Any one who listens to the GA SOS phone call and does not see Trump trying to extort votes is lacking in comprehension.
Maybe try reading the transcript then. There isn't even a close question. Trump repeatedly hammers down on what he claims are hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes, including every time he discusses the 11k votes that need to be found. He leads into those references by flat out saying they identified several times more than that already to the Secretary of State. Literally Trump walks through 6 or 7 sources of illegal votes when he talks about finding 11k votes.
He's 100% asking GA to find 11k fraudulent votes in the sources he's identified. If he's right its asking for the elimination of 11k of several hundred thousand fraudulent pro-Biden votes.
This is even more obvious where he follows up one of these 11k vote statements, by stating that they've found more than that already and then asking about whether there are also provisional ballots to be counted. He mentioned earlier that some of his voters arrived at the polls and were denied a vote after having been told they'd already voted by mail. Which by the way, if that's true, it's 100% proof of fraud, either by that person trying to vote twice or by someone else having stolen their vote - there's no way out of that conclusion.
Did anyone ask him if he was asking for fraud? Doesn't appear so, even after Trump flat out told the GA SoS that he was risking criminal charges for allowing a fraud to occur (which again if Trump is right is actually true), Raffensberger didn't ask for any clarification. And that's because he knew real time that he was being asked to find the fraudulent votes and nothing more.
I mean, "Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. You know, we have that in spades already. Or we can keep it going." That was immediately after describing hundreds of thousands of votes "dumped" into Fulton county - Trump was asking that the voter signatures be compared to signatures on file - as GA law requires and as Raffensberger overruled (Raffensberger agreed that they would only be compared with the 2020 signatures and not those on file). He immediately followed it by repeating his claim that 18k fraudulent votes were added in the GA video. Again, there's no reasonable doubt about the ask - here's hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes, go verify them and I'm sure we'll find more than 11k fraudulent ones for Biden. It's not an ask to eliminate legal votes, but for Raffensberger to actually do his job and eliminate illegal votes.
Or you could look at the sections discussing Dominion where Trump says they don't need to raise issues with Dominion because he won GA by "hundreds of thousands of votes" and the current margin is only 11k. "[W]e don't need Dominion because we have so many other votes that we don't need to prove it any more than we have."
Or Trump's lawyer (after the 11k claim had been made at least 3 times without any challenge or comment): "Ryan, I would just like to suggest that just the four categories that have already been mentioned by the President that have actually hard numbers of 24,249 votes that were counted illegally that in an of itself is sufficient to change the [unitelligible] or place the outcome in doubt."
So to put it back to you, anyone claiming Trump is asking for fraudulent votes to be added to that total is either lacking comprehension or engaging in a Big Lie.
Almost every legal scholar sees this as a violation of state and federal law. Trump will probably pardon himself for the Federal crime, but my guess is he will be prosecuted on a state level.
Exactly what law does demanding that fraudulent votes not be counted violate? What law does identifying those fraudulent votes violate? Or demanding to see proof that they were legal and not just to take the SoS's word for it? What law is violated by asking that 1 out of every 20 fraudulent votes that you believe you've identified be found?
It is against the law to count fraudulent ballots. I've yet to find the law that makes illegal to exclude illegal ballots.
What law is violated by demanding that signature verification be conducted in the manner that the GA legislature passed AS THE LAW and that the SoS changed in a consent decree/settlement agreement?
I find appeals to authority troubling on the best day, but appeals to "almost every legal scholar" to be completely nonsensical, unverifiable claptrap. A better way to say it is that the legal scholar's selected by CNN and MSNBC are referenced as saying this.
With all that is going on in the world, Trump is focused on one thing. Not finding out who did the cyber attack. Not working on a plan for the vaccine. But on trying to extort a few thousand votes so he can win one state.
I think Trump is focused on demonstrating that he won what he believes are 6 more states than certified results in his favor. Some of the statistical pieces are revealing either that fraud occurred or that our elections are a bigger mess than anyone ever admitted.
Whether he's fallen into believing unfounded conspiracy theories or whether he really did win and is a victim is what is in dispute. We the people haven't seen real evidence on which is correct.
As you can plainly see from the GA call, the SoS of GA is refusing to release the data that would allow Trump's legal team to prove their case or show the President it's not true (maybe for legit reasons, maybe not, he doesn't site the actual rules that he says prevent the release). In what world is it a reasonable answer to someone that demonstrates possible voter fraud, in very large part enabled by Raffensberger's own actions, that Raffensberger promises he's looked into it and can confidently say it didn't happen?
There is no trust here for good reason. Transparency should be the rule.
For example, there should be zero question about how many absentee ballots would have been disqualified (or not) in Fulton county if the law had been applied as written. The only reason that such a confirmation has not occurred after the election is to avoid creating proof that a fraud did occur. This should be an easy one to support if you guys are honest about wanting a fair election. Do the signature check against signatures on file and do it openly with fair observation. If it turns out there are 10ks of thousands of votes that should have been disqualified then there's proof of illegal voting that you guys want to pretend doesn't exist, if it turns out that the signatures match then a big part of the case for election integrity has been made.