Categories
Entertainment USA

Dave Grohl & Foo Fighters Slay Performance Of ‘Times Like These’ At Celebrating America Concert — Watch

Taking it old school! The Foo Fighters had Twitter on fire after their epic performance of this 2002 tune at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ historic inauguration.

Dave Grohl, 52, and the Foo Fighters are icons for a reason! The Seattle-based rock band took the stage at President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris‘ inauguration on Wednesday, Jan. 20 with their 2002 song “Times Like These” — and it was everything. “This song holds a place for someone very special in my heart,” Dave explained on-camera at the top of the virtual performance — revealing that it was his mother Virginia Grohl, who was a school teacher for 35 years.

“Like Mackenzie and Dr. Jill Biden, she was also a mentor to her students — remembered long after their graduation,” he said. “This year, our teachers were faced with unprecedented challenges. But through dedication and creativity they faced those challenges head on. This song is for Mackenzie and all of our unshakeable teachers that continue to enlighten our nation’s kids every day. This is called, ‘Times Like These’,” he ended his opening speech before beginning the song. The performance aired during the primetime special “Celebrating America.”

“I, I’m a one way motorway/I’m the one that drives away/Then follows you back home/I, I’m a street light shining,” he sung, getting to the title lyrics. “It’s times like these you learn to live again/It’s times like these you give and give again,” he poignantly added. The performance started off quiet and somber before the Dave and the group rocked out, celebrating the historic day.

“Dave Grohl singing Times Like These is by far the perfect song for the U.S. and world right now. Let’s come together and fix this country and world together, side-by-side. Let’s heal together. Globe with meridians,” one user wrote on Twitter, as others chimed in about the performance. “Not gonna lie – Dave Grohl shouting out teachers before ripping into Times Like These kinda made my day,” another added, as a third dubbed Dave a legend. “Dave Grohl is a rock & roll legend & ‘Times like these’ is the perfect tune. #BidenHarris,” they posted.

The performance aired during the primetime special “Celebrating America,” which also included Jennifer Lopez, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, Bruce Springsteen and more. As for the Foo Fighters, the group are set to release their album their upcoming album Medicine At Midnight on Feb. 5. So far, three songs are available for streaming off of the anticipated project: “Shame, Shame” which debuted on Saturday Night Live in November, “No Son of Mine” and “Waiting on a War.”

Categories
Canada

Close schools in times of Covid? Only as a last resort says WHO

The debate on whether or not to open schools is raging and fueled by the emergence of variants of the novel coronavirus, the effect of which on children is still poorly understood. The WHO continues to recommend doing everything possible to avoid massive closures.

• Read also: All developments in the COVID-19 pandemic

Here are the main conclusions of the World Health Organization in a chapter of its weekly epidemiological report released on Wednesday devoted to lessons learned from a year of pandemic in education.

When to close schools?

“School closures must be a last resort, they must be temporary and only at a local level in areas of intense transmission” of the virus, underlines the WHO, in unison with Unesco and Unicef, with regard to the impact on schoolchildren, in particular the most disadvantaged or the most vulnerable and fragile.

In addition, “several studies have shown that reopening schools did not correspond to significant increases in transmission in the community or to peaks in infection.”

“The evidence for the usefulness of closing schools to reduce transmission within the community is mixed,” notes the agency, while stressing that the discovery at the end of the year of new, more contagious variants “demands more. analyzes by sex and by age to measure if and how the impact of these new variants on children could differ ”from that of the original strain.

“If children are found to be more affected, public health measures may need to be adjusted,” WHO recommends.

Are schools hotbeds of infection?

“Schools do not turn out to be hotbeds of super spread except in a few cases where protective measures have not been well implemented,” notes the WHO.

For her, the rate of transmission in the community is reflected in school. “When transmission in the community is low and the appropriate prevention measures are taken, children and schools are unlikely to be at the forefront of transmission,” the agency notes.

But conversely when infections increase “as has been the case over the past three months, prevention and protection measures are crucial to prevent transmission.”

Schools must also participate very actively in measures for early detection and limitation of the spread (tests, warning of contact cases and quarantines), which are part of the arsenal recommended by the UN agency to try to curb the pandemic. .

The WHO notes that for all the cases of Covid declared in 2020, those under 18 represent 8% of cases while they are 29% of the world population, that children under 10 years of age “are less susceptible and less infectious than older children ”. She cites a Norwegian study showing a “very low” rate of child-to-child and child-to-adult transmission in schools serving 5-13 year olds and taking adequate sanitation measures.

