ELECTION FRAUD: GIULIANI is TARGET of ELECTION PROBE

Author: oromagi
oromagi
scum and villainy
election fraud
free and fair elections
rudi fresh and fruity

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
GIULIANI is TARGET of ELECTION PROBE
by KATE BRUMBACK and JILL COLVIN
@APNEWS

ATLANTA (AP) — Prosecutors in Atlanta on Monday told lawyers for Rudy Giuliani that he’s a target of their criminal investigation into possible illegal attempts by then-President Donald Trump and others to interfere in the 2020 general election in Georgia, one of Giuliani’s lawyers said Monday.

Special prosecutor Nathan Wade alerted Giuliani’s local attorney in Atlanta that the former New York City mayor could face criminal charges, another Giuliani attorney, Bob Costello said. News of the disclosure was first reported by The New York Times.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis opened the investigation last year, and a special grand jury was seated in May at her request. County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who’s overseeing the special grand jury, has instructed Giuliani to appear before the panel to testify on Wednesday.

Willis’s investigation was spurred by a phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. During that January 2021 conversation, Trump suggested that Raffensperger could “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss in the state.

It has also become clear that the district attorney is interested in Georgia legislative committee hearings that were held in December 2020 where Giuliani appeared and spread false claims of election fraud in Atlanta’s Fulton County.

Willis last month filed petitions seeking to compel testimony from seven Trump associates and advisers. Because they don’t live in Georgia, she had to use a process that involves asking a judge in the states where they live to order them to appear.

In a petition seeking Giuliani’s testimony, Willis identified him as both a personal attorney for Trump and a lead attorney for his campaign. She wrote that he and others appeared at a state Senate committee meeting and presented a video that Giuliani said showed election workers producing “suitcases” of unlawful ballots from unknown sources, outside the view of election poll watchers.

Within 24 hours of that Dec. 3, 2020, hearing, Raffensperger’s office had debunked the video. But Giuliani continued to make statements to the public and in subsequent legislative hearings claiming widespread voter fraud using the debunked video, Willis wrote.

Evidence shows that Giuliani’s hearing appearance and testimony “was part of a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere,” the petition says.

Also Monday, a federal judge said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify before a special grand jury in Atlanta that is investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and his allies broke any laws while trying to overturn his narrow 2020 general election loss in the state.

Attorneys for Graham, R-S.C., had argued that his position as a U.S. senator provided him immunity from having to appear before the investigative panel and asked the judge to quash his subpoena. But U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May wrote in an order Monday that immunities related to his role as a senator do not protect him from having to testify. Graham’s subpoena instructs him to appear before the special grand jury on Aug. 23, but his office said Monday he plans to appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prosecutors have indicated they want to ask Graham about phone calls they say he made to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger and his staff in the weeks following Trump’s election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Graham had argued that a provision of the Constitution provides absolute protection against a senator being questioned about legislative acts. But the judge found there are “considerable areas of potential grand jury inquiry” that fall outside that provision’s scope. The judge also rejected Graham’s argument that the principle of “sovereign immunity” protects a senator from being summoned by a state prosecutor.

Graham also argued that Willis, a Democrat, had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances necessary to compel testimony from a high-ranking official. But the judge disagreed, finding that Willis had shown “extraordinary circumstances and a special need” for Graham’s testimony on issues related to an alleged attempt to influence or disrupt the election in Georgia.

May, the judge, last month rejected a similar attempt by U.S. Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., to avoid testifying before the special grand jury. Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani had argued he couldn’t travel to Atlanta to testify because of health issues, but Fulton County Judge McBurney instructed him to appear on Wednesday.

Graham’s office said in a statement Monday that the senator disagrees with the judge’s interpretation of the provision of the Constitution he believes protects him from being questioned by a state official. His lawyers have said that he was making inquiries that were clearly part of his legislative duties, related to certification of the vote and to the proposal of election-related legislation.

But the judge wrote that that ignores “the fact that individuals on the calls have publicly suggested that Senator Graham was not simply engaged in legislative factfinding but was instead suggesting or implying that Georgia election officials change their processes or otherwise potentially alter the state’s results.”

In calls made shortly after the 2020 general election, Graham “questioned Raffensperger and his staff about reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump,” Willis wrote in a petition.

Graham also “made reference to allegations of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election in Georgia, consistent with public statements made by known affiliates of the Trump Campaign,” she wrote.

Republican and Democratic state election officials across the country, courts and even Trump’s attorney general found there was no evidence of any voter fraud sufficient to affect the outcome of his 2020 presidential election loss.

Trump-allied lawmakers were planning to challenge the tallies from several battleground states when Congress convened on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the results under the Electoral Count Act, but after the Capitol attack that day Georgia’s tally was never contested.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has described his call to Raffensperger as “perfect.”





#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi

When do you think Trump will copy Nixon and say, 'I Am Not A Crook'?
Topic's author
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@FLRW
-->@oromagi

When do you think Trump will copy Nixon and say, 'I Am Not A Crook'?
Not at all his style.  Trump style is to take your last dollar, kick you in the balls, and walk away leaving some lawyer he'll never pay to bully you into a non-disclosure agreement.

He actually sold himself to his constituency as a man who could get away with murder, so the far less defamatory standard of "crook" would an improvement on his promised standard of conduct.

Here he is today, caught red-handed with evidence of treasonous espionage, and he argues both that the FBI is planting the evidence but also that evidence was declassified by him years ago so he could take it home.  Trump consistently offers at least one argument for smart people and another argument for his supporters, confident they lack the reasoning and backbone to challenge dear leader's facts.

He takes the fifth  440 times in one interview and actually brags about his 440 confessions of guilt.  Then he tells his supporters that cheating on taxes is how the really smart guys get ahead. and his followers merely nod their heads approvingly.

I wish Trump cared enough about his (or by extension his country's) reputation to deny being a crook.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi


        True dat.
#5
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitorous crew.

P.S. that video was not "debunked" Raffensperger asserted that everything was fine. I debunk his debunking by asserting it was not fine.
Topic's author
#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Trump is to John Brown
as
Bill Barr is to Alexis Texas
#7
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
you obviously haven't watched thousand mule.. 
#8
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
dinish has gotten this entire thing sorted. 
Topic's author
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
P.S. that video was not "debunked" Raffensperger asserted that everything was fine. I debunk his debunking by asserting it was not fine.
Your religious beliefs are yours to believe.

Here is Trump's claim as stated on the Jan 2nd extortion call:

"We had at least 18,000, that's on tape. We had them counted very painstakingly, 18,000 voters having to do with the .That's she's a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler. that is that was the tape that's been shown all over the world that makes everybody look bad. You, me and everybody else where they got -- number one they said they said very clearly. And it's been reported that the said there was a major water main break. Everybody fled the area and then they came back. her daughter and a few people. There was no Republican poll watchers, actually. There were no Democrat poll watchers. I guess they were them, but there were no Democrats either. And there was no law enforcement late in the morning. They went early in the morning. They went to the table with the black robe, the black shield, and they pulled out the votes. Those votes were put there are a number of hours before, the table was put there. I think it was -- Brad, you would know -- it was probably eight hours or  seven hours before. And then it was stuffed with votes. They weren’t in an official voter box. They were in what looked to be suitcases or trunks, suitcases, but they weren’t in voter boxes. The minimum number it could be because we watched it, and they watched it certified in slow motion, instant replay, if you can believe it, but had slow motion and it was magnified many times over. And the minimum it was was eighteen thousand ballots, all for Biden."

AP News: "That’s a gross distortion of what actually happened. State and Fulton County election officials say surveillance video that Trump refers shows no improper behavior, but normal ballot processing using not suitcases, but ballot containers on wheels. Officials said that the entire video showed the same workers had earlier packed the ballot containers with valid, uncounted ballots. Republicans have contended that their observers were told to leave Fulton County’s vote counting center, but elections officials said they actually left after confusion that arose because election workers thought they were done for the night. An independent monitor and an investigator in fact oversaw the vote count, according to state and county officials. Trump also refers to a fake confession attributed by a woman allegedly involved in the incident that was posted on social media."

The total numbers of ballot counted in the hour and one half  of overtime counting was roughly 1,000.  There were 3 recounts total, one with a hand recount examining signatures.  The Secretary of States office did an investigation of the counting, followed by the Georgia Senate, followed by the Georgia House.  Then came two lawsuits.  One found Trump's claims meritless, the other ruled on a technicality but that 4 ballot counts 5 investigation (a sixth Grand Jury investigation is under way assessing whether to charge Trump with extortion.    All of the investigations were done by Republicans.  None found even a tiny bit of merit to Trump's claim.

No other Let's recall that Georgia ran 2 Senate runoff elections 59 days later.  The turnout was very nearly the same size as the general election and the same county voted democratic by a slightly larger margin.  Even though this election fully validates the general, there are no claims of election fraud for these election.

