Georgia Sec. of State Blows Up Fani Willis’ Case Against Trump

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Absolute bombshell in Trump’s favor.

Based on the statements and testimony of Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, the former President, Donald Trump, did not request that he to partake in any illicit activities in the presidential election of 2020.

The denial of the assertion that Trump requested Raffensperger to criminally “find votes” significantly undermines Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ racketeering argument against Trump and 18 individuals associated with him.

As to the statement made by Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, Raffensperger’s testimony indicated that the phone call, although deemed “extraordinary,” was characterized as a “settlement negotiation.” This conversation occurred within the context of a deliberation on the pursuit of an additional vote recount, rather than a request to fabricate new votes.

According to Turley, “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 added. “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?” Turley questioned. “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.”

However, Fani Willis considers the phone call between Donald Trump and Brad Raffensperger as a significant element in her “racketeering” lawsuit, which attempts to portray the legal process of contesting elections as a criminal operation. Former President Donald Trump used legal avenues to address concerns with the outcome of the 2020 election, with the intention of seeking a lawful resolution rather than engaging in any illicit attempts to invalidate the election results.

There appears to be a lack of viable criminal charges in this situation, as it seems that the story has been fabricated by individuals who oppose Trump politically, with the intention of preventing him from participating in a presidential election and denying voters the opportunity to elect him as president.

According to a recent study commissioned by a local media outlet, a majority of respondents in Georgia expressed their opposition to the idea of former President Donald Trump accepting a plea deal offered by District Attorney Fani Willis.

According to a study conducted exclusively by 11Alive in Atlanta, the majority of respondents, accounting for 55 percent, expressed a preference for President Trump to undergo a trial. Meanwhile, 21 percent of participants indicated that he should consider accepting a deal, while 24 percent either remained uncertain or refrained from expressing an opinion.

According to an unidentified individual, referred to as Eros, who leans towards the Republican party and resides in Cobb County, “I would rather him do a plea agreement.”

“He wants to prove everyone wrong and become president again. So I don’t think his pride would allow him to plead guilty,” asserted Beth Carter, a voter in Midtown who tends to support the Democratic party.

Richard Holloway, a member of the Republican Party hailing from Lithia Springs, expressed his support for a trial concerning Donald Trump, as he holds the belief that such a trial would result in his exoneration.

“I’m for Trump. Go, Trump. ‘Know what I mean?’ Good luck,” Holloway said, expressing his skepticism over the likelihood of successfully convicting him.

According to Leelt Ermias from Atlanta, the outcome would be contingent upon the specific circumstances surrounding the plea. “It would depend on the details of the plea,” Ermias said, adding that she does not support Trump.

Prosecutors are vested with the power to engage in plea bargaining, wherein they have the ability to offer plea agreements that go beyond the customary terms of probation or sentencing requirements. According to 11Alive, the agreements may encompass the defendant’s consent to participate in counseling or their exclusion from a specific jurisdiction.

According to Clint Rucker, a former Fulton County prosecutor who currently practices law privately, “Imposing a requirement that the person never run for public office again could be a condition that could be part of a negotiated plea.”

Trump has said he will not take a plea offer.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend