3 ms·

I guess there's just a disconnect here. Threatening someone with legal action for breaking the law is basically okay in my mind. Trump thought that there were u

I guess there's just a disconnect here. Threatening someone with legal action for breaking the law is basically okay in my mind. Trump thought that there were unsigned ballots that were counted that were being destroyed, and that Raffensperger was either aware of it or was ignoring it or was just not doing the due diligence necessary to prevent it. He wanted to provoke Raffenperger to action by reminding him that he faces criminal liability for looking the other way. If you are starting from the position of "Trump knows he does not have the votes and wants to cheat" then you can read this as extortion. I don't think you have to even go so far as to call Trump a saint -- he wasn't saying "you have to hunt down and prosecute all of these people for all of these things" so much as "just hunt down the people enough to get the 11,780 votes". Or to put it another way -- in a call with Raffensperger with his attorney on the line, probably being recorded, what is it exactly that you think could have happened here? Even if Raffensperger wanted to cheat? In a state that was already being carefully watched? What possible course of action would have made sense here? The only course of action that would have made sense was if Raffensperger could uncover widespread fraud of one of the forms that Trump described. Then exposing that fraud and showing that more than 11,780 votes were compromised would have been a huge deal. But people would have looked at those ballots. They would have listened to this phone call.

Latty 2y ago
No reasonable person would believe this, it's the equivalent of believing that when someone asked their associate to make another person "sleep with the fishes" they were talking about an aquarium trip. It's just obviously not true. Even if he hadn't been president with access to actually legal paths to investigate and address these things (and a responsibility to act ethically with the power he had where even the appearance of corruption is harmful), even if he had any evidence of actual fraud, even if he hadn't already organised a set of fake electors before the claimed "fraud" happened, even if you didn't have four people who have plead guilty to conspiring on this, even if he hadn't then refused to act when a violent mob stormed the capital on his behalf after he worked them up, even if half of his closest allies from his first term (including his vice president) weren't actively telling you this was his intent and plan, no reasonable person hears him leaning on the guy to just find the exact number of votes he needs to win and threatening him and thinks this was all above board. You have to intentionally take his statements in ways no person actually would, and intentionally ignore all the damning context and evidence. It's not credible in the slightest.

Latty 2y ago

No reasonable person would believe this, it's the equivalent of believing that when someone asked their associate to make another person "sleep with the fishes" they were talking about an aquarium trip. It's just obviously not true. Even if he hadn't been president with access to actually legal paths to investigate and address these things (and a responsibility to act ethically with the power he had where even the appearance of corruption is harmful), even if he had any evidence of actual fraud, even if he hadn't already organised a set of fake electors before the claimed "fraud" happened, even if you didn't have four people who have plead guilty to conspiring on this, even if he hadn't then refused to act when a violent mob stormed the capital on his behalf after he worked them up, even if half of his closest allies from his first term (including his vice president) weren't actively telling you this was his intent and plan, no reasonable person hears him leaning on the guy to just find the exact number of votes he needs to win and threatening him and thinks this was all above board. You have to intentionally take his statements in ways no person actually would, and intentionally ignore all the damning context and evidence. It's not credible in the slightest.