I believe that releasing that data would be in contravention of GA state law.
> It was a Settlement Call,
That is a lie. If it were a settlement call, there should have been lawyers from all parties involved. All of the live cases in Georgia regarding the election have Marc Elias present as co-intervenor, and that he was not on the call means that it cannot legally be a settlement call: https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1345887358101688320
> The participation of counsel for Plaintiff in that call appears to be in violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2, as Plaintiff’s counsel neither notified litigation counsel for Defendant Raffensperger nor sought nor obtained consent to conduct or participate in a conversation with Defendant Raffensperger.
Marc Elias says it can't be a settlement call because he would have to be on it, and as someone who is actually involved in the case, that is pretty strong evidence that requires more than a random youtube video by someone who I know absolutely nothing about.
Also, by the way, from the actual call, it appears that Trump is committing a crime on the call, by attempting to get a government official to break the law. (There is an active investigation in Georgia on this matter, I believe). I believe that doing so violates any claims to attorney-client privilege, which would remove any illegality from leaking this call even were it a settlement call (which I do not concede that it is).
> Also, by the way, from the actual call, it appears that Trump is committing a crime on the call, by attempting to get a government official to break the law
I don't think you've listened to the full call. It's an hour long and I have. If you had, you would have noted Georgia officials said there was no issue with ballots of dead people cast (they said this was legal) and the context of the 4 minute clip is totally wrong.
Directly from the transcript of the call -
Brad Raffensperger: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. We talked to the congressmen and they were surprised. But they -- I guess, there's a person named Mr. Brainard that came to these meetings and presented data and he said that there was dead people. I believe it was upward of 5,000. The actual numbers were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. And so that's wrong. That was two.
It does present a compelling argument that really needs to be addressed sooner than later, however. The margins of the questionable statistics presented are well beyond the margin of victory.