BREAKING NEWS: The Full #TrumpTapes Audio Is Below https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1345841632063664131

1/ In the full audio, Trump claims—insufficient to overcome the "willful ignorance" doctrine, of course—that "crowd size" proves he won Georgia. He also falsely claims "a couple hundred thousand forged signatures" in Fulton County, falsely claiming the county was never "checked."

2/ He falsely claims "at least 250,000 to 300,000" ballots were "dropped mysteriously into the rolls" in Fulton County, which" (he falsely insists) "hasn't been checked." Raffensperger *unambiguously* tells him all of this is wrong—yet again piercing any Trump defense to a crime.

3/ He confirms he knows the "margin" is 11,779—he cites the specific number multiple times—so when he later says "I want to find 11,780 votes" he's clearly indicating that his concern is to win the election, not election security. And he wants Raffensperger to "find" those votes.

4/ He says to Raffensperger, "you don't need [to 'find'] much of a number [of new votes]" because "in theory the number I lost by was 11,779." This is him *explicitly* directing—later trying to coerce—a government official into finding exactly the number of votes he needs to win.

5/ Much of this is nonsense—almost incomprehensible. He's complaining about a woman in Georgia named "Ruby" who he says is a "scammer and hustler," reviving the "water main break canard" whose usage by the GOP has been repeatedly debunked. He's monologuing like a cartoon villain.

6/ Everything Trump raises was litigated in state/federal court. He's taking cases he lost in their proper fora and trying to resurrect them with a man he feels he has power over and aims to threaten. That he tried the cases in court means—legally—he knows it's where they belong.

7/ Meadows is clear that he's trying to subvert the courts—asking Raffensperger to find a "less litigious" way to resolve Trump's complaints re: the Georgia results. It's an acknowledgment by Meadows that he wants an extrajudicial agreement between GOP executive-branch officials.

8/ At one point Trump says to Raffensperger, "What's the difference between winning the election by 2 votes and winning it by half a million votes?" This is in the context of him pleading with (later trying to coerce) Raffensperger into finding *just enough votes* for him to win.

9/ Trump's criminal intent in the #TrumpTapes is clear, as is the fact that (under the law's objective "reasonable person" standard) he had sufficient information to *know* with "high likelihood" that his claims that the election results in Georgia were somehow wrong was *false*.

10/ Trump claims to Raffensperger, in the #TrumpTapes, that from his "rallies" *alone* he knows that it's "not possible" he lost Georgia. No state/federal prosecutor would deem such statements to survive the "willful ignorance" doctrine—they fail the "reasonable person" standard.

11/ The call isn't the only evidence of criminality—the context surrounding it is likewise key. It's unthinkable that Trump wasn't told by WH counsel what he heard publicly—calls of this sort may be criminal. Trump seemed to acknowledge it by trying to get ahead of the call leak:

12/ Trump has a history of doing this: believing he can escape criminal liability by making public acts he originally conducted in secret—and very much aimed to *keep* secret. His prior use of the NSC Intelligence Collaboration Environment (NICE) server to hide calls is relevant.

13/ Trump repeatedly emphasizes to Raffensperger on the #TrumpTapes that he is giving the Georgia SoS "exact numbers" that he can use to "recalculate" the results so that Trump wins. He wants this elections official to *take data from the Trump campaign*. That's also legally key.

14/ It's under a third of the way into the call that Raffensperger tells Trump—saying this with all the knowledge and authority of his position as Georgia's chief elections official—that "the data that you have is wrong." Trump can't legally persist beyond that point—but he does.

15/ Trump's *own lawyer* says on the call—in Trump's hearing—that "we" (the Trump campaign) "don't have the records" to establish the exact number of "dead people" the campaign says voted.

This is seconds after Trump tells Raffensperger to *use the campaign's fraudulent data*(!)

16/ Trump confirms that he's heard what his lawyer said by *interrupting her* to reply to her statement that, in fact, the number Trump just gave Raffensperger *wasn't*—as Trump had insisted—an "exact number" that Raffensperger could add to Trump's tally.

This is election fraud.

17/ The #TrumpTapes audiotape only gets legally worse for Trump the more you listen to it. There's very, very little exculpatory evidence here. This tape is terrible—and we need some courageous state and federal prosecutors to make this unambiguous to American news-watchers. Now.

18/ When Georgia's chief elections official tells Trump that he will send the president *confirmed evidence* establishing that Trump's claims are *false*, Trump responds, "I don't care." I'm sorry to any other attorneys out there who may be timid, but there's clear mens rea here.

