Quote:
|
Originally Posted by h8kurdt
Oh well if the guy being accused of it says it isn't so then it must be true! You like this in the court room?
"I didn't do it."
"Oh well...then...guess that's the end of that one"
'kin Lionel Hutz here
|
No, I'm not like that in the court room.
I'm like this in the court room:
Per the
original interview in the Washington Post:
"In the interview, Raffensperger also said he spoke on Friday to Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has echoed Trump’s unfounded claims about voting irregularities.
"In their conversation, Graham questioned Raffensperger about the state’s signature-matching law and whether political bias could have prompted poll workers to accept ballots with nonmatching signatures, according to Raffensperger. Graham also asked whether Raffensperger had the power to toss all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of nonmatching signatures, Raffensperger said.
"Raffensperger said he was stunned that Graham appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Absent court intervention, Raffensperger doesn’t have the power to do what Graham suggested because counties administer elections in Georgia.
"“It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road,” Raffensperger said."
***
I would first point out, were he testifying in open court, that the statement: "Graham also asked whether Raffensperger had the power to toss all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of nonmatching signatures, Raffensperger said." may constitute hearsay, but I'll be generous and say that Raffensperger made his statement merely as evidence that the statement allegedly made by to Graham was made by Graham (the truth of that allegation being a matter for the trier of fact to determine), and not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, thus taking it out of hearsay territory.
Secondly, Raffensperger's statement: '"Raffensperger said he was stunned that Graham appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots." is altogether objectionable as the witness is drawing a conclusion as to the intended meaning of Graham's alleged statement. That statement is OUT!
Thirdly, I would point out that Raffensperger himself appeared unsure as to his own conclusion drawn from the statement he alleges Graham to have made, by virtue of his wording: "Raffensperger said he was stunned that Graham
appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots." So, he wasn't demanding nor requesting, but
suggesting?, and, even at that, he only APPEARED to suggest? That's about as conditional an allegation as I've ever seen!
Finally, "“It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road,” Raffensperger said.". Once again, a conclusory statement (objectionable and excludable), rendered in highly conditional wording.
***
Now, on to Senator Graham's response:
"In an interview on Capitol Hill on Monday evening, Graham denied that he had suggested that Raffensperger toss legal ballots, calling that characterization “ridiculous.”
"But he said he did seek out the secretary of state to understand the state’s signature-matching requirements. Graham said he contacted Raffensperger on his own and was not asked to do so by Trump.
"“The main issue for me is: How do you protect the integrity of mail-in voting, and how does signature verification work?” he said."
"“If he feels threatened by that conversation, he’s got a problem,” Graham added. “I actually thought it was a good conversation.”"
In other words, he's denying the very characterizations and conclusions which would be inadmissible in a court of law, and which Raffensperger himself couched in such conditional terms as to cast doubt on his own belief in his own conclusions.
***
Concerning the accuracy or veracity of Raffensperger's allegation of the content of Senator Graham's original statement, I would put the Senator himself on the stand and ask his account of what, precisely, he said during the conversation.