Trump suing Secretary of State Raffensperger over recorded call, Ga. RNC chairman says

[pnwmom]

Source: 11 Alive Atlanta

ATLANTA — A recorded one-hour discussion between President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger will now be heading to the courts, according to Georgia's Republican Party chairman.

Hours after the Washington Post broke the story of a call where Trump is heard pressuring the state election head to "recalculate" the votes, Republican Party chair David Shafer said the president plans to sue.

"President @realDonaldTrump has filed two lawsuits - federal and state - against @GaSecofState," Shafer tweeted. "The telephone conference call @GaSecofState secretly recorded was a 'confidential settlement discussion' of that litigation, which is still pending."

Shafer, earlier in the afternoon, called the recording "mind boggling" and suggested that it was done by Raffensperger and his lawyers.

Read more: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/trump-phone-call-brad-raffersperger-lawsuit/85-a0c1c287-b69f-470e-a8b6-d1cdf9df1b11

---

ANOTHER STORY ABOUT THAT HERE:

https://www.wate.com/news/pres-trump-begs-threatens-georgia-secretary-of-state-to-find-enough-votes-to-overturn-results-in-phone-call/

[Harker]

1. He sure hope to it when there's a lawsuit to press.

When there's a national emergency he goes golfing.

[WePurrsevere]

2. GA is a 'one party' permission state for recording phone calls...

"Confidential settlement discussion" is pure Republican spin BS which people would know if they actually listen to, or read the transcript of, the whole call.

[SheltieLover]

7. +1

Indeed!

[localroger]

20. This. If he sues it should be dismissed with prejudice at the very first hearing nt

[dalton99a]

23. +1

[lagomorph777]

46. Georgia law will quickly dispose of this suit.

There's no case to make.

[Chicago1980]

3. Let him sue...

It's my understanding that the recording is legal, or so I heard stated on CNN.

This gives the SOS an opportunity to countersue over election interfering.

[Journeyman]

4. Horses and barns, toothpaste and tubes -- Trump doesn't understand the simplest of things . . .

[padah513]

33. +1000

[babylonsister]

5. Pay him no mind. He sues everybody!

So are we now supposed to concentrate on the lawsuits and not the content of the call?

[Ligyron]

12. Now you're catching on!

[PatSeg]

26. Precisely

A classic Trump diversion. The problem with Trump is he is so predictable. He only has a handful of tired old tricks in his bag and he uses the same ones over and over again. There is no element of surprise. Besides being ridiculous and obnoxious, he is also a tiresome bore.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. Sue away asshole

Last edited Mon Jan 4, 2021, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

You're the walking dead now.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Mostly for show. I respect Georgia SoS legal team more than any of tRump's. . . . nt

[beachbumbob]

9. no standing to sue when its legal to record in Georgia, another laughable frivolous lawsuit

[Vinca]

10. Yawn. First Raffensperger needs to make Trump prove he's not an orangutan.

[treestar]

16. LOL

[localroger]

18. He needs to produce his long-form birth certificate. nt

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Recan that spam

To discuss a settlement, there has to be something that is legally disputed, and that is not the case here.

[Mike 03]

19. Indeed, the use of that word "settlement" seems inappropriate here. NT

[malthaussen]

13. When Donald Trump finally goes...

... a battalion of lawyers will be out of a job.

-- Mal

[mdbl]

17. and most of them won't be paid

he will logic that he doesn't have to pay if he didn't win LOL

[DeminPennswoods]

14. The "go to" move

nt

[treestar]

15. FFS

The courts have not done anything for the Dotard so far.

[niyad]

21. And the definition of insanity is. . . .

[JohnnyRingo]

22. A prelim judge is going to hear the argument....

...that "we would have gotten away with it too, if not for those meddling kids".

Seriously, Trump's legal complaint is that he broke the law by trying to subvert democracy and some RINO rat squealed. I want to know what judge or jury would side with the dictator on this.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Both Georgia and DC are one party.

[wolfie001]

25. I predict a loss for Diaper Don and....

......I'm no lawyer. lol

[quaker bill]

27. I have been involved in confidential settlement discussions

when I managed an environmental law enforcement program for a living. These are legal discussions governed by legal ethics. In short, nothing said during such a conversation would be admissible in the court on the case they are attempting to settle. It would also be a violation of legal ethics for the lawyers involved to disclose the contents of the discussion.

However, if the party making the recording is not counsel on the case, or not an attorney at all, then he laws of Georgia for recording telephone calls would apply. Now if the attorney for Raffensberger knew a recording was being made and did not disclose that fact, this could be a violation of legal ethics. However if he/she was not aware, then sanctions would not apply.

On two occasions of personal experience the defendant and their counsel brought a recording device and intended to use it. My counsel did not accept this and would not allow the discussion to proceed until the recording device was removed from the room.

I have also had a few such discussions that were "on the record". In those cases a court reporter was brought into the room and the discussions were recorded legally, word for word with transcripts provided to each side. In those cases, everyone knew that things said could have been admissible and due caution was taken.

[LisaL]

32. They are claiming the call was a confidential settlement discussion.

But it really didn't sound anything of the sort, did it? How is Trump demanding that GA SOS somehow found the votes to put Trump over the top makes for a confidential settlement discussion?

[quaker bill]

39. Typically a settlement discussion is held prior to litigation

then you tell the judge that you tried to reach an agreement but failed. Occasionally you do reach an agreement. However you cannot agree to do something illegal, as a contract to violate the law is not valid.