Teenagers 16-18 years old transmit the virus as often as adults, according to the agency.

What risks for teachers?

The WHO is based on a study from the UK which shows that “school staff are at lower risk in school when compared to the general adult population.”

Another study in the United States of 57,000 nursery workers “shows that there is no increased risk of infection for workers.”

What measures to control infections?

To protect themselves, WHO asks schools to ensure they have good ventilation and hygiene practices (hand washing and cleaning surfaces).

The WHO recommends wearing a mask: children 12 years and over “should wear a mask on the same basis as adults” while teachers and school staff “should wear a mask when they cannot be sure to wear a mask. find at least 1 meter away in areas with high transmission rates ”.

Physical distancing must be ensured, for example, by limiting the number of students per class, avoiding mixing classes or even rotating them.

More restrictive measures may be necessary for older schoolchildren and in particular adolescents.

Categories
Christianity

What Are “Signs and Wonders” of the End Times?

Every Christian believes that the Lord Jesus’s return is imminent, meaning the return of the Lord Jesus could happen at any time and any moment. Paul calls this in Titus 2:13, “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Knowing the Lord could come back today causes some to stop what they are doing and only wait for Him. Yet, there is a difference between knowing Jesus could return today and knowing He will return today. In Matthew 24:36, Jesus says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” The timing of the Lord Jesus’ return is something the Lord has not revealed to anyone, so until He calls His own to Himself, they should continue to serve Him faithfully. 

The context of Matthew 24:24 finds itself in a section running from Matthew 24:1-25:46 discussing what is known as the Olivet Discourse, so named because Jesus “sat on the Mount of Olives” (Matthew 24:3) when He spoke these words. The Olivet Discourse is the fifth of Jesus’ five major discourses recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. Addressed to his disciples, the Olivet Discourse is intended to give them a prophetic overview of the events to transpire in both the near and distant future. 

What Are “Signs and Wonders”?

Matthew 24:5-8 gives us some important clues for discerning the approach of the end times. An increase in false messiahs, an increase in warfare, and increases in famines, plagues, and natural disasters—these are signs of the end times.

In this passage, though, we are given a warning: we are not to be deceived because these events are only the beginning of birth pains; the end is still to come. The last days are described as “perilous times” because of the increasingly evil character of man and people who actively “oppose the truth” (2 Timothy 3:1-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Photo credit: Unsplash/Austin Chan

How Can We Know Something Is a Sign?

As soon as Jesus returns to Israel’s territory, opposition from Jewish leaders resurfaces (Matthew 16:1 ESV). The Pharisees and Sadducees were rival groups of leaders, so this is an unusual grouping. Here they operate together for two reasons. First, they are the two main groups of the Sanhedrin, the ruling Jewish council (Acts 23:6). Second, they are united by a common opposition to Jesus. They think that the enemy of their enemy is their friend (Luke 23:12).

The leaders’ quest for a sign is misguided. Matthew hints that the request for a sign is insincere. Yet Jesus has already performed an abundance of signs, and they never believed. As soon as possible, Jesus leaves their territory again, to escape them (Matthew 16:4).

But before Jesus departs, he commends the Pharisees and Sadducees for their ability to read the signs of the weather: a red sky in the evening signified good weather; in the morning, a red sky, plus clouds, meant just the opposite. How sad, then, that they could read the weather but could not read the signs of great events taking place in their times (Matthew 16:2–3). As religious leaders, they, above all, should know that God had visited his people, had sent the long-expected Jesus. A wicked generation cannot read the signs. The proof that they cannot interpret the signs is that they immediately ask for a sign after Jesus gives a sign!

Their spiritual blindness keeps them from seeing Jesus. As long as they refuse to see Jesus, they remain blind (Luke 13:34–35). Jesus then compared himself to Jonah (Matt. 16:4). Jonah, you recall, did not perform signs; he was the sign. Thrown overboard into a raging sea, swallowed by a great fish, spat out on dry ground, then preaching to great effect to the Assyrians of Nineveh, the very life of Jonah was the sign. The mere presence of a Jewish prophet in a hostile city was a sign. So too with Jesus. The leaders do not need signs by Jesus; they need to see Jesus. His presence, his life, is God’s greatest sign, then and now.

