Hatred of our organization will get you nowhere. We are Q. We are here to stay
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
HA HA HA TRUMPTARD Lou Dobbs, Top Show on FOX FAKE NEWS, KENNA FIRED HA HA HA
- Thread starter Kraken
- Start date
Hatred of our organization will get you nowhere. We are Q. We are here to stay
Democrazy and WH and CH are stacked full of incompetent lawyers running down a country with lies and lawlessness....
When we are done destroying Amerika and Europe we QANON will infiltrate and sacrifice millions of ethnic Chinese, for the good of mankind.
Asia destruction is Phase II 2022-2024
So I hear Q has not been heard from since October. OUCH
So what's the plan? Or is there no plan ?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,745
- Points
- 113
So I hear Q has not been heard from since October. OUCH
So what's the plan? Or is there no plan ?
Our plan is to destroy the earth and replace all humans with angels. Resistance is futile. The world is sick and tired of decency and truth. It is the age of darkness, the world will be reborn.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,375
- Points
- 113
CNN's Ratings Collapse, but Only Newsmax Is Mentioned
(Graeme Sloan/AP)
By Newsmax Staff | Thursday, 11 March 2021 02:00 PM
Comment|
Print|
A A
Last night, CNN's Brian Stelter contacted us about "Newsmax's ratings declines for my CNN newsletter."
Stelter contacted Newsmax at 9 p.m. on Wednesday night and said he would give us just one hour to respond, meaning a 10 p.m. deadline.
Without Newsmax's response, CNN's Stelter email newsletter, headlined "Newsmax's rise and fall," noted that "Newsmax TV gained a lot of attention last fall when disaffected Fox News fans flocked to the channel en masse. ... Newsmax's Nielsen ratings are way off the post-election highs that I wrote about three and four months ago."
Stelter chalked up his "Newsmax is falling" story to his theory that "Newsmax is no longer getting a pro-Trump Big Lie ratings boost. Biden is a comparatively tame story."
As it turns out, Biden is also a very tame story for CNN as well, which has seen its own ratings collapse in recent weeks.
Early Wednesday morning Newsmax sent Stelter the following response: "Only CNN would do a story on Newsmax's drop in ratings when its own Nielsen total day impressions fell by 45% last week compared to the week after the election, and Brian Stelter's own 'Reliable Sources' show fell by 44% over the same period with, more recently, his show having lost nearly 1 million viewers since January of this year."
CNN's Stelter was contacted to comment on his network's ratings decline, but did not offer comment.
So, what's the real story for the ratings spin from CNN?
CNN and Stelter have been advocates of "deplatforming" the Newsmax channel, in a clear censorship effort to reduce competition, especially as their own ratings have fallen off a cliff.
Here's what the current Nielsen ratings really do show:
This fact has panicked not only CNN but Fox News, which has made dramatic changes in its lineup to counter Newsmax.
Meanwhile, Newsmax continues to take a huge portion of Fox's audience in the linear cable world as it crushes Fox in the OTT space, streaming as it does to more than 40 million U.S. homes not connected to cable TV.
And, since Election Day, more than 5 million people have downloaded the free Newsmax App on their smartphone.
The bottom line: Newsmax is here to stay. That's good news for Americans who desperately want fresh, independent voices, but bad news for establishment giants like Fox News and CNN.
For background, here's CNN's Nielsen ratings collapse data:
CNN — P2+ Impressions
Week of 11/9 M-F Total Day — 1.654 Million
Week of 3/1 M-F Total Day — 908,000
45% drop in audience
Week of 11/9 M-F Daytime — 1.855 Million
Week of 3/1 M-F Daytime — 1.059 Million
43% drop in audience
Average viewers Jan. '21 — 2.1 Million
Average viewers Feb. '21 — 1.1 Million
48% drop in audience
Brian Stelter's "Reliable Sources" — P2+ Impressions
11/8/2020 show delivered 2.088 Million
3/7/2021 show delivered 1.164 Million
44% drop in audience
First 3 weeks of January — 2.1 Million
Last 2 weeks — 1 million
52% drop in audience
Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Frontier Ch. 115, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, Mediacom Ch. 277, AT&T TV Ch 349, Sling, TVision, and Fubo or Find More Cable Systems – Click Here.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
(Graeme Sloan/AP)
By Newsmax Staff | Thursday, 11 March 2021 02:00 PM
Comment|
Print|
A A
Last night, CNN's Brian Stelter contacted us about "Newsmax's ratings declines for my CNN newsletter."
Stelter contacted Newsmax at 9 p.m. on Wednesday night and said he would give us just one hour to respond, meaning a 10 p.m. deadline.
