. But, they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard and they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can. Both of which are criminal fines and you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen, I mean, I’m notifying you that you are letting it happen.

So…look, 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 the state and flipping the state is a great testament to our country, because you know, it’s a testament that they can admit to a mistake, or, whatever you want to call it. If it was a mistake, I don’t know. A lot of people think it wasn’t a mistake it was much more criminal than that. But, it’s a big problem in Georgia and it’s not a problem that’s going away. Not a problem that’s going away…

Ryan Germany: This is Ryan, we are looking at every one of those things that you mentioned…and our investigators…

Trump: Good, but if you find them, you got to say it.

<crosstalk>

Germany: Let me tell you what we are seeing. What we are seeing is *not at all what you’re describing* <with emphasis>. These are investigators from our office, these are investigators from GBI. And they’re looking, and they’re good, and that’s not what they’re seeing, and we’ll keep looking, we’ll keep looking at all these things…

Trump: Well you better check on the ballots, ’cause they are shredding ballots, I’m just telling you Ryan. they’re shredding ballots and you should look at that very carefully, because that’s so illegal. You may not even believe it, cause it’s so bad. But, they’re shredding ballots because they think we’ll eventually get there, because we’ll eventually get into Fulton. In my opinion it’s never too late.

So, um that’s the story. Look, we need only 11,000 votes, we have far more than that as it stands now.

**********

In speaking on Military/overseas ballots-

Trump: A large batch came in, and it was, quote, 100% for Biden and that is criminal, you know, that’s criminal. Okay, that’s another criminal. That’s another of the many criminal events. Many criminal events here.

Um. I don’t know, look Brad, I have to get, I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them, times a lot. And, therefore, I won the state. That’s before we go to the next step, which is in the process of, right now, you know.

I watched you this morning and you said, ah, there was no criminality, but I mean all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff, when you talk about no criminality. I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that. I just don’t know why you don’t want to have the votes counted as they are.

So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes, give me a break. We have that in spades already.

So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do? We won the election, and it’s not fair to take it away from us like this. And it’s going to be very costly, in many ways, and I think you have to say you’re going to re-examine it and you can re-examine it. But re-examine it with people who want to find answers, not people that don’t want to hear answers.

*************************

There is one particular election employee Trump is stuck on, that is beeped out of the recording. He insists every vote she scanned went for Biden. Raffensperger says: that is not correct. Trump won’t let it go. Trump restates Raffensperger’s position as:

“He (Raffensperger) made that statement with surety [sic], but now I think he’s less sure, because the answer is: they all went to Biden, and that alone wins us the election by a lot.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, you have people that submit information and we have our people that submit information, and then it comes before the court, and then the court makes a determination. We have to stand by our numbers. We believe our numbers are right.

Trump: Why do you say that though? Sure we can play this game with the courts.

***We have to stop there to highlight how messed up this exchange is. What Raffensperger is making clear is that to challenge the state’s finding, puts these two parties on opposite sides of a legal battle. What Trump is making clear, is that he is fully aware that every legal challenge is failing because it has no merit, but he’s bluffing that, sure we could do that if you wanted to. I want to subvert the rightful place of the courts with our own little agreement. Throughout this conversation, I’m letting you know, you better just do what I say, and make a deal that I won the state, or there will be personal legal consequences and/or future election consequences for you.***

Trump: Hey Brad, why wouldn’t you want to check out (beeped out election lady’s name) and why wouldn’t you want to say, hey, if in fact, President Trump is right about that, then he wins the state of Georgia. Just that one incident alone, without going through hundreds of thousands of dropped ballots. You just say, you stick by… I mean I’ve been watching you for…you don’t care about anything. Your numbers are right. But your numbers aren’t right. They’re really wrong and they’re really wrong Brad, and I know this phone call is going nowhere, but ultimately…

Look ultimately I win, okay? because you guys are so wrong and you’ve treated the population of Georgia so badly. Between you and your governor who was down 21 points, and like a schmuck, I endorsed him, and he got elected. But, I will tell you, he’s a disaster, and he will never…I can’t imagine. The people are so angry in Georgia, I can’t imagine he’s ever getting elected right now.

But why wouldn’t you want to find the right answer, Brad? Instead of keeping saying the numbers are right, because those numbers are so wrong.

*****

Mark Meadows jumps in with the idea, both sides just need to meet really soon and agree there’s some actual big issues that need to be examined and the Federal government wants access to Georgia voter data.

Trump then threatens if they don’t settle what Trump wants, the upcoming runoff won’t go to the republicans. Raffensperger says, you can meet with the lawyers and they’ll tell you why your beliefs are wrong. He is not going to have an official meeting with them, as if any of their fever dreams are true. Raffensperger won’t allow them access to Georgia state election data. He is putting the ball in their court to go to court if they want.