The Jewish leaders needed to add faith to the words and deeds of Jesus (Heb. 4:2). Then they would see him. So it is to this day. The quest for signs is wise if we are willing to see and to believe. But we must be willing to discern God’s work. We must be willing to hear the voice of God and to understand the signs, the nature, of the times.

Seeing with a Dual Perspective

We must know our times, and we must know the times and their signs. Above all, we must know that Jesus both transcends all times and gave the most important signs of all time. His miracles—his signs—showed his compassion, his generosity, his love for all. In our time, let us be faithful to him personally and let us faithfully strive to convey his truth to our age.

Jesus knew that, “When will the world end?” often leads people into unwise and unhealthy speculation, so immediately he clarified what he was saying. His answer in Luke 21 addresses both the more immediate question of the destruction of the temple and the bigger question of the world’s end. This dual perspective was necessary because what Jesus said about the temple made people think about the final judgment, and Jesus wanted to put both events into their proper perspective. 

Studying Luke 21 is a little bit like wearing bifocals. The destruction of the temple is near at hand. Many of the prophecies in this chapter deal with specific events that happened before and during the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Yet, the end of the world is always in the background, and we continuously need to keep it in our gaze. The destruction of the temple is a portent of the final judgment; it is the beginning of the end. So Jesus extends the discussion from the destruction of the temple to the end of the world. Looking beyond his first coming to his second coming, he uses the messianic and apocalyptic language that the Old Testament prophets used when they talked about the great and terrible day of the Lord.

Here in Luke 21, the immediate historical context is the time leading up to and including Jerusalem’s fall. Thus the commands of Jesus apply most directly to the disciples who lived through those terrible days. However, the backdrop to that historical act of divine judgment is the judgment that is still to come. Therefore, the exhortations in Luke 21 also apply to us now and in the future as we face various trials and tribulations before the second coming of Jesus Christ.

man resting head on praying hands on open bible light streaming above holy spirit

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Javier Art Photography

Should We Be Looking for Signs of the End Times?

The disciples asked Jesus to explain whether we should look for signs or not (Matthew 24:3). We must understand this inquiry correctly. “When will this happen?” means “When will Jerusalem fall and the temple be destroyed?” The disciples thought they were asking one question; the fall of Jerusalem, the coming of Christ, and the end of the age were essentially one event in their minds.

Whatever the disciples intended, Jesus heard and answered two questions, one at a time. The first part of his reply predicts events that will take place in “this generation” (Matthew 24:34), that is, within forty years—the lifetime of the disciples. Jesus’ purpose for this element of his reply is practical. He wants the disciples to be prepared—rather than shocked or alarmed—for the troubles, they will see in their generation. Those troubles are not signs of the end; therefore, the disciples must be ready to “stand firm to the end” in hard times (Matthew 24:13; cf. 24:6, 8).

Jesus begins his reply with a warning: “Watch out that no one deceives you” (24:4). During their days, there will be events that look like the final cataclysm, but there will be no mistake then. When Jesus returns, all the nations will see him, for he will come with angels and trumpets, power and glory.

The disciples do need to watch for signs of the fall of Jerusalem. That sequence will be necessary. We notice that the word “then” starts to appear: Then you will face persecution (24:9). Then many will renounce the faith (24:10). Then, when Jerusalem is attacked, the disciples should “flee to the mountains” (24:16).

In Matthew 24:36, Jesus begins to answer the second question and answers it. “That day” is commonly a technical term, roughly like the term “the Super Bowl” in American football. Similarly, the people of Israel knew “that day” meant the last day, the judgment day (Matt. 7:22; Luke 10:12; 2 Tim. 4:8). “That day” is the last day, the end of the world as we know it.

To interpret Matthew 24 correctly, we must ascertain where Jesus stops answering the first question and starts answering the second. Jesus finishes answering the question about the destruction of the temple at 24:34–36. Jesus’ prophecy of troubles in his generation has all the authority of God and his word. It would be easier for the universe to disintegrate than for Jesus’ prophecy to fail; “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (24:35). 

All that Jesus foretold did occur—at least provisionally—within a generation. The switch to the last day occurs in 24:36, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” So then, Jesus promised that certain things would happen in that generation, and they did happen in that generation.

Nonetheless, as often happens with prophecies, some of Jesus’ prophecies point beyond his generation. Prophecy often has a double fulfillment. Jesus’ word was fulfilled in his generation, as he said. He staked his reputation on it, yet there was more to come.

