On Friday, attorneys for Harrison Floyd as well as counsel for the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office and Fulton County convened for a hearing over a Motion to Quash subpoenas submitted by the defense. It was also, coincidentally, the three-year anniversary of “the most secure” election “in American History”, according to then-CISA Director Christopher Krebs and harped by mainstream Mockingbird outlets.
Floyd was one of the individuals indicted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis back in August and, notably, the only individual who was initially denied bond and kept at the Fulton County Prison, where 15 people died in 2022 alone. Floyd, the former leader of Black Voices for Trump, was on a phone discussion with Trevian Kutti, who was also indicted in the RICO case, while they talked with a poll-worker at a Cobb County police station at the poll-worker’s request.
Friday’s hearing dealt with three motions to quash subpoenas issued by Floyd’s attorneys requesting documents and evidence they deem relevant to the case. In the hearing, we first heard arguments from the Georgia Secretary of State’s counsel. He argued that the Secretary of State’s office had complied with “two specific categories going to State Farm arena and the poll worker at issue.” There was another category of which they claimed they didn’t have responsive records.
Counsel then claimed that the remaining requests “essentially asked for everything about the 2020 election.” He argued that the requests were “unspecific, mostly not relevant, and super burdensome on the Office.” He argued that the documents are not relevant to intent because:
“[with] intent, state of mind is addressed as of the moment of the act that gives rise to the alleged wrong. It’s not retroactive. The example being homicide and self-defense, what matters is what’s in the actor’s head at the moment the trigger is pulled, not later when he or she may learn that the person they shot had a knife, had some mental illness that was otherwise a danger.“
The analogy doesn’t make any reference to Floyd’s preconceptions about the validity of the election. A more accurate analogy would be that the actor strongly believed the person they shot “had a knife” (which is perfectly legal in Georgia, a constitutional carry state, but we’ll pretend “having a knife” is a crime for the sake of the attorney’s argument) and only later confirmed they had a knife. The “believed they had a knife” part was missing from the comparison. Floyd believed the election was stolen, tried to investigate, and now believes there is evidence their preconceptions were possibly correct.
Secretary of State counsel then went on to distinguish between themselves as a separate State agency from the District Attorney’s Office, and therefore not subject to Brady rules and exculpatory evidence:
Judge Scott McAfee then asked Floyd’s counsel:
“If, lets say there’s some smoking gun locked away in a vault in the Secretary of State’s Office, and Mr. Floyd had no idea had ever existed during the entire timeframe of this alleged enterprise, how is that relevant?”
“I focused on Count 1 for the concept of relevance because in that count, we have…numerous references to the election being lost by Donald Trump. In fact, in the introduction, the State says that not only did Trump lose Georgia, but he and the other defendants charged refused to accept that Trump lost.
What happens if we show that Trump won?“
And the attorney does have a point. In the criminal indictment filed by Fani Willis, it mentions:
•17 times that President Trump lost the 2020 election including in Georgia and
• 49 times that the defendants engaged “knowingly” and “willfully” in various
activities to overturn the 2020 election when they allegedly knew their statements
about the election results were false;
• 113 times that there were attempts to “unlawfully” change the outcome of the
election, including in Georgia;
• 145 times that the defendants sought to put the November 3, 2020 election results
at issue with the implication that the results cannot be questioned; and
• 182 times that the RICO defendants engaged in “false statements” concerning
“fraud” in and about the November 2020 elections
If President Trump did in fact win Georgia, and they can prove it, it would be the easiest avenue to victory for those indicted in this politicized persecution.
Lastly, Fulton County’s counsel argued that producing the records would be a burdensome task that could take “months” to fulfill. Further, he alleged that the ballots would expose personally identifiable information such as names and birthdates, drivers license numbers, and even some social security numbers. Defendant’s counsel rebutted that they did not want any personally identifiable information and they were only interested in “the count.” It’s also mentioned that the personal information is only on certain election records, and not the ballots themselves that were among the requested items.
But another important claim surfaced during the defense’s response. It’s something The Gateway Pundit has reported on numerous times, most recently in my four-part series on Fulton County’s handling of the 2020 election: Fulton County has a “major discrepancy…the reason they don’t want to turn [records] over is because, I submit, that a lot of the stuff we’ve asked for, they simply don’t have. And they don’t want to tell you. At all. Because for obvious reasons, it impacts the certification of the election itself.”
Fulton County has actually already admitted that they did not properly preserve the majority of in-person ballots from the Nov 3 election in a Requests for Admissions in the Curling v. Raffensperger federal case.
In the Opposition to the Motion to Quash subpoenas submitted by Floyd’s legal team, they reference many of the issues The Gateway Pundit reported on in the above-mentioned series. This includes a total of “more than 41,079 presidential votes [that] should have been excluded from the final Fulton County vote tally because they were not and cannot be reconciled or properly validated as legitimate votes.”
It also cites a brief submitted by expert witness Professor Philip Stark of UC Berkley and the inventor of the risk-limiting audit. Prof. Stark refers to “the loss of hundreds of thousands of image files from the first machine count and of nearly 18,000 images from the second machine count” as “hard to fathom.”
The Motion (below) was 80 pages total, however, the first 13 pages are the actual motion followed by 65 pages of supporting documents.
The hearing in its entirety: