Judge denies Meadows request to move Georgia case to federal court

[Marener]

Sounds like they may have a case against those folks.

If you can cite the statute it violates.

Any word on proving that Trump made them do it?

The indictment lists the specific status such as 16-10-20 False statements.

The fake electors are saying that Trump told them to do it. We know that this fake elector scheme was actually quite a significant part of the final desperate attempt by Trump’s campaign to fix the election for him.

Three Trump codefendants say they became false electors at Trump's 'direction'

Shawn Still, Cathleen Latham and David Shafer are Georgia Republicans charged alongside the former president in a racketeering conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election.

www.politico.com

 

[SavannahMann]

Sounds like they may have a case against those folks.

If you can cite the statute it violates.

Any word on proving that Trump made them do it?

Well since eight of the electors have agreed to testify in exchange for immunity I’m betting they can link it to Trump.

However. All of this including specific Georgia Code that the actions violated is in the Indictment. Why haven’t you read it if you are open to evidence?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The indictment lists the specific status such as 16-10-20 False statements.

The fake electors are saying that Trump told them to do it. We know that this fake elector scheme was actually quite a significant part of the final desperate attempt by Trump’s campaign to fix the election for him.

Three Trump codefendants say they became false electors at Trump's 'direction'

Shawn Still, Cathleen Latham and David Shafer are Georgia Republicans charged alongside the former president in a racketeering conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election.

www.politico.com

Now we get somewhere. This is something we can talk about. I appreciate you finally researching what you are claiming, when so many others have just said "read the indictment" and run away. I do feel like I should get a dentist license for all the teeth I had to pull, but I thank you.

They are actually saying that Trump's lawyers told them to do it, not Trump himself:

In a series of court filings this week, those false electors, who became part of Trump’s last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, said it was Trump and his campaign lawyers who urged them to sign the false documents, claiming they were necessary to preserve Trump’s flailing court efforts to reverse his defeat to Joe Biden. That exhortation from Trump’s campaign lawyers, they said, amounted to federal government permission to take the actions they did.

That argument that Trump's campaign lawyers were the federal government won't hold water. I hope that I don't have to explain why. Which is how the prosecution would want it, if their goal is to get pressure those electors to claim that Trump told them directly.

This part:

“Mr. Still, as a presidential elector, was also acting at the direction of the incumbent president of the United States,” an attorney for Still argued Thursday in a court filing
EditSign
seeking to transfer the case against him to federal court. “The president’s attorneys instructed Mr. Still and the other contingent electors that they had to meet and cast their ballots on Dec. 14, 2020.”

Seems crazy. They thought that the president has the power to direct people to be alternate electors and to vote for him? That sounds like the kind of Banana Republic stuff the Democrats would try. Obviously, that's a lawyers "it could be argued" kind of claim. The lawyers don't testify, so their claim about what their clients will say is not evidence.

But, suppose those alternate electors testify to exactly that. Suppose Trump's attorneys say that they said no such thing. Where the proof beyond a reasonable doubt about Trump? It seems that some are trying to make the leap from "things happened that don't seem right to me," to "Trump is a criminal." Basically the same as many Trump supporters have done about election fraud.

Except that no prosecutor shows the slightest interest in prosecuting Democratic voter fraud, but they are desperate to prosecute Trump.

That's been my point with the questions. I don't know if you already knew about that or if my questions annoyed you enough to look it up. But I do know that it is obvious that most people who are sure that Trump will be in the big house busting rocks, have no idea what is in the indictments, and no idea of any evidence. They are just assuming that anyone who hates Trump with as much passion as the prosecutors do, is just like them so they must be rilly smart.

I am very worried about their reaction when Trump is not convicted of anything and becomes president. They better make the Capitol a fortress on certification day in January 2025.

 

[excalibur]

The indictment lists the specific status such as 16-10-20 False statements.

The fake electors are saying that Trump told them to do it. We know that this fake elector scheme was actually quite a significant part of the final desperate attempt by Trump’s campaign to fix the election for him.