Without Newsmax's response, CNN's Stelter email newsletter, headlined "Newsmax's rise and fall," noted that "Newsmax TV gained a lot of attention last fall when disaffected Fox News fans flocked to the channel en masse. ... Newsmax's Nielsen ratings are way off the post-election highs that I wrote about three and four months ago."
Stelter chalked up his "Newsmax is falling" story to his theory that "Newsmax is no longer getting a pro-Trump Big Lie ratings boost. Biden is a comparatively tame story."
As it turns out, Biden is also a very tame story for CNN as well, which has seen its own ratings collapse in recent weeks.
Early Wednesday morning Newsmax sent Stelter the following response: "Only CNN would do a story on Newsmax's drop in ratings when its own Nielsen total day impressions fell by 45% last week compared to the week after the election, and Brian Stelter's own 'Reliable Sources' show fell by 44% over the same period with, more recently, his show having lost nearly 1 million viewers since January of this year."
CNN's Stelter was contacted to comment on his network's ratings decline, but did not offer comment.
So, what's the real story for the ratings spin from CNN?
CNN and Stelter have been advocates of "deplatforming" the Newsmax channel, in a clear censorship effort to reduce competition, especially as their own ratings have fallen off a cliff.
Here's what the current Nielsen ratings really do show:
- Newsmax remains the #4 cable news channel in the United States.
- Newsmax remains a top 25 cable network for Total Day.
- Newsmax growth has accelerated over the past three quarters, up 24% in P2+ impression and up 23% in A35-64 viewers, from fourth quarter 2020 to first quarter 2021.
- Newsmax has seen double-digit P2+ ratings growth from fourth quarter 2020 to first quarter 2021, led by "Spicer & Co." (+39%), "Greg Kelly Reports" and "American Agenda" (+35%), "Rob Schmitt Tonight" (+31%), and "Stinchfield" (+24%).
This fact has panicked not only CNN but Fox News, which has made dramatic changes in its lineup to counter Newsmax.
Meanwhile, Newsmax continues to take a huge portion of Fox's audience in the linear cable world as it crushes Fox in the OTT space, streaming as it does to more than 40 million U.S. homes not connected to cable TV.
And, since Election Day, more than 5 million people have downloaded the free Newsmax App on their smartphone.
The bottom line: Newsmax is here to stay. That's good news for Americans who desperately want fresh, independent voices, but bad news for establishment giants like Fox News and CNN.
For background, here's CNN's Nielsen ratings collapse data:
CNN — P2+ Impressions
Week of 11/9 M-F Total Day — 1.654 Million
Week of 3/1 M-F Total Day — 908,000
45% drop in audience
Week of 11/9 M-F Daytime — 1.855 Million
Week of 3/1 M-F Daytime — 1.059 Million
43% drop in audience
Average viewers Jan. '21 — 2.1 Million
Average viewers Feb. '21 — 1.1 Million
48% drop in audience
Brian Stelter's "Reliable Sources" — P2+ Impressions
11/8/2020 show delivered 2.088 Million
3/7/2021 show delivered 1.164 Million
44% drop in audience
First 3 weeks of January — 2.1 Million
Last 2 weeks — 1 million
52% drop in audience
Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Frontier Ch. 115, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, Mediacom Ch. 277, AT&T TV Ch 349, Sling, TVision, and Fubo or Find More Cable Systems – Click Here.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,745
- Points
- 113
CNN's Ratings Collapse, but Only Newsmax Is Mentioned
(Graeme Sloan/AP)
By Newsmax Staff | Thursday, 11 March 2021 02:00 PM
Comment|
Print|
A A
Last night, CNN's Brian Stelter contacted us about "Newsmax's ratings declines for my CNN newsletter."
Stelter contacted Newsmax at 9 p.m. on Wednesday night and said he would give us just one hour to respond, meaning a 10 p.m. deadline.
Without Newsmax's response, CNN's Stelter email newsletter, headlined "Newsmax's rise and fall," noted that "Newsmax TV gained a lot of attention last fall when disaffected Fox News fans flocked to the channel en masse. ... Newsmax's Nielsen ratings are way off the post-election highs that I wrote about three and four months ago."
Stelter chalked up his "Newsmax is falling" story to his theory that "Newsmax is no longer getting a pro-Trump Big Lie ratings boost. Biden is a comparatively tame story."
As it turns out, Biden is also a very tame story for CNN as well, which has seen its own ratings collapse in recent weeks.
Early Wednesday morning Newsmax sent Stelter the following response: "Only CNN would do a story on Newsmax's drop in ratings when its own Nielsen total day impressions fell by 45% last week compared to the week after the election, and Brian Stelter's own 'Reliable Sources' show fell by 44% over the same period with, more recently, his show having lost nearly 1 million viewers since January of this year."
CNN's Stelter was contacted to comment on his network's ratings decline, but did not offer comment.
So, what's the real story for the ratings spin from CNN?
CNN and Stelter have been advocates of "deplatforming" the Newsmax channel, in a clear censorship effort to reduce competition, especially as their own ratings have fallen off a cliff.
Here's what the current Nielsen ratings really do show:
Over the past few months, Newsmax has had a sudden rise, catapulting the independent network as a top cable news player.
- Newsmax remains the #4 cable news channel in the United States.
- Newsmax remains a top 25 cable network for Total Day.
- Newsmax growth has accelerated over the past three quarters, up 24% in P2+ impression and up 23% in A35-64 viewers, from fourth quarter 2020 to first quarter 2021.
- Newsmax has seen double-digit P2+ ratings growth from fourth quarter 2020 to first quarter 2021, led by "Spicer & Co." (+39%), "Greg Kelly Reports" and "American Agenda" (+35%), "Rob Schmitt Tonight" (+31%), and "Stinchfield" (+24%).
This fact has panicked not only CNN but Fox News, which has made dramatic changes in its lineup to counter Newsmax.
Meanwhile, Newsmax continues to take a huge portion of Fox's audience in the linear cable world as it crushes Fox in the OTT space, streaming as it does to more than 40 million U.S. homes not connected to cable TV.
And, since Election Day, more than 5 million people have downloaded the free Newsmax App on their smartphone.
The bottom line: Newsmax is here to stay. That's good news for Americans who desperately want fresh, independent voices, but bad news for establishment giants like Fox News and CNN.
For background, here's CNN's Nielsen ratings collapse data:
CNN — P2+ Impressions
Week of 11/9 M-F Total Day — 1.654 Million
Week of 3/1 M-F Total Day — 908,000
45% drop in audience
Week of 11/9 M-F Daytime — 1.855 Million
Week of 3/1 M-F Daytime — 1.059 Million
43% drop in audience
Average viewers Jan. '21 — 2.1 Million
Average viewers Feb. '21 — 1.1 Million
48% drop in audience
Brian Stelter's "Reliable Sources" — P2+ Impressions
11/8/2020 show delivered 2.088 Million
3/7/2021 show delivered 1.164 Million
44% drop in audience
First 3 weeks of January — 2.1 Million
Last 2 weeks — 1 million
52% drop in audience
Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Frontier Ch. 115, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, Mediacom Ch. 277, AT&T TV Ch 349, Sling, TVision, and Fubo or Find More Cable Systems – Click Here.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Oh no this is the Newsmax Orangeman Lamestream Channel. Its like the China Daily CCP nonstop crap that does not even make sense.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,375
- Points
- 113
Funny that the lamestream media is keeping quiet about this.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,375
- Points
- 113
Washington Post correction tells a sordid tale of agenda-driven ‘journalism’
By Post Editorial Board
March 16, 2021 | 7:29pm | Updated
The Washington Post wrongly accused ex-president Donald Trump of telling a Georgia election official to "find the fraud" in the state's presidential voting.Al Drago / Pool via CNP /MediaPunch
“Democracy dies in darkness” has been The Washington Post’s oh-so-sanctimonious slogan these last four years, but what does promoting anonymous lies do for the republic?
The paper just had to run a correction that amounts to a huge retraction of its “scoop” last year about then-President Donald Trump supposedly telling a Georgia election official “find the fraud” in the state’s presidential voting so she could be “a national hero.” The actual audio file of that conversation has turned up, and it turns out he used no such words.
How the biased media weaves opinion into the news
Trump instead urged the official, who The Wall Street Journal identifies as Frances Watson, to conduct a thorough investigation of Fulton County votes out of concern that “something bad happened” to ballots from the area. He also said she was doing the “most important job in the country right now.” No threats, no assertion of certain fraud, no suggestion that she rig a recount or anything else nefarious.
Oddly, the correction appears online as a preface to the original story, yet the headline still accuses Trump of possible obstruction.
The paper originally relied on a single anonymous source for the tale, without letting readers know what (if anything) made that source credible. But the “news” so fit the anti-Trump biases of so many that it still spread everywhere, even becoming part of the “evidence” at Trump’s second impeachment.
Then again, Trump’s first two years in office were plagued by an investigation over supposed collusion with Russia in the 2016 election — a scandal created almost entirely by Washington Post and New York Times stories similarly based on anonymous sources, sources whose damning claims were utterly debunked by the Mueller investigation.
Prestige papers are supposed to be better than this, but now their standards go out the window if it serves their partisan agendas.
