The determination of the Left from both the Republican and Democrat parties to stop you, er, Donald Trump, but really you, from opposing their agenda reaches the extreme.
The most serious threat to Donald Trump's reelection bid for president in 2024 has been the danger of an indictment in Georgia for his placing a perfectly appropriate phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on or about Jan. 3, 2021. This is an astonishingly precise parallel to Trump's phone call to Ukraine and the first impeachment trial. It's like a remake of a bad movie. This is dangerous to Trump because no one is responding to clarify the actual facts. The silence from Trump's lawyers is allowing the Left to run roughshod.
This particular scheme out of many is the false claim that Trump tried to pressure Raffensperger to "overturn" (that is, get correct) the results of the 2020 election for president in Georgia. However, the discussions of these events are buried amidst anti-Trump hysteria. Finding the most basic details is very difficult. It is distressing that Trump's Georgia lawyers are doing so little to defend him. The effective lawyers helping Trump are Christina Bobb, Harmeet Dhillon, Alina Habba, and Jenna Ellis. And Rudy Giuliani was very assertive and a fighter. Others seem to be asleep.
On Dec. 31, 2020, Trump's lawyers finally got around to filing a 34-page federal lawsuit with 1,978 pages of evidence attached, in Trump v. Kemp, Case No. 1:20-cv-05310, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Then, on or about Jan. 3, 2021, there was a Rule 26(f) obligatory phone call. See NBC News' presentation of the phone call, but ignore the skewed opinions added.
Understand that this phone call was required – mandatory – under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f), which requires a "meet and confer" consultation among the parties.
Consider:
(f) Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery.
(1) Conference Timing. Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable – and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due underRule 16(b).
(2) Conference Content; Parties' Responsibilities. In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person. ...
(4) Expedited Schedule. If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule 16(b)conferences, a court may by local rule:
(A) require the parties' conference to occur less than 21 days before the scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due underRule 16(b); and
(B) require the written report outlining the discovery plan to be filed less than 14 days after the parties' conference, or excuse the parties from submitting a written report and permit them to report orally on their discovery plan at theRule 16(b)conference.
Because of the compressed schedule, the Rule 26(f) conference happened very soon. But listen to the phone call. Seriously. Ignore the snarky text lying about the phone call. Just listen carefully.
First, notice how all of Trump's lawyers on the case and all of Brad Raffensperger's lawyers were on the call. This was a pre-arranged conference call, not a spontaneous call. How do you get all those people on the phone at the same time? Nobody makes a threatening phone call arranging to have all the lawyers on both sides join the phone call.
Second, notice how the opening of the call is cut off. We do not hear anything like "Hi, this is Donald Trump. Is Brad Raffensperger there, please?" That's because the cut-off opening would have said something like "Hello, this is our prearranged Rule 26(f) consultation call. Is everybody here? Everybody ready? Let me go around and introduce who is on the call."
But that opening has been deceptively removed in the recordings released to the public. Furthermore, there would have to be emails back and forth among the lawyers scheduling the phone call. Those emails would explicitly explain the purpose of the phone call – as a requirement under court rules. Why don't Trump's lawyers release the emails scheduling that phone call? They are not privileged, shared with opposing counsel.
Third, in every election-related contest, it is a requirement to show that the challenged votes or category of votes could change the outcome. Donald Trump is heard on the call ticking off the categories and votes in each category, to show exactly that: As required, Trump was showing how the outcome of the election could have been different if the errors in the election were corrected.
Fourth, what we do not hear on the phone call is Trump saying to Raffensperger "Ignore the voting results, make me win anyway." Notice the substance of Trump's remarks. Trump lists the errors in the election and how many votes each one would have affected. Raffensperger responds that his numbers are different. Trump asks how are the numbers different – these are numbers we got from your office, can you tell us the correct numbers? In violation of Rules 26(e) to (f), Raffensperger refuses. Exchanging that kind of information immediately or delivering it under a plan is the purpose of Rule 26. Georgia's secretary of state was in contempt of court by not answering as to his position on the correct voting totals in each problem category. Raffensperger's intransigence is what jumps out.
But notice how the discussion is about which numbers are correct. There is no discussion about finding a way to make Trump win in spite of the vote totals. The entire discussion is about what the challenged votes actually are, in truth, by category. And that's the requirement under Rule 26.
One must consider that Trump's critics claim a lack of evidence in the election contests, but collecting that evidence to the standards of a lawsuit is a ton of work and time. So filing a lawsuit on Dec. 31 was incredibly late. In fact, Trump v. Kemp was dismissed because there wasn't enough time to consider Trump's allegations before the presidency would be decided. A "trial" hearing was scheduled for Jan. 8, 2021. The case was not decided on the substance, but on the calendar. But the alternative would be to rush an incomplete lawsuit, shooting blindly in the dark.
The Georgia gambit is the only real remaining threat to Trump's continued leadership. In your writer's opinion, this is why Ron DeSantis is brilliantly staying quiet. If Trump's path is clear, DeSantis is too smart to run. If Trump gets indicted, DeSantis will be the savior, the hero, by stepping in to save the day.
The problem is that prosecutors only present one side to the grand jury, and the grand jury won't know the reasons why the phone call was innocent. (Note: We've heard much about the special grand jury which is an investigative project. An indictment would have to come from a standard grand jury in the near future.) Once an indictment gets rolling, no matter how groundless, the stone rolls downhill and is hard to stop by things like reason, logic, facts, or common sense. It will take years to shut it down. And the rules are rigged in favor of prosecutors.
via wnd