Three Trump codefendants say they became false electors at Trump's 'direction'

Shawn Still, Cathleen Latham and David Shafer are Georgia Republicans charged alongside the former president in a racketeering conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election.

www.politico.com

No such thing as "fake" electors.

 

[excalibur]

 

[SavannahMann]

Now we get somewhere. This is something we can talk about. I appreciate you finally researching what you are claiming, when so many others have just said "read the indictment" and run away. I do feel like I should get a dentist license for all the teeth I had to pull, but I thank you.

They are actually saying that Trump's lawyers told them to do it, not Trump himself:

In a series of court filings this week, those false electors, who became part of Trump’s last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, said it was Trump and his campaign lawyers who urged them to sign the false documents, claiming they were necessary to preserve Trump’s flailing court efforts to reverse his defeat to Joe Biden. That exhortation from Trump’s campaign lawyers, they said, amounted to federal government permission to take the actions they did.

That argument that Trump's campaign lawyers were the federal government won't hold water. I hope that I don't have to explain why. Which is how the prosecution would want it, if their goal is to get pressure those electors to claim that Trump told them directly.

This part:

“Mr. Still, as a presidential elector, was also acting at the direction of the incumbent president of the United States,” an attorney for Still argued Thursday in a court filing
EditSign
seeking to transfer the case against him to federal court. “The president’s attorneys instructed Mr. Still and the other contingent electors that they had to meet and cast their ballots on Dec. 14, 2020.”

Seems crazy. They thought that the president has the power to direct people to be alternate electors and to vote for him? That sounds like the kind of Banana Republic stuff the Democrats would try. Obviously, that's a lawyers "it could be argued" kind of claim. The lawyers don't testify, so their claim about what their clients will say is not evidence.

But, suppose those alternate electors testify to exactly that. Suppose Trump's attorneys say that they said no such thing. Where the proof beyond a reasonable doubt about Trump? It seems that some are trying to make the leap from "things happened that don't seem right to me," to "Trump is a criminal." Basically the same as many Trump supporters have done about election fraud.

Except that no prosecutor shows the slightest interest in prosecuting Democratic voter fraud, but they are desperate to prosecute Trump.

That's been my point with the questions. I don't know if you already knew about that or if my questions annoyed you enough to look it up. But I do know that it is obvious that most people who are sure that Trump will be in the big house busting rocks, have no idea what is in the indictments, and no idea of any evidence. They are just assuming that anyone who hates Trump with as much passion as the prosecutors do, is just like them so they must be rilly smart.

I am very worried about their reaction when Trump is not convicted of anything and becomes president. They better make the Capitol a fortress on certification day in January 2025.

So Trump is just a figurehead. A patsy. That doesn’t seem to make the calls make sense though does it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

So Trump is just a figurehead. A patsy. That doesn’t seem to make the calls make sense though does it?

If the calls really happened, you mean?

Or do you have proof of them?

 

[Delldude]

P01135809 wanted, needed, craved Raffensperger to find votes, that is Election Fraud. The telephonic commuicantion prove that P01135809 wanted a specific amount of vote, 11,708 to exact. Just enough to overturn the election results in Georgia.

It is referred to as a settlement negotiation.

 

[SavannahMann]

If the calls really happened, you mean?

Or do you have proof of them?

Astonishing. Really.

 

[beagle9]

Of course Trump didn’t change any vote totals. He was telling Raffensperger to change the vote totals for him.

You keep pretending that Trump was asking for something to be checked out. He wasn’t. He was telling Raffensperger directly that the vote was wrong and it needed to be changed by a certain amount.

That’s a huge difference and it’s where he goes from challenging an election to rigging it.

Nope, it isn't rigging anything unless the act you claim took place (actually took place), but it didn't, so your projection isn't actual evidence but just projection because it's a claim without facts backing it up.

We can do this all day, so he was asking Raffensperger to make sure that the votes he was short, weren't somehow caught up in the election interference that he and his team claimed took place in the state, and if they were, then please apply those votes correctly to my supposed win if they amount to the number I needed to win in the state ?

 

[beagle9]

Actually it isn’t at all.

Trump was asking state legislators to appoint new electors for him, which would take out the electors that the people had chosen, therefore it was nullifying the election.