By Post Editorial Board
March 16, 2021 | 7:29pm | Updated
The Washington Post wrongly accused ex-president Donald Trump of telling a Georgia election official to "find the fraud" in the state's presidential voting.Al Drago / Pool via CNP /MediaPunch
“Democracy dies in darkness” has been The Washington Post’s oh-so-sanctimonious slogan these last four years, but what does promoting anonymous lies do for the republic?
The paper just had to run a correction that amounts to a huge retraction of its “scoop” last year about then-President Donald Trump supposedly telling a Georgia election official “find the fraud” in the state’s presidential voting so she could be “a national hero.” The actual audio file of that conversation has turned up, and it turns out he used no such words.
How the biased media weaves opinion into the news
Trump instead urged the official, who The Wall Street Journal identifies as Frances Watson, to conduct a thorough investigation of Fulton County votes out of concern that “something bad happened” to ballots from the area. He also said she was doing the “most important job in the country right now.” No threats, no assertion of certain fraud, no suggestion that she rig a recount or anything else nefarious.
Oddly, the correction appears online as a preface to the original story, yet the headline still accuses Trump of possible obstruction.
The paper originally relied on a single anonymous source for the tale, without letting readers know what (if anything) made that source credible. But the “news” so fit the anti-Trump biases of so many that it still spread everywhere, even becoming part of the “evidence” at Trump’s second impeachment.
Then again, Trump’s first two years in office were plagued by an investigation over supposed collusion with Russia in the 2016 election — a scandal created almost entirely by Washington Post and New York Times stories similarly based on anonymous sources, sources whose damning claims were utterly debunked by the Mueller investigation.
Prestige papers are supposed to be better than this, but now their standards go out the window if it serves their partisan agendas.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,375
- Points
- 113
Trump pressured a Georgia elections investigator in a separate call legal experts say could amount to obstruction
President Trump addressed the nation in a video posted to Twitter one day after his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. (Donald Trump/Twitter/Reuters)Correction
Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to “find the fraud” or say she would be “a national hero” if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find “dishonesty” there. He also told her that she had “the most important job in the country right now.” A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.
President Trump urged Georgia’s lead elections investigator to identify wrongdoing in the state’s vote in a December phone call, saying the official would be praised for doing so, according to an individual briefed on the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.
Trump placed the call to the investigations chief for the Georgia secretary of state’s office shortly before Christmas — while the individual was leading an inquiry into allegations of ballot fraud in Cobb County, in the suburbs of Atlanta, according to people familiar with the episode.
The president’s attempts to intervene in an ongoing investigation could amount to obstruction of justice or other criminal violations, legal experts said, though they cautioned a case could be difficult to prove.
AD
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had launched the inquiry following allegations that Cobb election officials had improperly accepted mail ballots with signatures that did not match those on file — claims that state officials ultimately concluded had no merit.
In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, Raffensperger confirmed that Trump had placed the Dec. 23 call. He said he was not familiar with the specifics of what the president said in the conversation with his chief investigator but said it was inappropriate for Trump to have tried to intervene in the case.
“That was an ongoing investigation,” Raffensperger said. “I don’t believe that an elected official should be involved in that process.”
AD
The Post is withholding the name of the investigator, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment, because of the risk of threats and harassment directed at election officials.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Since Election Day, Trump has made at least three calls to government officials in Georgia in an attempt to subvert President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, beginning with a conversation with Gov. Brian Kemp (R) in early December to berate him for certifying the state’s election results.
The president is furious with both Raffensperger and Kemp, who have refused to echo his claims that the election was rigged. He has complained that they betrayed him after he endorsed both of their 2018 elections. At a rally Wednesday in Washington, shortly before his supporters ransacked the Capitol, he attacked them personally onstage, calling the two men “corrupt.”
As Congress was set to certify Joe Biden’s victory, President Trump gave a speech filled with falsehoods. (Adriana Usero, Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)
Trump’s call to the chief investigator occurred more than a week before he spent an hour on the phone with Raffensperger, pushing him to overturn the vote. In that Jan. 2 conversation, the president alternately berated the secretary of state, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the fellow Republican refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that he was taking “a big risk.”
Legal experts said Trump’s call to the secretary of state may have broken state or federal laws that bar the solicitation of election fraud or prohibit participating in a conspiracy against people exercising their civil rights.
AD
Trump’s earlier call, to the chief investigator, could also carry serious criminal implications, according to several former prosecutors, who said that the president may have violated laws against bribery or interfering with an ongoing probe.
“Oh my God, of course that’s obstruction — any way you cut it,” said Nick Akerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and a onetime member of the Watergate prosecution team, responding to a description of Trump’s conversation with the investigator.