Notice that the disciples ask questions about timing. They want to know, “When will these things be?” They want to know what sign signifies that the end is near. But Jesus does not reply with a when—a set of dates or signs—but with a what and a how. He tells us what sorts of things are coming and how to prepare for them. In that way, he prepares us to stand firm in the storm and to stand ready to meet him when he returns.

Awaiting His Return

In 2 Timothy 4:8, Paul is facing his impending execution with joy, knowing that “a crown of righteousness” awaits him in the presence of the Lord. Now he is not referring here to being saved by good works but only by the righteousness of Jesus (Galatians 2:15-16). Once a person has been justified by faith alone, they will do good works that the Lord will reward in the life to come, although such works do not earn anyone a place in the kingdom of heaven. Though every saint-sinner is imperfect, the Lord will reward each Christian a crown for the good works they have done because they have loved the appearing of the Lord Jesus (2 Timothy 4:8). 

Matthew Henry is right, “It is the character of all the saints that they long for the appearing of Jesus Christ: they love his second appearing at the great day; love it, and long for it.” It is very easy to become content with the comforts and material success of love. A love for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus motivates every Christian to do good works that will gain an everlasting reward.

Photo credit: Unsplash/Brendan Church


Dave Jenkins is the Executive Director of Servants of Grace Ministries, the Executive Editor of Theology for Life Magazine, and the Host of the Equipping You in Grace Podcast and Warriors of Grace Podcast. He received his MAR and M.Div. through Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. You can follow him on Twitter at @davejjenkins, find him on Facebook at Dave Jenkins SOGInstagram, read more of his writing at Servants of Grace, or sign to receive his newsletter. When Dave isn’t busy with ministry, he loves spending time with his wife, Sarah, reading the latest from Christian publishers, the Reformers, and the Puritans, playing golf, watching movies, sports, and spending time with his family.


This article is part of our larger End Times Resource Library. Learn more about the rapture, the anti-christ, bible prophecy and the tribulation with articles that explain Biblical truths. You do not need to fear or worry about the future!

Seven Churches of Revelation
Antichrist
Seven Trumpets
New Heaven and New Earth
Who Are the 144,000?

Listen to our podcast, The Bible Never Said That. All of our episodes are available at LifeAudio.com.

The Bible Never Said That podcast ad

Categories
Headline USA

5 worst times to drink alcohol | The State

It is not recommended to consume alcohol in the last four hours before going to bed.

Photo:
Social Butterfly / Pixabay

The consumption of alcohol is not recommended at any time. However, there are times that are the least indicated to have a drink, since in some cases you can increase the negative effects on your body and even put your life at risk.

1. First thing in the morning

If a person feels that they need to drink first thing in the morning to get through the day it is a sign of psychological dependence. If the individual drinks in the morning, it can easily lead him to drink all day, the American Addiction Centers (AAC) note.

Also, consuming alcohol on an empty stomach increases probability of developing alcoholic liver disease and alcoholic dementia.

Drinking in the morning can also mean that the individual is more prone to accidents, reduce work productivity.

2. When you take medicine

Alcohol consumption is not recommended when taking medications. The alcohol increases the analgesic, strengthening and sedative effects of opioids, raising the risk of combined alcohol and opiate abuse, as well as overdose.

Mixing alcohol and aspirin increases the risk of gastric bleeding and mixing alcohol and acetaminophen can cause acute liver failure, notes the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

3. When you have already had two drinks

Regardless of the time, it is not recommended to exceed the limits of moderate alcohol consumption of one drink for women and two for men.

He excessive consumption of alcohol is considered more than 4 drinks for men or more than 3 drinks for women, in about 2 hours. Binge drinking increases risk of acute damage, such as fainting and overdose, according to the NIAAA.

An alcohol overdose can cause brain damage or death.

Excessive alcohol use also increases the likelihood of dangerous sexual behaviors, falls, burns, drowning, and car accidents.

4. Before going to bed

It is not recommended to consume alcohol in the last four hours before going to bed. Although alcohol can help you fall asleep, It interferes with the quality of your sleep.

As the night progresses, alcohol can create an imbalance between slow wave sleep and REM sleep. Which can result in shorter sleep duration and more sleep interruptions, explains Sleep Foundation.