Trump figured that the then current electors were corrupt maybe, otherwise part of the actual election rigging maybe ??

If so, then wouldn't it be within his rights also to have the officials in the state to change the electors if the current ones were maybe tainted or compromised ???

 

[Seymour Flops]

Astonishing. Really.

That's a call from Trump to the Georgia Sec State, not from Trump's lawyers to the alternate electors.

Did you hope that would get by me?

 

[evenflow1969]

Judge denies Mark Meadows' bid to move Georgia election case to federal court

The former White House chief of staff had argued that the charges against him in Fulton County related to his actions as a federal official serving in the Trump administration.

www.nbcnews.com

This should be of real concern to all the people who have been indicted in Georgia. This will mean televised hearings.

Nope

 

[Marener]

Trump figured that the then current electors were corrupt maybe, otherwise part of the actual election rigging maybe ??

If so, then wouldn't it be within his rights also to have the officials in the state to change the electors if the current ones were maybe tainted or compromised ???

So the election is thrown out because Trump decided it was corrupt.

And you don’t think that’s some third world authoritarian bullshit?

 

[Marener]

They are actually saying that Trump's lawyers told them to do it, not Trump himself

Are we to believe that Trump's campaign lawyers were acting without his knowledge or approval? Highly unlikely. They were all working as one conspiracy, hence the RICO charges.

We don't know precisely what testimony the grand jury heard, so claiming there's no evidence is a shallow one.

Except that no prosecutor shows the slightest interest in prosecuting Democratic voter fraud, but they are desperate to prosecute Trump.

That's simply not true. Cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted when evidence comes out that it actually occurred.

 

[beagle9]

So the election is thrown out because Trump decided it was corrupt.

And you don’t think that’s some third world authoritarian bullshit?

Not just Trump deciding it was corrupt, but proving that it was through the proper channels that were then ignored, however it began convincing the other officials to take a closer look, and in doing so they began to see that something was wrong, so if they took action on it then it's not just Trump, but it was other's who began to smell a rat also. Bottom line is no matter how big a fella the Democrat's want to make Trump appear, he still is subject to the separation of powers, and the independence of every state.

People like you have your Trump talking points lined up, but everyone knows what's going on.

 

[Marener]

Not just Trump deciding it was corrupt, but proving that it was through the proper channels that were then ignored, however it began convincing the other officials to take a closer look, and in doing so they began to see that something was wrong, so if they took action on it then it's not just Trump, but it was other's who began to smell a rat also. Bottom line is no matter how big a fella the Democrat's want to make Trump appear, he still is subject to the separation of powers, and the independence of every state.

People like you have your Trump talking points lined up, but everyone knows what's going on.

Trump didn't prove it through the proper channels. The way you prove something is through the courts and Trump lost every case where he was attempting to allege fraud or corruption.

 

[SavannahMann]

That's a call from Trump to the Georgia Sec State, not from Trump's lawyers to the alternate electors.

Did you hope that would get by me?

I never said it was. But the reason for the RICO charge is multiple felonies towards the goal of overturning the election. This call was part of the effort.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are we to believe that Trump's campaign lawyers were acting without his knowledge or approval? Highly unlikely. They were all working as one conspiracy, hence the RICO charges.

Of course we are all free to believe as we choose. Proving what we believe beyond a reasonable doubt is more of a flex.

We don't know precisely what testimony the grand jury heard, so claiming there's no evidence is a shallow one.

So is claiming evidence exists that hasn't been seen.

That's simply not true. Cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted when evidence comes out that it actually occurred.

Rarely. Especially when it involves cheating to help Democrats.

 

[Marener]

Of course we are all free to believe as we choose. Proving what we believe beyond a reasonable doubt is more of a flex.

So is claiming evidence exists that hasn't been seen.

Rarely. Especially when it involves cheating to help Democrats.

It’s a bit disingenuous to ask me to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt and celebrating when I can’t provide evidence sufficient for a jury trial.

I doubt Trump is going to claim that he has no idea what his lawyers were doing in trial. That doesn’t seem like a legal strategy that anyone is going to buy. Especially since this is a RICO case.