Akerman said he would be “shocked” if Trump didn’t commit a crime of obstruction under the Georgia statutes. He said the fact that the president took the time to identify the investigator, obtain a phone number and then call “shows that he’s trying to influence the outcome of what’s going on.”
AD
However, such cases can be difficult to prove, and legal experts said the decision to prosecute Trump — even after he leaves office — would be a politically fraught one.
Robert James, a former prosecutor in DeKalb County, Ga., said that proving obstruction would hinge on what Trump said and the tone he used, as well as whether the president’s intentions were clear.
Without the audio of the call, it would be more difficult to prove wrongdoing, he said. The later call with Raffensperger is more damning, he said, because of the power of the audio that was made public.
“He says, ‘Go find me some votes.’ That can clearly be interpreted as asking someone to break the law,” James said.
AD
In the wake of the Capitol siege by Trump supporters, Democratic House leaders said Friday that they were preparing articles of impeachment that they planned to vote on as early this coming week. While they were focused primarily on Trump’s role in inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol, an early draft circulated Friday also mentioned Trump’s call to Raffensperger as an example of “prior efforts to subvert and obstruct” the certification of the 2020 election.
Listen to the full Jan. 2 phone call. This audio has been edited to remove the name of an individual about whom the president makes unsubstantiated allegations. (Obtained by The Washington Post)
Raffensperger briefly mentioned Trump’s December call to the chief investigator in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” earlier this week. But the details of the conversation had not been previously reported.
On the call, Trump sounded much like he did while talking to Raffensperger, according to the person familiar with the discussion — meandering from flattery to frustration and back again.
AD
It was one in a series of personal interventions by Trump and his allies in Georgia since the November election. The president has obsessed about his defeat in the state and expressed disbelief to aides that he could have lost while other Republicans won.
It is unclear how the president tracked down the chief elections investigator. Before his Jan. 2 call to Raffensperger, Trump had tried to reach the secretary of state at least 18 times, but the calls were patched to interns in the press office who thought it was a prank and did not realize the president was on the line, as The Post previously reported. White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ultimately arranged the conference call among Trump, Raffensperger and their aides.
That conversation followed previous inquiries to state officials by Trump allies.
AD
In mid-November, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) contacted Raffensperger to inquire about whether entire counties’ mail ballots could be tossed if an audit found high rates of mismatched signatures in those jurisdictions.
Raffensperger told The Post at the time that Graham appeared to be suggesting that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Graham denied that, calling that characterization “ridiculous.”
Then in late December, Meadows traveled to Cobb County to see for himself how the ballot-signature audit was proceeding.
Meadows said he was not trying to interfere with the investigation but just wanted to “talk outside of the tweets,” Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, said at the time.
AD
Meadows was not allowed in the room where the audit was occurring, Fuchs said, but he was able to peer through the window of the door.
Trump called the chief investigator the following day.
Raffensperger announced the audit on Dec. 14, after allegations surfaced that ballots were accepted in Cobb County without proper verification of voter signatures on the envelopes.
No evidence has emerged of widespread signature-matching anomalies in Cobb or elsewhere in Georgia. Raffensperger ordered the audit, he said, because his office pursues all allegations of election irregularities.
“Conducting this audit does not in any way suggest that Cobb County was not properly following election procedures or properly conducting signature matching,” Chris Harvey, Raffensperger’s director of elections, said at the time. “We chose Cobb County for this audit because they are well known to have one of the best election offices in the state, and starting in Cobb will help us as we embark on a statewide signature audit.”
If large numbers of mismatched envelope signatures had been discovered, it would have been impossible to pair those envelopes with the ballots they contained, which are separated to protect voter privacy as required in the Georgia Constitution.
In the end, Raffensperger’s investigations team, working alongside the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, found just two nonmatching signatures among more than 15,000 examined during the audit in Cobb County. The audit concluded on Dec. 29, six days after the president called the chief investigator.
Trump was steaming about the outcome of the inquiry when he spoke to Raffensperger on Jan. 2.
“Why can’t we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don’t want to find anything?” the president said, according to audio obtained by The Post. “They don’t want to find, you know they don’t want to find anything. Someday you’ll tell me the reason why, because I don’t understand your reasoning, but someday you’ll tell me the reason why.”
Alice Crites, Paul Kane and Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.
Updated January 7, 2021
President Trump addressed the nation in a video posted to Twitter one day after his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. (Donald Trump/Twitter/Reuters)Correction
Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to “find the fraud” or say she would be “a national hero” if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find “dishonesty” there. He also told her that she had “the most important job in the country right now.” A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.
President Trump urged Georgia’s lead elections investigator to identify wrongdoing in the state’s vote in a December phone call, saying the official would be praised for doing so, according to an individual briefed on the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.