5. When you are stressed

A drink can give you some relaxation at first, releasing endorphins and increasing serotonin levels. But that’s a solution short term, can lead to long-term alcohol dependence.

Cleveland Clinic shares that if someone increases their dependence on alcohol to cope with stress, that leads to exacerbation of depression and anxiety.

Although they may seem obvious situations to avoid alcohol, it is worth emphasizing them, such as:

  • When it is planned driving or operating machinery, or participate in activities what require skill, coordination and alertness.
  • It is pregnant or trying Get pregnant
  • You have certain medical conditions.
  • It is in recovering from an alcohol use disorder or the quantity cannot be controlled.
  • It is under 21 years old.

It may interest you:

.

Categories
Headline USA New York

Passenger was pushed onto the rails on the Times Square Subway | The State

A man was pushed onto the New York Subway tracks at the central Times Square / 42 St station last night and miraculously managed to get to safety before being hit by a train. said the police.

The 32-year-old unidentified victim was pushed by another man onto the southbound N line tracks around 8:20 p.m., it reported. New York Post.

After safely re-climbing onto the platform, the victim refused to receive medical attention. While, the suspect fled the station on foot while the NYPD searched for him. He was wearing a black jacket and gray pants at the time of the attack, which is unclear if it was random or the product of an argument.

The city’s “mental health crisis” is wreaking havoc on the transportation system, recently denounced the city’s transit chief (NYCT), Sarah Feinberg, in a new letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio.

.

Categories
Headlines UK Leeds London

Police dish out 66 times more fines in crackdown on Covid-19 rule flouters

Police dish out 66 times more fines to Covid-19 rule flouters than in first lockdown… as hundreds of students hold SNOWBALL FIGHT in park and more than 20 people ‘sledge’ on single sheet

  • Scotland Yard Deputy Commissioner Steve House revealed extent of crackdown 
  • Sir Steve said the officers were now ‘accelerating more quickly’ to enforcement
  • In the first lockdown, Met Police gave out 4.5 fines a day compared to 300 now

Britain’s biggest police force is handing out a record 300 penalties a day – with more Covid rule breakers fined in the past few weeks than in the first nine months of the pandemic.

Scotland Yard Deputy Commissioner Sir Steve House yesterday revealed the extent of the crackdown as it emerged that officers are doling out 66 times more fines every day than during the first lockdown.

When the restrictions were first announced, the Metropolitan Police dished out 4.5 fines a day on average between March 27 and April 13.

In comparison, more than 300 people a day are now getting fixed penalty notices, with almost 4,000 penalties handed out so far in London. 

Scotland Yard Deputy Commissioner Sir Steve House yesterday revealed the extent of the crackdown as it emerged that officers are doling out 66 times more fines every day than during the first lockdown. Pictured: Police in Clapham Common, London

Around 200 youngsters took part in a snowball fight in Hyde Park, Leeds, on Thursday afternoon

Sir Steve said officers were ‘accelerating more quickly’ to enforcement rather than listening to excuses from Covid rule breakers this time around.

‘We have seen a significant increase in the amount of fixed penalty notices that were issued,’ he said. ‘The number is increasing quite rapidly day on day. I wish it weren’t so. I wish everybody was abiding by the regulations.’

Between March 27 and December 20, the force handed out 1,761 penalties for breaking the rules, including for being outside home without a reasonable excuse, not wearing a mask or organising a mass gathering.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has told police they can question people if they find them sitting on park benches.

Witnesses said the scenes showed a ‘blatant disregard’ for the strain the NHS is under. Liam Ford shot a brief video of the scene on a walk with his girlfriend (pictured)

Met Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick has ordered officers to take a more hardline approach during this lockdown, saying it is ‘preposterous’ to suggest that the public would be unaware of the need to follow the rules.

Yesterday her deputy said it was clear the public were not taking the rules as seriously this time around and the police had been asked by the Government to step up enforcement. 

Sir Steve described his frustration at anti-lockdown protests, citing a demonstration in Clapham, south London, last week where protesters were heckled by the public.

‘As they were walking down Clapham High Street members of the public who were legitimately out started shouting at them and telling them they were a bunch of idiots,’ he said. ‘I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that view.’