19/ When Trump's attorney says, "we don't know that" (regarding Trump's claim that there were 18,000 fraudulent ballots), Trump responds to her by saying, "It was 18,000 ballots—and each was run three times." Raffensperger had *just told him* a recount confirmed that was *false*.

20/ So we know Trump had been told the truth by both his own attorney *and* by Georgia's chief elections official, yet persisted in trying to threaten the latter to "recalculate" Georgia's tally, anyway—doing so just enough to change the election results.

This is election fraud.

21/ When Georgia SoS Brad Raffensperger tells Trump that he (Trump) is getting inaccurate information about the election in Georgia from social media, Trump replies, "This isn't social media [that I'm getting this information from], it's *Trump* media."

Yes. He really said that.

22/ Raffensperger tells Trump that Georgia law enforcement *and the FBI* have done forensic work to establish that Trump's data is wrong. Trump says law enforcement is either "dishonest or incompetent" and cites "Trump media." If you think the law says this is okay, you're wrong.

23/ You can't commit a federal crime and say, "Well, I had this *deranged, objectively unreasonable belief* that what I was doing was okay—despite *repeatedly* being told otherwise by the authorities."

Or, rather, you can only claim that via an *insanity defense*. Not otherwise.

24/ And now the threats start:

Trump tells Raffensperger, "It's more illegal for you [Raffensperger] than it is for them [the alleged vote-fraud plotters], because you know what they did, and you're not reporting. You know, that's a criminal offense. You can't let that happen."

25/ Trump has called himself "the nation's chief law enforcement officer." He believes himself to be so. And in this call he warns Raffensperger—"I'm notifying you"—that he's putting himself at "risk" of federal prosecution by Trump's DOJ if he doesn't change the election result.

26/ This call is incredible. I've never heard anything like it. The Ukraine call was so impeachable and criminal I wrote a whole book about it and all the crimes that surrounded it (Proof of Corruption, Macmillan, 2020) but this goes even straighter to the heart of our democracy.

27/ Here's a creepy, oddly ambiguous threat: "We'll eventually get into [the] Fulton [County election records]," Trump assures Raffensperger. Meaning Trump plans to get *access* to them. Maybe he means legally—but in the context of the call, he seems to be suggesting other means.

28/ When you're 1-for-62 in state/federal lawsuits and have said repeatedly you want to find a way to get records that *doesn't* rely on the Georgia Bureau of Investigations or the FBI, saying "we'll eventually get into Fulton" really doesn't sound like you mean "by court order."

29/ Were I still a federal criminal investigator—I used to be—I'd *immediately* want to find out if anyone from the White House went around the Georgia Secretary of State's office to contact GOP elections officials in Fulton County. Because it sounds like that's what Trump means.

30/ Trump's confession on the #TrumpTapes: "Look, Brad, I have to find 12,000 votes."

Incredibly, Trump says this *right after* he says to Raffensperger, "Many criminal events here." He is, of course, referring to his enemies, but the confluence of the observations is priceless.

31/ I should add—for those who haven't listened to the #TrumpTapes personally—that there are loud beeps throughout the audio to protect the Post from libel (publication) charges, as Trump repeatedly slanders (orally) a US citizen without evidence, accusing her of election crimes.

32/ The strangest moment on the tape? When Trump says approvingly, to Georgia SoS general counsel Ryan Germany, "You have a nice last name." What sort of bizarre nod to being obsessed with Germany is *that* comment? He seems to connect it to Germany being a good lawyer. Uh, what?

33/ Trump warns Raffensperger that "it's going to be very costly" if he doesn't change the election results. He doesn't say what every aspect of the "cost" will be, and who will bear it, but he admonishes Raffensperger, "You *have* to say you're going to reexamine [the results]."

34/ Trump acknowledges the place of the courts in the process he's trying to criminally circumvent, but calls court proceedings a mere "game." This is in response to Raffensperger's counsel reminding Trump that the appropriate place for this discussion is *before a court of law*.

35/ Trump explicitly raises a) the value of his endorsement to Georgia GOP officials, and b) how the removal of his good favor ends the career of a Georgia GOP official.

He says this while trying to coerce *a Georgia GOP official* into committing a federal election crime. Jesus.

36/ Trump's lawyer makes clear on the call that they're trying to circumvent the courts—saying "the court is not acting on our petition" and that therefore it's GOP elections officials in Georgia who must effectuate the "right" of Trump voters to get more election investigations.

37/ Federal criminal statutes *criminalize* trying to go around the courts by coercing elections officials into changing vote tabulations. The weak point here is Trump's counsel—and investigators and prosecutors should go to her first, as she's put herself in legal jeopardy here.

38/ Trump's counsel—ignoring that this is what courts are for—tells Raffensperger, "We [the Trump campaign] don't know about that [the results of the GBI / FBI investigations]. All we know is what you tell us." But as a lawyer, she knows the right avenue to find out is a lawsuit.

39/ 53 minutes into the recording, a new voice is heard—another Trump attorney. And this is interesting: he makes a point of saying that all the Trump campaign demands are being made "for purposes of 'compromise or settlement,'" and that the whole "phone call" is covered by this.

40/ I practiced criminal law more than long enough to know what this lawyer is doing: trying to rehabilitate this phone call from the crime he worries it's become. There is no reason to remind all parties about the "compromise or settlement" exception here unless you're *scared*.

41/ The (belated) claim being made by Trump's counsel is that Trump's campaign is just trying to negotiate—short of litigation—a) the provision of records to the Trump campaign, but also b) the moving of 24,000 votes to the Trump column.

Federal criminal law doesn't permit this.

42/ Trump's campaign can provide data to Georgia elections officials and ask them to investigate; it can sue those officials for data or for injunctive relief; but by law it can't circumvent an ongoing court process to try to coerce elections officials into changing vote tallies.

43/ Keep in mind, Georgia has never exhibited any intent of entering into negotiations with Trump's campaign. It's been clear about its position. The call only happened because Trump compelled it as the GOP head, the POTUS, and America's purported "chief law enforcement officer."

44/ Moreover, Trump's counsel is using the language of private civil disputes in the context of a federal election law case where criminal statutes and federal regulations govern. This is like introducing contract law into a homicide case. It's empty, purely "CYA" legal rhetoric.

45/ At a more basic level, if this *had* been a "compromise or settlement" conference between civil litigants, why would the *President of the United States* be on the call issuing threats? Why would he be present for a lawyers' conference to negotiate an out-of-court settlement?

46/ For instance, when Raffensperger says there is certain data that "by law we are not allowed to give out," Trump—as "chief law enforcement officer"(!)—thunders over the line, "Well you *have* to!"

And *that's* why he can't be on this call. *That's* why it's not a negotiation.

47/ During the call, Trump repeatedly uses what can arguably be deemed "mandatory" language, telling Raffensperger what he "should" be doing and doing so as President of the United States, not a private civil litigant. "Must" is the more conventional word, but "should" qualifies.

48/ After telling Brad Raffensperger repeatedly what he "should" be doing, Trump emphasizes to the Georgia SoS that there will be negative consequences to what Raffensperger is doing "to the president"—i.e., him. He can use the third person all he likes—he's drawing on his title.

49/ More threats: Trump, hours from heading to Georgia to speak to its voters—during which rally Raffensperger and the Georgia GOP know Trump can deep-six Loeffler and Perdue—says "It's going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don't get this thing straightened out fast."

50/ The same lawyer who tried belatedly to declare this a "compromise or settlement" conference now reenters the conversation, with five minutes left, to say Trump's campaign just wants to see data to "validate or invalidate" its accuracy. But that's *not* what the call has been.

NOTE/ Trump ends with his most direct threat to Raffensperger and the most direct draw on his power and authority. "I only ran against [Stacey Abrams] once, and that was with a guy named Brian Kemp. And I beat her. And if I didn't run [for POTUS] Brian wouldn't have had a shot...

NOTE2/ "...either in the general or the primary. He was dead—dead as a doornail. He never thought he had a shot at either one of them. What a schmuck I was [to endorse him]. But that's the way it is." He adds "I think we should come to a resolution of this before the election..."

NOTE3/ "...because otherwise you're going to have people just not voting. They don't want to vote. They hate the state, they hate the governor, and they hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that *right now*. And the only people that like you are people that will never..."

NOTE4/ "...vote for you—you know that, Brad, right? They like you. They [Democrats] can't believe what they've found [in you]. They want more people like you." It's a clear threat never to endorse him. Trump ends with—maybe in response to a lawyer's note—"We just want the truth."

NOTE5/ Trump then contradicts what he just said about only "wanting the truth"—a CYA against fraud charges, extortion charges, or worse—saying, because he can't help himself: "I won by 400,000 votes at least...but we don't need 400,000 votes. We need less than 2,000 [sic] votes."

CONCLUSION/ This phone call was a crime. And the people on the Trump campaign side of the call knew it was a crime. Any investigator or prosecutor who pursues this case will conclude that it is a crime. The powerful must be subject to our rule of law just like everyone else. /end