Trump placed the call to the investigations chief for the Georgia secretary of state’s office shortly before Christmas — while the individual was leading an inquiry into allegations of ballot fraud in Cobb County, in the suburbs of Atlanta, according to people familiar with the episode.
The president’s attempts to intervene in an ongoing investigation could amount to obstruction of justice or other criminal violations, legal experts said, though they cautioned a case could be difficult to prove.
AD
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had launched the inquiry following allegations that Cobb election officials had improperly accepted mail ballots with signatures that did not match those on file — claims that state officials ultimately concluded had no merit.
In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, Raffensperger confirmed that Trump had placed the Dec. 23 call. He said he was not familiar with the specifics of what the president said in the conversation with his chief investigator but said it was inappropriate for Trump to have tried to intervene in the case.
“That was an ongoing investigation,” Raffensperger said. “I don’t believe that an elected official should be involved in that process.”
AD
The Post is withholding the name of the investigator, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment, because of the risk of threats and harassment directed at election officials.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Since Election Day, Trump has made at least three calls to government officials in Georgia in an attempt to subvert President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, beginning with a conversation with Gov. Brian Kemp (R) in early December to berate him for certifying the state’s election results.
The president is furious with both Raffensperger and Kemp, who have refused to echo his claims that the election was rigged. He has complained that they betrayed him after he endorsed both of their 2018 elections. At a rally Wednesday in Washington, shortly before his supporters ransacked the Capitol, he attacked them personally onstage, calling the two men “corrupt.”
As Congress was set to certify Joe Biden’s victory, President Trump gave a speech filled with falsehoods. (Adriana Usero, Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)
Trump’s call to the chief investigator occurred more than a week before he spent an hour on the phone with Raffensperger, pushing him to overturn the vote. In that Jan. 2 conversation, the president alternately berated the secretary of state, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the fellow Republican refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that he was taking “a big risk.”
Legal experts said Trump’s call to the secretary of state may have broken state or federal laws that bar the solicitation of election fraud or prohibit participating in a conspiracy against people exercising their civil rights.
AD
Trump’s earlier call, to the chief investigator, could also carry serious criminal implications, according to several former prosecutors, who said that the president may have violated laws against bribery or interfering with an ongoing probe.
“Oh my God, of course that’s obstruction — any way you cut it,” said Nick Akerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and a onetime member of the Watergate prosecution team, responding to a description of Trump’s conversation with the investigator.
Akerman said he would be “shocked” if Trump didn’t commit a crime of obstruction under the Georgia statutes. He said the fact that the president took the time to identify the investigator, obtain a phone number and then call “shows that he’s trying to influence the outcome of what’s going on.”
AD
However, such cases can be difficult to prove, and legal experts said the decision to prosecute Trump — even after he leaves office — would be a politically fraught one.
Robert James, a former prosecutor in DeKalb County, Ga., said that proving obstruction would hinge on what Trump said and the tone he used, as well as whether the president’s intentions were clear.
Without the audio of the call, it would be more difficult to prove wrongdoing, he said. The later call with Raffensperger is more damning, he said, because of the power of the audio that was made public.
“He says, ‘Go find me some votes.’ That can clearly be interpreted as asking someone to break the law,” James said.
AD
In the wake of the Capitol siege by Trump supporters, Democratic House leaders said Friday that they were preparing articles of impeachment that they planned to vote on as early this coming week. While they were focused primarily on Trump’s role in inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol, an early draft circulated Friday also mentioned Trump’s call to Raffensperger as an example of “prior efforts to subvert and obstruct” the certification of the 2020 election.
Listen to the full Jan. 2 phone call. This audio has been edited to remove the name of an individual about whom the president makes unsubstantiated allegations. (Obtained by The Washington Post)
Raffensperger briefly mentioned Trump’s December call to the chief investigator in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” earlier this week. But the details of the conversation had not been previously reported.
On the call, Trump sounded much like he did while talking to Raffensperger, according to the person familiar with the discussion — meandering from flattery to frustration and back again.
AD
It was one in a series of personal interventions by Trump and his allies in Georgia since the November election. The president has obsessed about his defeat in the state and expressed disbelief to aides that he could have lost while other Republicans won.
It is unclear how the president tracked down the chief elections investigator. Before his Jan. 2 call to Raffensperger, Trump had tried to reach the secretary of state at least 18 times, but the calls were patched to interns in the press office who thought it was a prank and did not realize the president was on the line, as The Post previously reported. White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ultimately arranged the conference call among Trump, Raffensperger and their aides.
That conversation followed previous inquiries to state officials by Trump allies.
