Who recorded the conversation?.

Either Raffensperger or his counsel.

https://www.electionevidence.com/

it's right at the verge for sure
"Anthony Michael Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor, said: “The Georgia code says that anybody who solicits, requests or commands or otherwise attempts to encourage somebody to commit election fraud is guilty of solicitation of election fraud. ‘Soliciting or requesting’ is the key language. The president asked, in no uncertain terms, the secretary of state to invent votes, to create votes that were not there. Not only did he ask for that in terms of just overturning the specific margin that Joe Biden won by, but then said we needed one additional vote to secure victory in Georgia.”

“There’s just no way that if you read the code and the way the code is structured, and then you look at what the president of the United states requested, that he has not violated this law — the spirit of it for sure,” Kreis continued.

Kreis added that the phone call could not be divorced from recent episodes in which Trump amplified a false conspiracy theory about Raffensperger’s family and his vows to end the political careers of people like the secretary of state and Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, for upholding Biden’s victory in the election. He also said Trump’s request for a specific number of votes — just enough to prevail by one — undercut the notion that he was simply asking for the truth."

We've all seen this and reached different conclusions obviously.

Well me too... but I think it needs to happen. Not because I hate Trump (though I do hate lot of things he has done) but we really can't just shrug what he is doing off and say its just politics. Trump has shone a light on some clear problems with our Republic and to some extent that is a good thing as we can address the shortcoming now.

Lets imagine a scenario in the future where some super liberal socialist leaning President gets elected. And he has done the same sort of power grabs that Trump has and also ignored all the previous traditions of things like providing taxes, and the White House visitor list to the public....

And then while running for his second term he contacts the leaders of France and Germany to help him dig up dirt or make up dirt on his strongest Republican rival.

The election, unlike 2020, is very very close.... like in 2000. And just 1 State decides the election. And that State is the Liberal Leaning California.

And that call that we heard Trump made is the same call that the very Liberal President is making to his also very Liberal friends in power in California...

And you don't see this as a problem?

Im guessing this is the conversation they had. That he said he didnt pressure or talk to him

pretty much every call involving the President is going to be recorded, heck there are even transcripts of every call

You have to prove that was his intent. I don't think it's statutory, nor strict liability.

He clearly wasn't intending for people to get tabulated twice.

@meglide don they delete or shred the call after leaving office or they get stored in a vault?

you certainly could make a much better case that it was his intent better than they have that election fraud has occurred

Really? So when @meglide suggests his intent is bad you push back... but then also say his "clearly wasnt intending for people to get tabulated twice"?
LOL

wow

What? He's talking about the technicalities. And yes, intent is important in law.

It was his intent that the Republican Sec of State go "find" him enough votes to swing the state to him

Your bias is showing

not me saying anything about intent just quoting what a law professor in GA said

this

Also pretty sure we're talking about different things to what you're talking/thinking about JD.

@JD~Jordan I mean @Maw is right, the court would have to prove intent and there's plausible deniability that Trump actually believes there is fraud ... still Trump is right at the edge of criminality if he hasn't already gone over it.

I don't know how I'm biased for wanting to apply the law fairly.

🤷‍♂️

Um no.... it doesnt matter if Trump believes there was real fraud or not... if his intent is to have the Sec of State to "find" votes that really arent there then that is illegal. period.

We don't generally prosecute someone for being dumb and making some small error in judgment that doesn't really impact anyone.

Now if it impacted someone, that'd be different.

Ok.... i just cant believe you are minimizing this

... no, I'm applying the law fairly.

Again, we really can't just shrug what he is doing off and say its just politics. Trump has shone a light on some clear problems with our Republic and to some extent that is a good thing as we can address the shortcoming now.

Lets imagine a scenario in the future where some super liberal socialist leaning President gets elected. And he has done the same sort of power grabs that Trump has and also ignored all the previous traditions of things like providing taxes, and the White House visitor list to the public....

And then while running for his second term he contacts the leaders of France and Germany to help him dig up dirt or make up dirt on his strongest Republican rival.

The election, unlike 2020, is very very close.... like in 2000. And just 1 State decides the election. And that State is the Liberal Leaning California.

And that call that we heard Trump made is the same call that the very Liberal President is making to his also very Liberal friends in power in California...

And you don't see this as a problem?

Not using it as a stick to beat people I disagree with.

@Maw if the Sec. Of state said yes we will find you those 11000 votes... then who is the criminal.

Then you have more of a case on your hands, yes.

But it's very clear that isn't what's happening.

So wait.... Trump is only the criminal if the other guy is also a criminal? WTF?

But because Trump was faced with a good person who refused to bend the knee to him Trump gets a pass?


How does the Sec of State's actions or intent change Trump's?

@Maw is like the masterplan of a Robbery. Who gets convicted the robbers or the creator of the plan.? They both going to jail

Indeed!

Whoops wrong person.

Meant that at @MatiLuc

That is rather messed up.

I mean, not really?

read the article I posted, Trump pretty clearly broke the spirit of the law if not the letter ... BUT just because someone broke the law (or came close) doesn't mean it's a cake walk to prove it in a court of law ... that's pretty much all @Maw and I are saying