The furloughed retail worker said: ‘With what’s going on, I can’t condone mass gatherings like that.’ But Max Powell, a first year student at Leeds Beckett University, described it as ‘the most fun we’ve had sober’

Around 20 people on a makeshift sledge cram onto a tarpaulin at Roudhay Park, Leeds today

Around 20 people on a makeshift sledge cram onto a tarpaulin at Roudhay Park, Leeds today

Pictured: Leeds today

Pictured: Leeds today

Others were seen on skis and snowboards as snow settled in West Yorkshire on Thursday

He also told the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee that his officers urgently needed vaccines and the force were happy to vaccinate their own officers and staff.

Around 1,700 Metropolitan Police staff are off sick or self-isolating. 

On Wednesday night, Met officers broke up a party at an industrial unit in Southwark, south London, where they found at least 20 revellers on top of the building. Local residents cheered when police arrived.

Two people were arrested, one on suspicion of carrying an offensive weapon, the other for suspected drug dealing. Five people were handed fines for breaching Covid restrictions.

An illegal house party attended by up to 100 people in South Mimms, Hertfordshire, was also broken up by police.

Police seized alcohol and music equipment from the organiser. One officer was hurt while trying to disperse the crowd and one person was arrested. At least 12 people were handed fines.

Categories
Headlines UK

Double tragedy as elephant shot 43 times dies – after crushing ranger to death

This is the heartbreaking moment an elephant lost its month-long battle for life despite Thai medics performing CPR in a last-ditch effort to save the dying animal.

The 20-year-old bull elephant, named Plykhanoon, has been in critical care since December 10 after it was found shot 43 times in woodland in Prachuap Khiri Khan, a province in southern Thailand. 

Veterinarians had taken the elephant to a wildlife sanctuary for treatment where it tragically crushed a park ranger to death with its trunk while being treated.

Despite that, vets kept battling to save the animal for another month before it suddenly fell into critical condition as it was being transported for surgery.   

An elephant found shot 43 times in the face, legs and body in Thailand has died after a month in critical care – as tragic video captured the moment it lost its battle for life (pictured) 

The elephant was discovered badly wounded in woodland on December 10 and taken to a nearby wildlife sanctuary, where it lost its battle for life on January 10

The elephant was discovered badly wounded in woodland on December 10 and taken to a nearby wildlife sanctuary, where it lost its battle for life on January 10 

The bull elephant had been shot twice under the eyes, three times on the front leg, twice on the ribs, and 38 times across its face and body when it was found. 

Despite being critically-injured with bullet shell casings still inside its body, the frightened elephant resisted rescuers and had to be sedated before being transferred to the nearby Kui Buri National Park.

A day later, a park ranger was killed after being crushed by the elephant’s trunk while trying to treat the three-tonne jumbo.  

One of the park rangers, Pichai Watcharapongpaiboon, said his colleague was a hero.

He said: ‘The elephant had violent tendencies so we understand it was only trying to protect itself when it accidentally killed the ranger.’  

The elephant has spent the past month receiving treatment at the National Park’s head office by a team of vets.

Veterinarians had battled to save the elephant despite the wounded animal crushing a park ranger to death with its trunk during treatment (pictured, the animal after its death)

Veterinarians had battled to save the elephant despite the wounded animal crushing a park ranger to death with its trunk during treatment (pictured, the animal after its death)

A spokesman for the wildlife park said the elephant was being taken for emergency treatment to stop sudden swelling in its leg when it fell into critical condition and died

A spokesman for the wildlife park said the elephant was being taken for emergency treatment to stop sudden swelling in its leg when it fell into critical condition and died 

Suporn Polpan, the head of Kui Buri National Park, said they did everything they could to save the jumbo. Pictured: Locals grieve over the death of the elephant and lay candles and flowers by the animal

Suporn Polpan, the head of Kui Buri National Park, said they did everything they could to save the jumbo. Pictured: Locals grieve over the death of the elephant and lay candles and flowers by the animal

But this weekend, the elephant’s condition suddenly deteriorated and shocking footage shows the moment veterinarians were frantically giving the jumbo CPR.

Despite the best efforts of the National Park’s veterinarians to save the injured elephant, the animal finally succumbed to his injuries and died on Sunday as a result of organ failure. 

Suporn Polpan, the head of Kui Buri National Park, said they did everything they could to save the jumbo.

‘The elephant was admitted on December 10 and was being cared for by the veterinary hospital inside the Kui Buri National Park. His behaviour was aggressive and he did not heal from the injuries from the bullets,’ Mr Polpan said.

He added: ‘The elephant was being moved for treatment to the park office where the vets are on hand when it had an unexplained swelling in the right leg and could not stand on January 10. 

