Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

[No, we’re not going to cover Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State]

[No, we’re not going to cover Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State]

Trump’s phone call is a microcosm of the Trump era — Trump pushing but not exceeding the legal limits, and the media hyperventilating in a feeding frenzy.

Donald Trump’s phone call with the Georgia Secretary of State is a microcosm of the Trump era — Trump pushing but not exceeding the legal limits, and the media/Democrats/NeverTrumpers/Establishment Republicans hyperventilating in a feeding frenzy.

Trump believes that he was cheated out of an election win, so he called the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger about alleged Georgia election fraud.

That’s question number one about this whole thing. Why is Trump calling someone he has been attacking in public for weeks, and who he should have known was hostile to Trump? For the same inexplicable reason Trump sat down for hours of recorded interviews with Bob Woodward; that’s Trump, he thinks he can convince even hostile people. He’s also hands-on and not politically savvy in that way — Of course Obama or Biden would have done it, but through surrogates several levels removed to provide “plausible deniability” as in Biden’s China deals. If Trump doesn’t like someone or something, he picks up the phone or tweets about them, it’s something that makes him endearing to his supporters and infuriating to his opponents.

When Democrats don’t like someone, they sic the FBI and IRS on them. I’ll take the phone caller and tweeter any day.

The call was not “perfect” but it wasn’t criminal either. When WaPo released a highly and deceptively edited 4-minute version, it appeared that Trump might have been seeking to have Raffensberger do something illegal by “finding” votes for Trump. But after that media narrative was set, hours later the full hour-long audio and transcript was released which showed no illegality.

The call was pretty much a Trump stump speech railing on Raffensberger and other state officials for supposedly not doing their jobs. That job in Trump’s view in the call, was to prevent voter fraud and disqualify fraudulent votes, not to commit fraud. There was no substance that Trump has not said dozens of times in public, and if the substance of this call was done in a speech, no one would have noticed.

(Raffensberger vigorously pushed back on Trump’s claims of election fraud on the call, as did his aide in a press conference today.)

And Trump did not tell Raffensberger to find votes. Trump said that he, Trump, needed to “find” only enough votes to win, even though there were tens of thousands more illegal votes. That’s a different context then the initial narrative. And no, Trump did not threaten criminal prosecution, as some claim. Read the transcript.

The call was, however, both stupid and pathetic. Trump comes across as desperate, which is what you would expect from someone who believes he was cheated, but is not how Trump should want to be viewed exiting the presidency. It may get worse, depending what happens in the next few days.

So on the one hand, we have a stupid and desperate call. But as always happens with Trump, the media hyperventilates and exaggerates, as do Democrats, Never-Trumpers, and mildly pro-Trump Republicans who are afraid. The end of democracy! Treason and sedition! A criminal attempt to procure election fraud! Racist!” Even his lawyer Cleta Mitchell should be fired by her law firm and the Lincoln Project is encouraging harassment of the law firm and its clients.

How obviously criminal was it? Apparently not so to the non-TDS stricken. Even the NY Times had trouble scrounging up a legitimate “expert” to say it was criminal, and a swampish promoter of Russia collusion known for his “Boom!” tweets said he was having trouble finding a crime.

And the supposed victim? He was going to keep the call confidential until Trump sent a mean tweet about him.

So no crime was committed, Trump was Trump, and his opponents did the expected OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE!!! routine again.

So no, we’re not going to cover this.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


While Trump asks for data from the audit, JournoLists publish truth to facts.

The press, media, and search engines salivating while carving and redistributing red meat, with a side of fava beans, and toasting with a nice Chianti. Not a vegan in sight, which ironically curbs a first-order forcing of anthropogenic climate change. So, here’s to progress: one step forward, two steps backward.

How about linking Trumps speech on NOW in Ga?

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 4, 2021 at 10:37 pm



January 4, 2021 9:26 pm

At least now we see, looking to Wednesday, especially in the Senate on the Republican side, who is with us and PT, and who is not. Keep in mind, most of them are politicians and nothing more. They will do most anything to get elected to get the power, fame, and fortune. And this is not limited to just one party. Depending on where they live, the politicians will run as part of the party however is it easier to get elected. If they are in Mass., they will simply run as a Demokrat to get elected, and if in North Dakota, the same person may well run as a Republican as it will be easier to get elected. What motivates them? They simply have no souls…
At least there are some in the Republican Party who are with us and who are for us and do have a soul. But now, it looks like there are less than I would have believed…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has organized new rules for the 117th congress. [pdf here]

Within the rules there are punishments for members who would create or promote memes on their social media; there are a host of new subcommittees established including coronavirus; and interestingly, a new “Ombudsman” filtering position within the whistle-blower process that would protect the Biden administration from exposure of corruption.