Trump's claim is not just obviously fake it is also stupid- just refusing to look at the evidence.
#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
AP News: "That’s a gross distortion of what actually happened. State and Fulton County election officials say surveillance video that Trump refers shows no improper behavior, but normal ballot processing using not suitcases, but ballot containers on wheels.
AP says officials say, but my eyes are what I'm listening to and my eyes say they kept the watchers in a corner and then sent them home before pulling out the containers. There also appears to be repeatedly running the same ballots through.


An independent monitor and an investigator in fact oversaw the vote count, according to state and county officials.
My lying eyes vs AP reporting on 'officials', tough one.


The total numbers of ballot counted in the hour and one half  of overtime counting was roughly 1,000.
Prove it.


Even though this election fully validates the general, there are no claims of election fraud for these election.
Claims of fraud is not necessarily proportional to fraud.


Trump's claim is not just obviously fake it is also stupid- just refusing to look at the evidence.
I did look at the evidence, I'm simply placing a higher weight on the evidence over assertions.
Topic's author
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
AP says officials say, but my eyes are what I'm listening to and my eyes say they kept the watchers in a corner and then sent them home
  • Your eyes are easy to deceive when the brain behind them is so unquestioning.  Your eyes watch two minutes of video but Giuliani provides you the narrative.  Your brain does not see "suitcases" they are just ordinary ballot containers- if you watch the whole day's video you see a hundred of them get filled and emptied all day long.  Your eyes boxes pulled out from under the table but your eyes don't tell you that those boxes were filled and closed and sealed just one hour before in front of the press and plenty of public observers.  The narrative that something covert is going on is entirely made up by Giuliani and you unquestioningly believe rather than asking to see when the boxes were placed there.
    • Here is Gabriel Sterling, Trump voting life long Georgia Republican and Operations Chief for the Republican Secretary of State explaining the video:
    • Nobody asked the press and observer to leave.  The vote counters started packing up at 10pm to go home for the night, so the press and observer started leaving.  The last one left at 10:45.  At 11:00pm the Secretary calls down and tell vote counters that he want them to keep on counting and even though these folks have been working since early morning, they come back and start counting again.  It is nobody's job to tell the press and observers they're going to count again- nobody cares whether they are there.  The independent observer and the investigator required by State Law were present and the entire process entirely above board.
    • Your eyes actually see nothing unusual.  Giuliani has provided the narrative that makes you think something unusual has happened.
before pulling out the containers. There also appears to be repeatedly running the same ballots through.
  • Again, this is your ignorance and lack of questioning rather than any unusual event.  Anybody observing any automatic ballot counting machines in any counting room will observe the same process.  As Sterling testified under oath:
    • "What happens there is a standard operating procedure. That if there is a missed scan, if there's a misalignment, if it doesn't read right — these are high speed, high capacity scanners. So three or four will go through after a mis-scan. You have to delete that batch and put it back through again. And by going through the hand tally, as the Secretary pointed out, we showed that if there had been multiple ballots scanned without a, you know, corresponding physical ballot, your counts would have been a lot higher than the ballots themselves."
    • "And by doing the hand tally, we saw two specific numbers that were me — met. The hand tally got us to a .1053 percent off of the total votes cast and .0099 percent on the margin, which is essentially dead on accurate. Most academic studies say on a hand tally you will have between one and two percent. But because we use ballot marking devices where it's very clear what the voter intended, it made it a lot easier to us — for us to conduct that hand count and show that none of that was true."
  • You don't know what a normal scanning process looks like and aren't curious enough to find our for yourself.  Giuliani counts on that ignorance to fill in his narrative that these are people recounting votes even thought their activity is indistinguishable from any other ballot count with high speed scanners where the ballots favored Trump.
  • What you saw was brief clips out of context and then you allowed Giuliani to tell you a story about what think you are observing, rather than interrogating those facts yourself.
My lying eyes vs AP reporting on 'officials', tough one.
Nobody disputes this fact, not even Giuliani. Since they are visible on video tape from time to time , there is no point in denying it. Giuliani only claims that press and public observers were told to leave.  Interviews with those press and observers has established that nobody told anybody to leave, they just left because everybody thought it was over for the night.  AP News is generally most reliable because Fox News and WSJ and whoever else  rely on it for factual reporting as much ABC, NBC, etc.  If FOX News didn't think AP was reliable, they wouldn't pay AP the massive subscription fee.  The truth is most of the non-political news you get on FOX, etc comes from the AP.

The total numbers of ballot counted in the hour and one half  of overtime counting was roughly 1,000.
Prove it.
  • The independent monitor noted that  between 8:15 p.m. and 12:43 a.m., the change in total ballots went from 89,381 ballots to 99,133 ballots — so a difference of 9,752 votes.  But after the callback it looks like there's only one scanner going, maybe two.  So very roughly between 1/11th of total scanner production= 887 ballots and 2/12ths  of total scanner production=1,625.  That's just my estimate, nobody official has gotten more specific than 9752 votes between 8:15 and 12:43
Claims of fraud is not necessarily proportional to fraud.
  • No but claims of fraud generally exceed actual fraud.  When nobody reports any fraud, that's a good sign.  When the results of an election with no complaints matches very well to the results of an election just 8 weeks prior, that provides an additional level of confidence.
I did look at the evidence, I'm simply placing a higher weight on the evidence over assertions.
  • I beg your pardon but you are clearly preferring the testimony of one drunk, biased, non-witness lawyer for the losing candidate based on a brief clip of video to the very consistent testimony of every person in the room sworn under oath and repeated to 5 or 6 investigations in the face of death threats.  Let's recall that same lawyer told Republican leadership confidentially that he he had no evidence of fraud even as he was pursuing  this very claim in court.


#12
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
Your eyes boxes pulled out from under the table but your eyes don't tell you that those boxes were filled and closed and sealed just one hour before in front of the press and plenty of public observers.
Why don't my eyes see that? Was the camera off at that time?


Nobody asked the press and observer to leave.
That's not what the observers said and that is besides the point.


The independent observer and the investigator required by State Law were present and the entire process entirely above board.
Point them out on the video. Then find a recording of them saying that they were there.


You don't know what a normal scanning process looks like and aren't curious enough to find our for yourself.
Ironic, I've been trained on ballot scanners.


"And by doing the hand tally, we saw two specific numbers that were me — met. The hand tally got us to a .1053 percent off of the total votes cast and .0099 percent on the margin, which is essentially dead on accurate.
If that was true it would prove there was no multi-counting. I don't trust election officials after they lied though. At the very least the water leak was a lie and that led to the removal of the observers. Everyone else who subsequently denied this also marked themselves as willing to lie for "democracy".


What you saw was brief clips out of context and then you allowed Giuliani to tell you a story about what think you are observing, rather than interrogating those facts yourself.
Out of context? You haven't corrected a single smidgen of the context as I see it. I'm ignoring all of this psycho-narrative bullshit  about Giuliani in case it isn't obvious. Although I could easily write similar stories about how BLM's supposed example cases were programed into them and it would be far more grounded in reality.


My lying eyes vs AP reporting on 'officials', tough one.
Nobody disputes this fact, not even Giuliani.
It's your error that I have any particular faith in Giuliani.


they just left because everybody thought it was over for the night
Because they were told it was over for the night...

AP News is generally most reliable becau-
Let me cut you off right there, if a light shone from heaven telling me that god is real I would ask it some questions. If it said the AP is reliable I would take cover. I know you're quite comfortable believing them and dismissing anyone who doesn't while also dismissing any sources that disagree. But if you were self-aware you would admit how vulnerable to misinformation that makes you.

Prove it.
  • The independent monitor noted that  between 8:15 p.m. and 12:43 a.m., the change in total ballots went from 89,381 ballots to 99,133 ballots — so a difference of 9,752 votes.  But after the callback it looks like there's only one scanner going, maybe two.  So very roughly between 1/11th of total scanner production= 887 ballots and 2/12ths  of total scanner production=1,625.  That's just my estimate, nobody official has gotten more specific than 9752 votes between 8:15 and 12:4
So you can't.


Claims of fraud is not necessarily proportional to fraud.
  • No but claims of fraud generally exceed actual fraud. 
You have no way of knowing that.


When the results of an election with no complaints matches very well to the results of an election just 8 weeks prior, that provides an additional level of confidence.
The lessening of complaints was due to the threat of fascist goons attacking you if you doubted elections. The method and protocol in which the election was conducted was identical leading to no additional confidence in the wise observer.


I beg your pardon but you are clearly preferring the testimony of one drunk, biased, non-witness lawyer for the losing candidate based on a brief clip of video to the very consistent testimony of every person in the room
I watched more than a brief clip, there were two or three people in that room as far as the video shows; and if there were more there should have been cameras on them too. In fact the election should have been and could have been secure and auditable.


5 or 6 investigations in the face of death threats.
Yea, saying the words "we conducted an investigation" doesn't count as an investigation.


Let's recall that same lawyer told Republican leadership confidentially that he he had no evidence of fraud even as he was pursuing  this very claim in court.
Must have been an idiot because I found evidence of fraud using only the internet. Either that or this is a false story.