Donald Trump warned Brad Raffensperger that “it’s very dangerous” disputing his claims that there was fraud involved in the 2020 Georgia election results.

One might ask “why would it be dangerous?

I mean, in the normal course of events in American politics, if one were involved with a dispute over election results one might expect to be hauled into court to present your case and await a judge’s decision. If you are on the losing side of that decision, where’s the danger in that, what, is the judge gonna fly down from his perch and beat you about the head with his gavel?

Generally, no.

Knowing that not to be the case, Raffensperger understood Don Cornholeone’s words as a threat.

“I watched you this morning, and you said there was no criminality,” Trump told Raffensperger, referring to a news conference in which the secretary of state had reiterated that no widespread voter fraud or other irregularities had occurred in Georgia. “All of this stuff is very dangerous stuff, when you talk about no criminality. I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.”

And so would I.

And we would be right.

“After the election, my email, my cellphone was doxxed, and so I was getting texts [from] all over the country. And then eventually my wife started getting texts. Hers typically came in sexualized texts, which were disgusting,” Raffensperger said during the House Jan. 6 committee’s fourth public hearing, which focused on threats against state and local election officials in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.

The only question I have here is: did the Dumpy Don know that merely his incessant whining on social media about how that big meanie Raffensperger was giving him swirlies would be enough to set his brown shirts into a disgusting text messaging frenzy, or did he direct someone in his crew to make sure the Georgia Secretary of State understood his message?

I sure wish our Attorney General would get his ass back from Ukraine and set his boys in the FBI to finding out.

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. “I sure wish our Attorney General would get his ass back from Ukraine and set his boys in the FBI to finding out.”

    Right. Because YOU have all sorts of inside knowledge of what the Attorney General is doing or has already done.

    Give us all a break, Dino, and stop spewing insane theories. Seriously, how do you know that Garland hadn’t already put some FBI people on the job even before Raffensperger’s public testimony? If Raffensperger was as upset about the threats as he appears to be here, then don’t you think he would’ve already reported this stuff to the proper authorities, including the FBI?

    And, for what it’s worth, a GOOD Attorney General can actually make use of modern technology and contact his subordinates from ANYWHERE in the world and put them to work. Unlike a governor whose state is experiencing a natural disaster and should, at the very least, make some sort of public comment on developments while he’s out of state, acknowledging that he’s being kept apprised of the situation, the AG is rarely in a situation where he needs to keep the public apprised of what he’s doing at every turn.

    • The Attorney General is The Chief law enforcement officer of the United States and is responsible for enforcing the laws thereof. We have many capable career officials in State and Defense that can coordinate with Ukraine to make sure international law is being defended.

    • Yes, a good A.G. can make use of modern tech. So what is stopping Garland? Seems like walking and chewing gum at the same time is not his strong suit.

      At a time like this, when the J-6 hearings are going full bore, the A.G. of the U.S. probably ought to be tending to the insurrection/attempted overthrow of our nation instead of holding Ukraine’s hand. As you say, a good A.G. can make use of things like….phones. Seems like he could call this one in to Ukraine.

      Yes, Greg “Noah was 600 years old when he built the ark and he didn’t have Social Security” Gianforte should be in South Central Montana. Not that he’d be any help but folks might think he actually gave a sh*t. I suspect he received advice from Cancun Cruz. He’s not a bright man you know. Not when he says things about S.S. in public as he did.

  2. And how exactly does anyone know whether or not the evnts in question are being investigated?

    You don’t expect the army Chief of Staff to run a battalion or a company himself – that’s why he has deputies and subordinates who do the job and report back.

    There aren’t enough hours in a year for any one person to do every single job in a government department and the actual location of the boss is irrelevant to any ongoing investigation

  3. Exactly. Garland is neither Bill Barr nor James Comey – and thank God for that! “In deafening silence” is how DOJ investigations are supposed to be conducted, and it about tie that they are.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here