AD
In mid-November, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) contacted Raffensperger to inquire about whether entire counties’ mail ballots could be tossed if an audit found high rates of mismatched signatures in those jurisdictions.
Raffensperger told The Post at the time that Graham appeared to be suggesting that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Graham denied that, calling that characterization “ridiculous.”
Then in late December, Meadows traveled to Cobb County to see for himself how the ballot-signature audit was proceeding.
Meadows said he was not trying to interfere with the investigation but just wanted to “talk outside of the tweets,” Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, said at the time.
AD
Meadows was not allowed in the room where the audit was occurring, Fuchs said, but he was able to peer through the window of the door.
Trump called the chief investigator the following day.
Raffensperger announced the audit on Dec. 14, after allegations surfaced that ballots were accepted in Cobb County without proper verification of voter signatures on the envelopes.
No evidence has emerged of widespread signature-matching anomalies in Cobb or elsewhere in Georgia. Raffensperger ordered the audit, he said, because his office pursues all allegations of election irregularities.
“Conducting this audit does not in any way suggest that Cobb County was not properly following election procedures or properly conducting signature matching,” Chris Harvey, Raffensperger’s director of elections, said at the time. “We chose Cobb County for this audit because they are well known to have one of the best election offices in the state, and starting in Cobb will help us as we embark on a statewide signature audit.”
If large numbers of mismatched envelope signatures had been discovered, it would have been impossible to pair those envelopes with the ballots they contained, which are separated to protect voter privacy as required in the Georgia Constitution.
In the end, Raffensperger’s investigations team, working alongside the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, found just two nonmatching signatures among more than 15,000 examined during the audit in Cobb County. The audit concluded on Dec. 29, six days after the president called the chief investigator.
Trump was steaming about the outcome of the inquiry when he spoke to Raffensperger on Jan. 2.
“Why can’t we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don’t want to find anything?” the president said, according to audio obtained by The Post. “They don’t want to find, you know they don’t want to find anything. Someday you’ll tell me the reason why, because I don’t understand your reasoning, but someday you’ll tell me the reason why.”
Alice Crites, Paul Kane and Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.
Updated January 7, 2021
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,375
- Points
- 113
Opinion | The Post publishes correction on Trump call with Georgia investigator
Former president Donald Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando in February. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In both cases, the quotes were wrong, as The Post has acknowledged in a correction to the story. “Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find ‘dishonesty’ there. He also told her that she had ‘the most important job in the country right now,’” reads the correction, in part.
The story landed on top of a tumult with little equal in modern memory: Since Nov. 3, 2020, Trump and his allies have attempted to convince his supporters that Joe Biden stole the election. That lie provided the rhetorical impetus for Trump supporters to storm the Capitol in January just as Congress was taking up the electoral college results.
AD
Evidence of Trump’s improper actions regarding those results piled up before and after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Here’s the timeline: On Jan. 2, Trump took part in a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, pressuring him to “‘find’ enough votes to overturn his defeat.” The next day, Post reporter Amy Gardner surfaced a recording of that call. Then, on Jan. 9, Gardner broke the now-corrected story of Trump’s call with Watson, which had taken place on Dec. 23. Tracking the phone history of a malfeasant president is a big job.
In a time of much overblown chatter about election irregularities, this call between the president of the United States and a state-level investigator was the real irregularity. “That was an ongoing investigation,” Raffensperger told The Post at the time. “I don’t believe that an elected official should be involved in that process.”
The call happened; it was an abuse of presidential authority; and it failed to corrupt the investigators working under Raffensperger. But Trump wasn’t quite the plain-spoken rogue depicted in The Post’s story. We know this because the Wall Street Journal’s Cameron McWhirter last week published a recording of Trump’s six-minute call with Watson.
AD
On the recording, there was no “find the fraud.” But there was this: “If you can get to Fulton, you are going to find things that are going to be unbelievable — the dishonesty,” said Trump.
There was no “national hero.” But there was this: “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised. … People will say, ‘Great.’ Because that’s what it’s about — that ability to check and to make it right,” Trump told Watson.
The Post’s account of the call rested on one source — “an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.” Though that source wasn’t identified in the Jan. 9 story, The Post did identify her in its follow-up based on the Wall Street Journal scoop: “The Washington Post reported on the substance of Trump’s Dec. 23 call in January, describing him saying that Watson should ‘find the fraud’ and that she would be a ‘national hero,’ based on an account from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whom Watson briefed on his comments.”
AD
In an interview with the Erik Wemple Blog, Fuchs said, “I believe the story accurately reflected the investigator’s interpretation of the call. The only mistake here was in the direct quotes, and they should have been more of a summary.” Fuchs said that The Post disclosed her role in the story with her permission, and that she’d gotten the debriefing from the investigator — a direct report of hers — “shortly” after the call from Trump concluded.
