4 ms·

We all heard the actual audio of that call, and he absolutely was pressuring the secretary of state to find votes. So while WAPO got inaccurate quotes the conte

We all heard the actual audio of that call, and he absolutely was pressuring the secretary of state to find votes. So while WAPO got inaccurate quotes the content of the call was absolutely "insurrectionist".

thepasswordis 6y ago
Do you see what you are doing right here? You're leaving out the context to make a political point. Yes, he was asking the SoS to "find votes". However, the claim was: "We believe that there may be over 100k votes which could fail signature verification, and we only need you to find several thousand of them, a small fraction of what we believe you will find." That is very different than what both you and the WaPo implied. The claim is related to signature verification. So argue with that if you don't agree with it. But that isn't what happened.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  That is absolutely within the bounds of the generic "find me the votes". There is always some pretext for finding those votes.
- btilly 6y ago
  He didn't just want her to find votes that can fail signature verification, he wanted her to look for them in specific areas that vote heavily Democratic. Which means that he was not asking her to validate that people voted accurately, he was asking her to slip her thumbs on the scales and make the vote come out his way. That is why he "needed" her to do so. Because he wanted the vote to come to the result that he wanted, and not the result that reflected the actual will of the voters.
- knowaveragejoe 6y ago
  I'm blown away there are people on HN peddling the Fox/Newsmax/OAN cinematic universe.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    Same, I have also encountered QAnon believers on here.
  - thepasswordis 6y ago
    The irony of this comment on this thread is incredible. The washington post is now "Fox/Newsmax/OAN" cinematic universe? Like...what?
    - bena 6y ago
      I think you misunderstand. The person was responding to the person suggesting that Trump was doing something very legal and very cool. He wasn't talking about the Washington Post, or suggesting that it's part of the right wing misinformation machine.
      - thepasswordis 6y ago
        The Washington Post are the ones the published the retraction.
        bena 6y ago
        Oh, you're the person he's responding to. Ok. Weird. Trump was pressuring Georgia to overturn and invalidate votes. He was interfering with the election. To suggest that he wasn't doing that is what knowaveragejoe means by peddling the Fox/OANN/Newsmax line. So while the Washington Post may not have gotten the exact words right. It's not like they were wrong about what was occuring. The worst that could be said is that they were paraphrasing. It's like you're suggesting Trump should be let off the hook because of a technicality.
        thepasswordis 6y ago
        I guess I’m not following you here because it seems like you’re making a pretty wild claim. Are you saying that the original story was correct, but it was the retraction which was somehow wrong? That just seems...odd. Or are you just not seeing the story or something? > Correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to “find the fraud” or say she would be “a national hero” if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find “dishonesty” there. He also told her that she had “the most important job in the country right now.” A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump. The story was wrong. It wasn’t that they just misquoted him. The quote was the predicate for the entire story which they are now acknowledging was made up. >pressuring to overturn and invalidate votes Yes, but if those votes were cast illegally, shouldnt they be invalidated? That is the core debate here. “If votes are cast illegally, they should not be counted” does not seem like it should be a controversial claim, and the absolutely absurd amount of spin and misinformation that people are putting out to try and claim that it should even be up for debate is incredibly damaging to having a functioning democracy. And in fact I would say that some of the comments here are doing a good job of illustrating the damage that this sort of misinformation can have.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > That is very different than what both you and the WaPo implied. It is not. There was no evidence to support the belief that there were any votes that failed signature verification. Put another way, Trump was asking the SoS to apply a higher than usual level of scrutiny only to Democrat-leaning ballots in order to win him a state that he lost.

thepasswordis 6y ago

Do you see what you are doing right here? You're leaving out the context to make a political point. Yes, he was asking the SoS to "find votes". However, the claim was: "We believe that there may be over 100k votes which could fail signature verification, and we only need you to find several thousand of them, a small fraction of what we believe you will find." That is very different than what both you and the WaPo implied. The claim is related to signature verification. So argue with that if you don't agree with it. But that isn't what happened.

mpweiher 6y ago
That is absolutely within the bounds of the generic "find me the votes". There is always some pretext for finding those votes.
btilly 6y ago
He didn't just want her to find votes that can fail signature verification, he wanted her to look for them in specific areas that vote heavily Democratic. Which means that he was not asking her to validate that people voted accurately, he was asking her to slip her thumbs on the scales and make the vote come out his way. That is why he "needed" her to do so. Because he wanted the vote to come to the result that he wanted, and not the result that reflected the actual will of the voters.
knowaveragejoe 6y ago
I'm blown away there are people on HN peddling the Fox/Newsmax/OAN cinematic universe.
- belltaco 6y ago
  Same, I have also encountered QAnon believers on here.
- thepasswordis 6y ago
  The irony of this comment on this thread is incredible. The washington post is now "Fox/Newsmax/OAN" cinematic universe? Like...what?
  - bena 6y ago
    I think you misunderstand. The person was responding to the person suggesting that Trump was doing something very legal and very cool. He wasn't talking about the Washington Post, or suggesting that it's part of the right wing misinformation machine.
    - thepasswordis 6y ago
      The Washington Post are the ones the published the retraction.
      - bena 6y ago
        Oh, you're the person he's responding to. Ok. Weird. Trump was pressuring Georgia to overturn and invalidate votes. He was interfering with the election. To suggest that he wasn't doing that is what knowaveragejoe means by peddling the Fox/OANN/Newsmax line. So while the Washington Post may not have gotten the exact words right. It's not like they were wrong about what was occuring. The worst that could be said is that they were paraphrasing. It's like you're suggesting Trump should be let off the hook because of a technicality.
        thepasswordis 6y ago
        I guess I’m not following you here because it seems like you’re making a pretty wild claim. Are you saying that the original story was correct, but it was the retraction which was somehow wrong? That just seems...odd. Or are you just not seeing the story or something? > Correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to “find the fraud” or say she would be “a national hero” if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find “dishonesty” there. He also told her that she had “the most important job in the country right now.” A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump. The story was wrong. It wasn’t that they just misquoted him. The quote was the predicate for the entire story which they are now acknowledging was made up. >pressuring to overturn and invalidate votes Yes, but if those votes were cast illegally, shouldnt they be invalidated? That is the core debate here. “If votes are cast illegally, they should not be counted” does not seem like it should be a controversial claim, and the absolutely absurd amount of spin and misinformation that people are putting out to try and claim that it should even be up for debate is incredibly damaging to having a functioning democracy. And in fact I would say that some of the comments here are doing a good job of illustrating the damage that this sort of misinformation can have.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> That is very different than what both you and the WaPo implied. It is not. There was no evidence to support the belief that there were any votes that failed signature verification. Put another way, Trump was asking the SoS to apply a higher than usual level of scrutiny only to Democrat-leaning ballots in order to win him a state that he lost.