Diversity is a paramount issue, including an entire office dedicated to ensure that any witness panel to congress would also have diversity. Yes, “witness diversity.”

Troubling Development as US Attorney for Northern District of Georgia Resigns Today — Effective Immediately

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | January 4, 2021 at 10:43 pm


    Troubling Development as US Attorney for Northern District of Georgia Resigns Today — Effective Immediately
    By Shipwreckedcrew | Jan 04, 2021 8:45 PM ET

    AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
    This gives me a bit of heartburn.

    There are few details known at this time, although the resignation of US Attorney Byung “BJay” Pak is now being reported on widely across various liberal media outlets.

    Talkingpointsmemo received a copy of an internal email sent to the staff in the US Attorney’s Office, in which Pak cited “unforeseen circumstances” as prompting his immediate resignation. It was previously reported that he would stay in place through January 20, 2021.

    Prior to being named as US Attorney, Pak had served six terms as a Georgia statehouse member representing a suburban Atlanta district in Gwinnett County. Prior to running for office, Pak had been an Assistant United States Attorney in Atlanta, and amassed an impressive resume’ as a prosecutor, specializing in white-collar cases, including having prosecuted a group of individuals who had stolen trade secret information from Coca Cola and attempted to sell it to Pepsi Co.

    In addition to being an attorney, Pak is a CPA. From my research about him from last fall, I came away impressed by both his legal and legislative careers. He is regarded in GOP circles in Georgia as a “star” on the rise, with a very bright career in elected politics if he chose to go that route.

    His immediate resignation today comes on the heels of the contentious telephone conference on Saturday between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. At this point, there is no evidence that the two events are connected, but the timing of the resignation is troubling.

    By announcing the decision today, Pak gives life to the idea that he was asked to do something with which he disagreed, and his only honorable response was to resign his position rather than follow the direction he was given. During the course of the call on Saturday, there were issues raised about the refusal of the Georgia Secretary of State to share information it has with the Trump campaign that bears on the issue of the validity of certain classes of voters who cast votes on Nov. 3. At the conclusion of the call it was far from certain that the Georgia officials would agree to the requests that were made, and I’m certain that at some point in the past 48 hours their decision on that topic has been made and communicated to the President’s attorneys on the case. The fact that Sec. of State Raffensperger ran to media outlets like ABC News to complain about the Saturday call strongly hints about the outcome of those discussions.

WaPo is staggeringly irrelevant to America and has been so since the days of Wormhead and Blowspout’s assignations with the FBI’s most disgusting traitor, Sheepthroat.

Kemp and RasberryBoy are the poster boys for why the GOP is a perennial failure, despite the best efforts of conservative Americans to preserve and protect our country from the likes of well known degenerates in stupid looking sunglasses.

Recording a telephone call without the other person’s permission is a crime, unless there was a prior court authorization or warrant.

But as with most anti-Trump crimes, it will never be enforced.

    txvet2 in reply to JOHN B. | January 4, 2021 at 11:28 pm

    Given the circumstances and the participants, it’s likely both sides recorded the call.

    Milhouse in reply to JOHN B. | January 4, 2021 at 11:53 pm

    Recording a telephone call without the other person’s permission is a crime, unless there was a prior court authorization or warrant.

    Who told you such a thing? No, it is not. Georgia is a one-party consent state. Only one party to a call needs to consent to recording it.

      MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2021 at 8:59 am

      I would argue that one has the right to memorialize any conversation to which one is a party in any means to his liking

      Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2021 at 11:04 am

      Does “recording” include distributing for (political) profit? Are there any privacy rules controlling that?

      Probably not, but I had to ask. Given it’s GA, likely not.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to JOHN B. | January 5, 2021 at 9:51 am

    RCFP’s Reporter’s Recording Guide › reporters-recording-guide
    RCFP summarizes each state’s laws governing the recording of phone calls and in-person conversations and how those laws affect newsgathering.

I don’t think the key point is the deceptive editing. Nor do I think it rests on saying that Trump meant he rather than Raffensberger should “find” the necessary fraudulent votes.

I think the key point where the leftist take on this spins off the track is their assumption that the fraudulent votes don’t exist, and Trump knows they don’t exist, and therefore when he asks Raffensberger to “find” them he means “pull them out of your rear end”.

The reason so many Democrats jumped to that conclusion is the same reason they often misinterpret Republican intentions — they assume that everyone does things the way they do. They are experts at “finding” votes that don’t exist. They’ve been doing it for decades, and they’ve almost certainly done it in this very election. So when they hear Trump asking Raffensberger to “find” votes they naturally assume he means the same thing. That he wants to play their game. So they raise a hypocritical hue and cry; hypocritical but not dishonest, because they probably honestly believe that he is just as crooked as they are, but not as good as them at hiding it.

But anyone paying attention knows what Trump meant. He is convinced there are tens of thousands — hundreds of thousands — of fraudulent votes in Georgia, and so he finds it hard to believe that Raffensberger can’t even find 12,000. He was urging him to put just a little effort into it. “You don’t have to find all the fraudulent votes; just a tiny fraction of them, just enough to push me over the line.”

I think almost everyone here on this blog agrees with Trump that the fraudulent votes almost certainly exist, though perhaps not on the scale he thinks. I am much more skeptical than Trump about the possibility of finding them. I think Trump has been listening to lunatics and charlatans, and has a completely unrealistic expectation of where the fraud is and how easy it would be to find it. For instance the hand count matching the machine count results proves conclusively that there was no fraud in the machines; wherever the fraud was — and I don’t doubt that there was plenty of it — it wasn’t there, so looking there is a waste of time, effort, and money that would be better spent looking where it might actually be. Remember, the Democrats are good at this; they’ve got decades of practice.

But the bottom line is that given Trump’s assumptions his request seems completely reasonable, and there’s certainly not even a whiff of criminality or dishonesty about it.

And in this way I am reminded of Trump’s call four years ago for Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s missing email messages. Then too the Democrats with bylines exploded, absurdly claiming that he was soliciting a crime, that he was asking the Russians to break into Clinton’s server, which no longer existed! If he’d done that it would have been a serious misdeed, but it was completely obvious to anyone paying attention that he did nothing of the sort. He was clearly working on the assumption that the Russians and Chinese and probably several other players had long ago cracked her server and copied all her email before she deleted it. And on that assumption he half-jokingly asked the Russians to release what they knew.

Not only was that request not criminal, dishonest, or wrong in any other way, it was completely reasonable, though of course meant mostly in jest. After all, it seemed that all our enemies already knew this information and we, the American voters, were the only ones who didn’t know it; thus there should be no national security problems with letting us in on the secret too.

Of course if he’d meant it seriously he’d have approached them in private, not in front of a public rally. Obviously he was being facetious and making a point about her criminality and carelessness, and didn’t expect the Russians to take him up on his request (and indeed they didn’t). But even if he’d been serious there would have been nothing wrong with it so long as he didn’t offer them anything in return.

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2021 at 5:10 am

    Interesting points Milhouse, I have to admit my skepticism of Trump puts me on the other side of the argument. I think you make some good points but there is a lot of assumption on the intent. Im not going to go into rant mode on Russia i dont see that as productive. In terms of the recent call on face value i see it as poor judgement but not criminal.

Well said, from top to bottom.

    The media is corrupted, and best to ignore them.

    That said: we will NEVER change the minds of the indoctrinated. We can only leave them behind.

    THAT said: we need to leave them behind, beginning a new land, with our people, and our laws. If we don’t do is soon, we will become terrorized by the Junta government getting into power in our former America.

    Let’s start the divorce discussions: it’s just a matter of geography.

Now they just ignore Trump executive orders


THEY are here.

In Bizarre Flipflop, NYSE Ignores Trump Executive Order, Refuses To Delist China Telcos
Monday, Jan 04, 2021 – 22:14

In a bizarre turn of events, NYSE has decided to reverse its previous decision (from last Thursday) to follow President Trump’s Executive Order to delist three Chinese Telecom giants (China Mobile, China Telecom, and China Unicom Hong Kong) identified as “affiliated with the Chinese military”.

The investment ban will take effect on Jan. 11, just days before President-elect Joe Biden is due to be inaugurated, and according to NYSE on Thursday, trading in the three companies was to be suspended possibly as soon as Jan. 7 or as late as Jan. 11.

But now, in a statement on parent ICE’s website, NYSE reversed its previous stance:

In light of further consultation with relevant regulatory authorities in connection with Office of Foreign Assets Control FAQ 857, available here, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) announced today that NYSE Regulation no longer intends to move forward with the delisting action in relation to the three issuers enumerated below (the “Issuers”) which was announced on December 31, 2020.

At this time, the Issuers will continue to be listed and traded on the NYSE.

NYSE Regulation will continue to evaluate the applicability of Executive Order 13959 to these Issuers and their continued listing status.

Hong Kong-listed China Telecom shares are soaring 8% on the news…

The NYSE’s decision follows threats from Beijing:

The ministry of commerce said in a statement that China will “take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises,” according to the state-run Global Times.

The commerce ministry said that the U.S. was “abusing national security and using state power to crack down on Chinese enterprises” and said the move was “not in line with market rules and logic, which harms not only the legitimate rights of Chinese enterprises, but also the interests of investors in other countries, including the US.”

The Chinese Foreign Ministry also accused the U.S. of “viciously slandering” its military-civilian integration policies and vowed to protect the country’s companies. Chinese officials have also threatened to respond to previous Trump administration actions with their own blacklist of U.S. companies, but have so far failed to do so.

So, the question is simple – did Xi yank Biden’s leash over incriminating Hunter malarkey… and Biden promised NYSE he’ll undo Trump’s EO in three weeks anyway?

Conspiracy theory? Or is the NYSE now in the habit of simply refusing to acknowledge a presidential executive order that warns of funding firms associated with the Chinese military? Seems like a strong stance for a stock exchange to take in the middle of such a tense geopolitical situation.

    MarkS in reply to gonzotx. | January 5, 2021 at 9:01 am

    It all goes to the naughty child syndrome! If there are no consequences for misbehaving, then why not do as you please

“The call was, however, both stupid and pathetic.” Our president understands that our country is looking both stupid and pathetic, and he, almost alone, is trying to do something about that.

    Dimsdale in reply to Rick. | January 5, 2021 at 11:06 am

    My friends from foreign countries are either laughing or appalled at the level of fraud that is tolerated, even encouraged.

“Stupid and pathetic”.

That’s Trump.

    MarkS in reply to BAB. | January 5, 2021 at 9:03 am

    OK, BAB, since you apparently don’t consider yourself in that category, compare you accomplishments to Trump’s

      BAB in reply to MarkS. | January 5, 2021 at 1:21 pm

      Hey, if you’re fine looking up to someone that has stepped on people and cheated people all in pursuit of turning a profit, has committed serial infidelity, and is a misogynistic pig, you’re part of the problem.

Have you actually listened to the FULL tape? It’s available now.

Because what I heard wasn’t ‘sad’ or ‘pathetic’, except on the part of Raffensberger.

It was an hour of Trump’s team laying out exactly what they had, and Raffensberger claiming he’d already ‘debunked’ it, then refusing to provide them any actual data or verification.

Trump comes off like an angry man that knows he’s right and Raffensberger comes off like a slimy little weasel that stops just short of refusing to do his fucking job by claiming it’s ‘private’ or ‘confidential’ information.

    mark311 in reply to Olinser. | January 5, 2021 at 7:43 am

    For clarity the refusal to provide the state data sets was on the basis that it broke the law.

    The claims weren’t merely debunked but shot down in flames in various courts of law.

    As ever I’ve yet to see a coherent well formulated argument from any source that supports the assertion that there was fraud of any significance. If you could provide one that would be great.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 9:24 am

      The proof is from the fact that the Democrats went all out to make fraud easy to commit and difficult to detect. Both in the voting and in the counting. When someone goes to great pains to make sure the bank vault is left unlocked overnight with the alarm off and no guards, and that no record is made of how much money was supposed to be in there, one doesn’t need specific evidence to know that there must have been a break-in that night.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2021 at 9:51 am

        That is an interesting point, I’m not clear on how easy it would be to carry out fraud though? If you are talking about in person fraud then the scale will invariable be low and the risk for the individual is still quite high. There have been cases prosecuted. If you are referring to the machines themselves you yourself are aware of the spurious nature of the claims. Trumps own commission on the subject of voter fraud disbanded due to the lack of evidence supporting the claims around a problem with voter fraud. I appreciate your point about voting fraud being hard to detect but id suggest that this is only true on an individual level and on a systemic basis because much, much harder.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 7:30 pm

          The bulk of fraud is in absentee voting, and in some places in the counting, although there’s probably a fair amount of it in in-person voting too. That’s why when Democrats this year took advantage of the Dreaded Lurgi to push through a massive increase in absentee voting, and ridiculously loosened the already-too-lax conditions surrounding it, every honest observer predicted a corresponding massive increase in fraud.

          Trump’s commission failed because the states refused to provide it with the information it needed to do its job.

        Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2021 at 11:08 am

        And they have refused/resisted/slow walked any investigations of integrity.

“The call was, however, both stupid and pathetic.”

What I find stupid and pathetic are comments like this. The reason I find comments like this stupid and pathetic is because it’s totally at odds with the entirety of the call.