It would be a normal premise to schedule a call with lawyers present. It makes little sense in this case as the Trump team is roughly 0 for 60 on these cases, so they have no concession to offer. In my cases we would negotiate the penalty and corrective actions, if the penalty was high enough and they agreed to correct the problem and repair any damages, I would often agree to the no admission of guilt.

Now I am pretty sure Trump as not following good legal advice. I am not sure he got any, but if so, he was not following it, no surprises there. The purpose of a confidential settlement discussion is simply to allow the parties to communicate freely and maintain their right to not incriminate themselves, so the discussions are not admissible as evidence in the case. Generally you would not publish it either, but that is not actually prohibited, the information is simply not admissible as evidence in the case.

I was never threatened or offered a bribe at one of these, depending on the specifics a threat could have been criminal and an offer of a bribe to a public official would have been. I would have had no restriction reporting criminal behavior had it occurred. Most of the folks i dealt with listened to their lawyers.

[Karma13612]

45. My thoughts exactly.

Since when are the workings of an election and vote results supposed to be “confidential”?

My comment below goes into more detail as to what I perceive as confidential and what is open and available to the public.

My heavens, this isn’t some 3rd world banana republic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Marc Elias thinks he would have had to be on any confidential settlement discussion

Link to tweet

"Trump and his allies have lost 60 post-election lawsuits, including several in GA. There are no cases that could have plausibly been the subject of settlement discussion.

Oh, and I represent parties in all of those cases, so I would have had to be on the phone as well. I wasn't."

[quaker bill]

40. That is good info as 'ex-parte' discussions are plainly unethical

confidential settlement discussions are always set up counsel to counsel and there is generally an agreement as to terms, time and place. I do not think the terminology matters that much as confidential settlement discussion are not a license to engage in criminal behavior without consequence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. However, it is now apparent Trump personally sued the Georgia gov and SoS on Thur 31st

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2021/01/show_temp-1.pdf

so that may well not include anyone Elias represents. However (again), you're right that it's not a licence to engage in criminal behaviour; lawyers have also pointed out that the presence of Mark Meadows on the call - a public employee, who shouldn't be involved in campaign matters at all, let alone a lawsuit brought by a candidate - means it shouldn't qualify as anything close to a "settlement discussion".

[moriah]

42. Just how "confidential" can it be if Meadows was on the call?

Meadows may be Trump's employee, but certainly not his legal counsel.

If it was just lawyers, Trump, and the Georgia officials being sued and their counsel, I would agree that there was the potential it was a private or confidential conversation.

But really, there was no reference to the December 31st lawsuit in the phone call. The issues raised there, and in every other case, were discussed, but you would think it would begin by discussing the current lawsuit if it was supposed to be a "settlement conference" about it. Or at least reference it somehow, at least once, in the conversation.

[quaker bill]

47. again even an actual confidential settlement discussion

is only confidential to litigation of the case at hand. You cannot incriminate yourself even by admitting guilt because nothing said is admissible as evidence. This is the only way it is truly "confidential". It is not secret, it is simply formally "off the record" for the case being litigated. Nothing can be used for the case under discussion, but it does not shield other criminal behavior that might occur or be brought up during the discussion. Meadows being present seems to make it a Trump admin activity.

[moriah]

49. That makes sense, but you were talking attorney sanctions, etc...

... and I just wanted to figure out that part.

I know Georgia is a one-party state, so Trump threatening to sue over the release of the call is silly.

I agree that I can't see how they can classify it as a "settlement conference" and therefore against attorney ethics to knowingly allow taping, vs as you said, an activity of the Trump administration vs him as Candidate Trump for 2020.

I would think using White House resources/staff to engage in any kind of "settlement conference" over an election lawsuit is also crossing into multiple hairy areas of the law -- if a sitting President isn't supposed to use WH areas for campaign work, I fail to see how them using WH staff for post-election lawsuit "settlement conferences" is proper either.

But Trump has crossed so many lines, without punishment for it, that it's hard to find where they're supposed to exist anymore.

[marie999]

28. So Trump will sue and then have to give full disclosure?

[Turbineguy]

29. So I can sue a police officer

who catches me speeding?

[jmowreader]

38. Sovereign citizens think you can

But...you can't.

[mdbl]

30. As a GA resident i woul d join a class action lawsuit against trump

for trying to disenfranchise my vote.

[Roc2020]

31. That leak of Trump

saying that isn't surprising but its a huge final nail

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. I think Shafer is just passing on a bit of rhetoric from the White House, not an actual fact

that Trump "has filed two lawsuits". Notice how there still appears to be no other source than Shafer's tweet. I don't doubt that Trump said "I'll sue the bastard!", but he probably says that 10 times a day. And flunkies will then tell others he will sue, or has done so, because they think it makes Tump sound decisive, and will soothe Trump's hurt feelings.

[aggiesal]

36. I broke the law and now everyone knows it, so I'm suing you! n/t

[FakeNoose]

37. Georgia Republicans: have you seen enough yet?

Why would anyone do anything to keep this man in power?

[Karma13612]

44. Kentuckians kept

Mitch in power.

Sigh.

But, I agree, and do get your point.

[Karma13612]

43. Confidential??? Give me a break!

When it comes to the rights of voters, and votes being cast, counted or taken away, the word CONFIDENTIAL should not be anywhere nearby.

The only thing confidential in voting is someone’s personal details on voter roles, and how the person voted. Period.

The business of elections including laws and guidelines and investigations should be as clear as a stream from snow-melt.

[dchill]

48. (Jaws music)