Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

[Copier Addict]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

I want to see him debate Trump he doesn't pull any punches

Trumpy is too much of a coward to agree to debate anyone.

[bsm2]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

[slimslob]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Trump is beating Biden BIG in 2024 general polling

[slimslob]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Trump Open to VP Vivek: 'I Think He'd Be Very Good'

[slimslob]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Moderators for the 2nd GOP Debate Unveiled

[BillyCarpenter]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Sorry, democrats, you can forget about the phony charges against Trump in Georgia.



Report: Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case



Testimony this week in federal court by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reportedly contradicted claims that former President Donald Trump insisted he violate his oath of office by fabricating enough votes to win the state.
As Breitbart News has long noted, the media have misrepresented the January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger, quoting Trump as telling Raffensperger that he should “find” the votes necessary for him to win. In fact, Trump said “I just want to find” the votes, referring to his own state of mind. Moreover, the context was that Trump believed he actually had won the state of Georgia, and the votes simply had not been properly counted yet.



Raffensperger took the stand in a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia as part of a hearing on a motion by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who is one of Trump’s 18 co-defendants in the criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia. Meadows argued that the case should be removed to federal court, because he was just working for the president, and therefore cannot be tried in state court under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.


Meadows stunned many observers by testifying in his own defense. Raffensperger was subpoenaed to testify by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. According to George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, Raffensperger testified that the call, while “extraordinary,” was a “settlement negotiation” in the context of an argument over whether to pursue another recount of votes — not a demand to make up new votes.


Turley wrote:

The call was misrepresented by the [Washington] Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, 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. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that 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. That is manifestly true. However, he also acknowledged that this was a “settlement negotiation.”
So what was the subject of the settlement talks? Another recount or further investigation. The very thing that critics this week were apoplectic about in the coverage. That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. Trump’s participation in the call was extraordinary and his demands were equally so. However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investigation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation. As I previously stated, I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.

If Meadows succeeds in his bid to have the case removed to federal court, other defendants will do the same, and may ague that the charges should be dismissed because of the Supremacy Clause and on other grounds. However, Raffebsperger’s testimony could also be used to dismiss at least some of the Fulton County indictments, particularly regarding “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer,” in reference to the phone call with Raffensperger.

[bsm2]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Find Me 11,780 Votes

Yep its on tape


Sorry Bozos

case closed ie SCREWED

Great News its going to be on TV grab your POPCORN

[bsm2]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Sorry, democrats, you can forget about the phony charges against Trump in Georgia.



Report: Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case



Testimony this week in federal court by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reportedly contradicted claims that former President Donald Trump insisted he violate his oath of office by fabricating enough votes to win the state.
As Breitbart News has long noted, the media have misrepresented the January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger, quoting Trump as telling Raffensperger that he should “find” the votes necessary for him to win. In fact, Trump said “I just want to find” the votes, referring to his own state of mind. Moreover, the context was that Trump believed he actually had won the state of Georgia, and the votes simply had not been properly counted yet.



Raffensperger took the stand in a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia as part of a hearing on a motion by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who is one of Trump’s 18 co-defendants in the criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia. Meadows argued that the case should be removed to federal court, because he was just working for the president, and therefore cannot be tried in state court under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.


Meadows stunned many observers by testifying in his own defense. Raffensperger was subpoenaed to testify by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. According to George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, Raffensperger testified that the call, while “extraordinary,” was a “settlement negotiation” in the context of an argument over whether to pursue another recount of votes — not a demand to make up new votes.


Turley wrote:

The call was misrepresented by the [Washington] Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, 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. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that 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. That is manifestly true. However, he also acknowledged that this was a “settlement negotiation.”
So what was the subject of the settlement talks? Another recount or further investigation. The very thing that critics this week were apoplectic about in the coverage. That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. Trump’s participation in the call was extraordinary and his demands were equally so. However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investigation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation. As I previously stated, I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.

If Meadows succeeds in his bid to have the case removed to federal court, other defendants will do the same, and may ague that the charges should be dismissed because of the Supremacy Clause and on other grounds. However, Raffebsperger’s testimony could also be used to dismiss at least some of the Fulton County indictments, particularly regarding “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer,” in reference to the phone call with Raffensperger.

if
maybe
could be


SUCKERS Trump a crook 91 indictments so far

[Phil B.]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Huge Win for Trump: Judge Swiftly Dismisses Lawsuit Against Him, Rules Plaintiffs Have No Standing


Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[Phil B.]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Francis Suarez, Who Aggressively Attacked DeSantis and Trump, Is 1st to Drop Out of GOP Primary


Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[slimslob]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Francis Suarez, Who Aggressively Attacked DeSantis and Trump, Is 1st to Drop Out of GOP Primary


Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[bsm2]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Great song get use too it

[bsm2]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Who was the guy that want to suspend the Constitution?

State election officials prepare for efforts to disqualify Trump under 14th Amendment - ABC News

Dam that pesky Constitution

They could be playing Slims song

[slimslob]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Nearly 60% of Republican voters back Trump in 2024 White House race: poll | Fox News

[Phil B.]

Re: Thec2024 Presidential Campaign

Democrats Try to Remove Trump from Red State Ballot - Then Obama-Appointed Judge Issues Major Ruling


Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk