Staff Reports
In a stunning turn of events, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s testimony has refuted the left and corporate media’s claims that former President Donald Trump urged him to commit voter fraud in the 2020 election. According to a report from Breitbart News, Raffensperger’s testimony in a federal court hearing contradicted the allegations that Trump instructed him to fabricate enough votes to secure a victory in Georgia.
REPORT: Testimony From GA Secretary Of State Dispels Claims That He Was Told To Fabricate Voteshttps://t.co/ZnqFdO8pmi
— 🇺🇸🇺🇸Josh Dunlap🇺🇲🇺🇲 ULTRA-MAGA (@JDunlap1974) September 1, 2023
This revelation deals a significant blow to the leftist narrative that has been perpetuated by the media since the 2020 election. The idea that Trump ordered Raffensperger to commit voter fraud has been a central accusation against the former president. However, Raffensperger’s testimony reveals a different story.
During the phone call in question, Trump was expressing concerns about the alleged improper counting of votes and simply wanted to uncover the true count. The call was framed within the context of a settlement negotiation for another recount or further investigation. It is clear from Raffensperger’s testimony that there was no instruction to fabricate votes.
While Trump’s participation in the call may have been extraordinary, it does not automatically equate to criminal behavior. As legal analyst Jonathan Turley pointed out, unsupported legal claims may be subject to sanctions in court, but they are not automatically treated as crimes. It is crucial to distinguish between legal disputes and criminal acts.
This development also has implications for the ongoing case involving Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Meadows argues that the case should be moved to federal court due to his position as part of the president’s staff, invoking the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. If Meadows succeeds in his bid, other defendants may follow suit and argue for dismissal under the Supremacy Clause.
Additionally, Raffensperger’s testimony undermines certain parts of Fani Willis’ case against Trump, including the charge of “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer” in relation to the phone call. The credibility of this charge may be called into question given Raffensperger’s statements.
Overall, the revelations from Raffensperger’s testimony present a significant challenge to the prevailing narrative surrounding Trump’s alleged involvement in voter fraud. The truth of the matter is far more nuanced than what the media has led us to believe. It is essential to approach this issue with a fair and balanced perspective, rather than succumbing to partisan biases.