Throughout this conversation, Trump highlights how Stacey Abrams is making a fool out of Georgia GOP. Everyone hates the Georgia Governor and Raffensperger.

Trump: Brad, we just want the truth, it’s simple. And ah, and everyone’s going to look very good if the truth comes out. It’s ok, it might take a little while. But, let the truth come out. And the real truth is I won by 400,000 votes, at least. That’s the real truth. But, we don’t need 400,000 votes, we need less than 2000 votes.

*************************************************

Added 1/4

I’d like to add, now that it seems more evident that this leak to WP came from the Georgia side and not the Trump admin, this makes more sense to what I originally posited.

Also, it is now reported this was the 18th attempt by Donny to get Raffensperger on the phone. 18. So my original assessment that this is how Donny has likely spent the last two months in office, aside from golfing, is closer to being accurate.

How Did the Pardon-for-Bribe Scheme Remain a Secret?

It was not “the government” as described in the court ruling, that solely devised to delay the release of the Trump pardon-for-bribe scheme. I suppose “the government” would initially be the FBI, in this case. It was Judge Beryl Howell, who is most recent in our memory for directing the DOJ to release unredacted version of the Mueller report to the House Judiciary Committee in their search for gathering information for Trump’s impeachment, that allowed the delayed timing of the unsealing of the document related to the Trump pardon for bribe scheme.

On August 28th, 2020 a court memorandum was issued for the government’s desire to investigate messages between (redacted) parties concerning the discovered pardon scheme, that became apparent to the government’s “filter” team who were scouring computer devices for anything protected by attorney/client privilege in a separate case.

The judge allowed 90 days (Sept> Oct> Nov 28) for the government to respond to the court’s desire to release a redacted version of the original document. The government did respond on the 25th of November, asking for the document to be kept sealed. The Judge then asked, why is it, if every name is redacted, would this need to be kept under wraps? The government responding by simply forwarding the document, fully redacted at the judge’s original request, on Nov. 30.

Could the judge have given the government 30 days or 60 days? I guess. My guess also is, this is already a done deal. It already didn’t happen, and wasn’t going to happen as the proposed pardon-for-bribe scheme. So the judge was either operating outside of concern for the upcoming election, or under the concern that a scheme that didn’t happen would unnecessarily affect the election.

I presume this, from one unredacted line in the original memo.

The investigative team, should have access to all of the communications, so they can “confront” the named individuals to either wrap it up, or commit to further investigative steps to determine what crimes were committed. Not: So the investigative team can ascertain the scope of the crimes for something that has happened or was likely to happen, from which to charge the named individuals.

In short, there was a proposed scheme among four individuals to undertake the pardon-for-bribe scheme. At some point two of the individuals did have access to “senior White House officials,” but whether or not the proposition ever got to the stage of a pardon-for-bribe is dubious, and whether or not the scheme matters at all now isn’t clear. That an effort was made to appeal for a pardon, probably happened, but we don’t know if a bribe was ever offered.

At any rate, the timeline proposed, that pushed the document past the election date, was Judge Beryl Howell’s doing, and the government availed themselves of using all of that time.

It becomes kind of confusing from the redacted names, and trying to figure how they are being referred to. There is:

  1. A prisoner (current or past).
  2. Prisoner’s lawyer.
  3. Outside lawyer.
  4. A political donor.

A large portion of the legible part of the document is dedicated to describing how it is, as far as the court is concerned, that the government should have access to the communications in question, which appear to be entirely emails. Judge Howell explains in full detail, any cover the 4 individuals might have had is spoiled from the emails being CCed to the donor whom does not enjoy attorney/client privilege with any of the parties.

It is also argued that the outside lawyer, is not plausibly working for the prisoner or the prisoner’s lawyer, but even if such a stand were made, refer to the first point. Emails already spoiled.

There is one other interesting tidbit. Apparently the outside lawyer was already aware of this investigation, probably within that 90 day window, because he tried to change the subject line on three emails to indicate that he did enjoy attorney/client privilege as far as the contents of those particular emails were concerned.

If I am correct, the originating case has/had been going on for some time. It could possibly already be concluded. This new/tangential case that sprung from it, would have been apparent as a potentiality to all parties involved if the prisoner and/or any accomplices chose to cooperate with authorities in a plea deal. Such is the case of Elliot Broidy (and accomplices), whose name immediately sprung to mind upon hearing about about this potential pay-to-play scheme.

Also, it’s worth noting that three of the four were to be confronted with the scheme, not all four. The fourth I presume is/was the one in prison who is fully aware of the investigation.

Not sure how that would end up in a DC court though.