“I think it’s pretty absurd for anybody to suggest that the president wasn’t urging the investigator to ‘find the fraud,’” Fuchs added, “These are quotes that [Watson] told me at the time.”
The New York Times quickly matched The Post’s reporting, including the inaccurate quotes. It added a correction on Monday. CNN has appended this editor’s note to its story: “An earlier version of this story, published January 9, presented paraphrasing of the President’s comments to the Georgia elections investigator as direct quotes. The story has been updated following the discovery of an audio recording of the call.” ABC News dealt with the issue via an editor’s note.
AD
We asked The Post about claims that the newspaper’s action amounts to a retraction and about its reliance on one source for the quotes. In a statement, The Post responded:
Read more from Erik Wemple:
Former president Donald Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando in February. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In both cases, the quotes were wrong, as The Post has acknowledged in a correction to the story. “Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find ‘dishonesty’ there. He also told her that she had ‘the most important job in the country right now,’” reads the correction, in part.
The story landed on top of a tumult with little equal in modern memory: Since Nov. 3, 2020, Trump and his allies have attempted to convince his supporters that Joe Biden stole the election. That lie provided the rhetorical impetus for Trump supporters to storm the Capitol in January just as Congress was taking up the electoral college results.
AD
Evidence of Trump’s improper actions regarding those results piled up before and after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Here’s the timeline: On Jan. 2, Trump took part in a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, pressuring him to “‘find’ enough votes to overturn his defeat.” The next day, Post reporter Amy Gardner surfaced a recording of that call. Then, on Jan. 9, Gardner broke the now-corrected story of Trump’s call with Watson, which had taken place on Dec. 23. Tracking the phone history of a malfeasant president is a big job.
In a time of much overblown chatter about election irregularities, this call between the president of the United States and a state-level investigator was the real irregularity. “That was an ongoing investigation,” Raffensperger told The Post at the time. “I don’t believe that an elected official should be involved in that process.”
The call happened; it was an abuse of presidential authority; and it failed to corrupt the investigators working under Raffensperger. But Trump wasn’t quite the plain-spoken rogue depicted in The Post’s story. We know this because the Wall Street Journal’s Cameron McWhirter last week published a recording of Trump’s six-minute call with Watson.
AD
On the recording, there was no “find the fraud.” But there was this: “If you can get to Fulton, you are going to find things that are going to be unbelievable — the dishonesty,” said Trump.
There was no “national hero.” But there was this: “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised. … People will say, ‘Great.’ Because that’s what it’s about — that ability to check and to make it right,” Trump told Watson.
The Post’s account of the call rested on one source — “an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.” Though that source wasn’t identified in the Jan. 9 story, The Post did identify her in its follow-up based on the Wall Street Journal scoop: “The Washington Post reported on the substance of Trump’s Dec. 23 call in January, describing him saying that Watson should ‘find the fraud’ and that she would be a ‘national hero,’ based on an account from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whom Watson briefed on his comments.”
AD
In an interview with the Erik Wemple Blog, Fuchs said, “I believe the story accurately reflected the investigator’s interpretation of the call. The only mistake here was in the direct quotes, and they should have been more of a summary.” Fuchs said that The Post disclosed her role in the story with her permission, and that she’d gotten the debriefing from the investigator — a direct report of hers — “shortly” after the call from Trump concluded.
“I think it’s pretty absurd for anybody to suggest that the president wasn’t urging the investigator to ‘find the fraud,’” Fuchs added, “These are quotes that [Watson] told me at the time.”
The New York Times quickly matched The Post’s reporting, including the inaccurate quotes. It added a correction on Monday. CNN has appended this editor’s note to its story: “An earlier version of this story, published January 9, presented paraphrasing of the President’s comments to the Georgia elections investigator as direct quotes. The story has been updated following the discovery of an audio recording of the call.” ABC News dealt with the issue via an editor’s note.
AD
We asked The Post about claims that the newspaper’s action amounts to a retraction and about its reliance on one source for the quotes. In a statement, The Post responded:
That, it did. Misreporting the words of the highest elected official in the land is a serious lapse — and one that, in this case, seems so unnecessary: The existence of the call itself is a towering exclusive. When it comes to phone calls, the only good sources are the ones who are dialed in. The former president’s partisans will attempt to memorialize The Post’s story as a fabrication or “fake news.” But a central fact remains: As the Journal’s recording attests, Trump behaved with all the crooked intent and suggestion that he brought to every other crisis of his presidency.
Read more from Erik Wemple:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,375
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2020
- Messages
- 700
- Points
- 43
tiong all say they very angry their candidate trump lost erection what
Similar threads
