Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcranmer | Hacker News Reader

In my ranking of authorities to trust, I will trust a lawyer involved with the actual underlying litigation over a random internet person, even if the latter is also a lawyer.

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).

View on HN

This is Robert Barnes, a distinguished civil rights lawyer, who has taken on several Federal Cases, and is currently on the Trump legal team and in a Federal building with other Republican lawyers yesterday and has met with Trump personally. He's not some random lawyer. He's got a distinguished career and has earned my respect.

> 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.

You lie again...

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.

Fine, but regardless of that ... it was still a confidential settlement call protected by attorney client privilege.

Once again, no: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25682225

If he's discussing Matt Braynard's data, that data doesn't have strong indications of dead people voting being an issue.

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.

You're right, but dial it back with the "you lie" stuff?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com