Joe Biden and the Democrats are going to lose their minds over this bad news.
Their plan to utilize lawfare to knock Trump out of the 2024 race is on the verge of collapse.
And that’s because this witness testimony just proved Donald Trump’s innocence.
The centerpiece of Democrat Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s racketeering case against Donald Trump for contesting the 2020 election results was a phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
On the call Trump pleaded with Raffensperger to delay certifying the vote count as Trump believed an additional count and check of the ballots would show he won.
Willis seized on the Washington Post report of the call where Trump said he needed “11,780 votes” to claim Trump tried to induce election fraud and Raffensperger to violate his oath of office.
Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows was one of the 18 co-defendants Willis charged in this case.
Meadows filed a motion to move his case to federal court arguing the actions he took were part of his official duties as a government official and thus his case should be tried in federal court instead of Atlanta.
That matters since a trial in Atlanta will guarantee a jury of 100-percent Democrat partisans and a kangaroo court whereas a federal trial will pull the jury pool from ten surrounding counties and provide for a fairer trial.
Members of the press hyped up the hearing over the motion as a mini-trial as both Willis and Meadows’ legal team would lay out their best arguments.
In that case, Willis and the Democrats are in trouble.
George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Raffensperger testified that he viewed the call as a “settlement negotiation” in terms of Trump asking for another recount and not to add 11,780 votes to Trump’s total.
“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,” Turley wrote.
“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,’” Turley added.
Turley wrote that Trump may have been wrong to ask for an additional recount, but asking for a recount is a legal claim and not a demand to commit a crime.
“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,” Turley added.
If Raffensperger is testifying that he did not think Trump was committing a crime when he called him in early January, then Willis’s case falls apart.
Great American Daily will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.