DEMANDING your people do their fucking jobs and ensure only LEGAL fucking votes are counted is stupid or pathetic it’s common fucking sense!

What’s stupid and pathetic is people supposedly from your team siding also exclusively with your enemies. Let’s not fuck about tge Bush here either, Democrats ARE the fucking enemy of America and everything good it stands for.

    mark311 in reply to mailman. | January 5, 2021 at 5:18 am

    Legal votes have been counted, their is limited evidence of fraud thats the bottomline. You can scream all you want but the reality is that the Trump Legal team has failed in every attempt to make a case for it including where they have presented evidence. They have had ample opportunity in public forums as well and come out badly.

    Saying that the Democrats are the enemy is hyperbolic.

      The unapologetic conservative in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 6:06 am

      There is limited evidence because all the cases but one have been dismissed on technical grounds before evidence was admitted.

        Thats simply not true, a number of cases have heard evidence. The Matthew Bean judgement for example commented on the lack of evidence presented supporting the claim. There have been a number of ‘expert’ testimonies presented to court as well which have been thoroughly eviscerated

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 7:53 am

          *brann not bean

          “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” the judge wrote in his 37-page opinion. “Instead, this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations … unsupported by the evidence.”

          Dimsdale in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 11:12 am

          Gathering evidence is difficult when jurisdictions refuse to release the ballots for scrutiny. Statistical evidence is conclusive as far as it goes, and the upcoming Pulitzer analysis should bear a bumper crop of evidence.

          Pulitzer’s team is fielding bullets from drive by’s though.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 7:31 pm

          That would be great if “Pulitzer” weren’t a certifiable lunatic.

      mailman in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 8:48 am

      There are literally BINDERS of evidence of Fraud and lets not forget the 300-400 actual WITNESSES who have signed affidavits to witnessing fraud.

      BTW, thats 300-400 MORE witnesses to actual fraud than ever existed for the great Democrat Russian collusion hoax so spare me the fucking crocodile tears darling.

      Just because your Democrat media doesnt report the actual news of voter fraud doesnt mean it doesnt exist Mark.

      MarkS in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 9:05 am

      Trump has evidence of over 25,000 cases of illegal voter registrations which include the dead, PO box addresses, commercial addresses….etc!

        Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | January 5, 2021 at 9:31 am

        Um, no, he doesn’t. You are referring to the Braynard “evidence”, which Rep. Bee Nguyen demolished in excruciating detail when he testified.

        He has a list of people who may have moved, but made no effort at all to check any of them. He has a list of people with the same name (but usually not the same date of birth) who may or may not be the same person, but he made no effort to find out. And he has a list of hundreds or even thousands of people whose address happens to be the same as that of a Fedex or UPS store, etc., and he leapt to the moronic conclusion that their address must “really” be a disguised P.O. Box.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | January 5, 2021 at 3:14 pm

      Democrats and RINOs.

Also sad and pathetic is so many people viewing Trump as a leader.

He has no integrity, no moral compass. If Trump is your idea of a good person, let alone a leader, wow.

    Dimsdale in reply to BAB. | January 5, 2021 at 11:19 am

    So Beijing Biden is your answer? That is risible on its face. He loves America, which is more than can be said of the fraudulent Democrat party and their accomplices.

    If the Democrats believed it was a clean election, they would be falling all over themselves to prove it with an objective audit and forensic analyses.

    The are not. They are resisting/downplaying/lying about any attempts to do sl

    These are not the actions of people that believe the election was aboveboard.

      Trump loves money and himself.

      Was POTUS for four years, has been a POS for much longer.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to BAB. | January 5, 2021 at 3:20 pm

        After decades of dealing with Beltway shysters, I have found Trump refreshing. I think it is time to take a anything goes stance to reign in swamp critters.

      Trump or Biden is a false choice.

      In that scenario, it’s “none of the above”. Both suck.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to BAB. | January 5, 2021 at 3:24 pm

        Politics is always about picking lessor evils, we don’t really have a choice. As it has turned out, Trump was a good choice, actually a great choice. Your position says more about you than Trump.

Close The Fed | January 5, 2021 at 3:58 am

Isn’t Kelly Loeffler’s husband the owner of the New York stock exchange?

Gosh, can you believe that mean old Trump? I mean…the gall of that man, secretly recording a phone call? I think the CIA should spy on him.


Is there a reliable source for a transcript?
CNN certainly isn’t. Nobody can believe their claim that they provide a full and accurate transcript because they have demonstrated over at least the past four years that for CNN truth is not something to be honored over their propaganda goals.