The elephant had been shot twice under the eyes, three times on the front leg, twice on the ribs, and 38 times across its face and body. Pictured: Bullets retrieved from the animal's body

The elephant had been shot twice under the eyes, three times on the front leg, twice on the ribs, and 38 times across its face and body. Pictured: Bullets retrieved from the animal’s body

The elephant was buried in the national park grounds while investigations are ongoing

The elephant was buried in the national park grounds while investigations are ongoing

After its death, police from examined the dead elephant with a metal detector to check for any further bullet cases

After its death, police from examined the dead elephant with a metal detector to check for any further bullet cases

‘Officers tried to perform CPR but sadly the elephant died later.

‘An autopsy assumed the cause of death to be caused by internal organs failure.’  

Officers are still investigating who shot the elephant but they believe that it had an encounter with several armed men who opened fire at the same time.

After its death, police from examined the dead elephant with a metal detector. 

The elephant was buried in the national park grounds while investigations are ongoing.

The elephant is the national animal of Thailand. An estimated 2,000 elephants are living in the wild in Thailand and a similar number in captivity.

There is conflict when they come in contact with humans who also use the area for farming and gathering food.

Elephants are a protected animal in Thailand and killing them carries a maximum prison term of up to three years and a fine of 1,000 baht (£25).

Wildlife rangers are now working with police to find those responsible for the death. 

Categories
Headline USA

‘Blue-eyed Butcher’ who murdered husband by stabbing him 193 TIMES is seen returning from a drive

A woman from Texas who was found guilty of stabbing her husband 193 times in 2003 has been released on parole.

Susan Lucille Wright, 44, from Houston, Texas was released on Wednesday morning having served 16 years of her 25-year sentence for killing husband Jeff Wright, 34.

After the brutal stabbing she buried him in a hole in the backyard of the home the  couple shared.

Susan Lucille Wright, 44, has been let out of prison after being granted parole

Susan Wright was convicted of first-degree murder of her husband Jeffrey Wright, 34 in 2003

Susan Wright was convicted of first-degree murder of her husband Jeffrey Wright, 34 in 2003

Wright was dubbed the ‘Blue-eyed Butcher’ because of the brutality of her crime.

She would not comment when approached by a local television news crew from WPXI. 

‘I would just like privacy. Please respect that,’ Wright said. ‘I’m sure that y’all can understand, but don’t do this to my family. Even if you do it to me, don’t do this to them, please.’

Wright was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to 25 years in prison but in 2009 a judge ruled that she had not been assisted properly by legal counsel and a new sentencing hearing was ordered which knocked off five years of her penalty. 

Susan Wright is pictured in an undated booking photo. Wright, 44, of Houston, was paroled Wednesday after serving more than 16 years for the 2003 murder of her husband, Jeff Wright

Susan Wright is pictured in an undated booking photo. Wright, 44, of Houston, was paroled Wednesday after serving more than 16 years for the 2003 murder of her husband, Jeff Wright

She will now remain on parole until 2024, will have to wear a GPS ankle monitor, must attend anger management classes and is barred from leaving the state of Texas. 

On the night of Jeff Wright’s murder, Susan used neckties and a bathrobe to tie him to the bed.  

‘According to the state, on the night Jeff was killed, Susan undertook an elaborate plan to seduce him so that, in anticipation of lovemaking, he would allow her to tie him to their bed,’ court records state. 

‘Once Jeff was tied up and defenseless, she emerged with a knife and, with unfathomable anger, brutally stabbed him over and over again.’

Prosecutors say the motive was Jeff Wright’s $200,000 life insurance policy.

During the 2004 trial, the couple’s bloodstained bed was brought into the courtroom as the jury was shown how Wright’s husband was murdered. 

Evidence photos from the murder trial of Susan Wright. Pictured: The prosecution hauled the blood-soaked mattress into the courtroom for a vivid murder reenactment for the jury

Evidence photos from the murder trial of Susan Wright. Pictured: The prosecution hauled the blood-soaked mattress into the courtroom for a vivid murder reenactment for the jury

Susan's husband, Jeff Wright, had started a home improvement project for the family's patio. Instead, he unknowingly dug his own grave

Susan’s husband, Jeff Wright, had started a home improvement project for the family’s patio. Instead, he unknowingly dug his own grave

Susan Wright reacts to the verdict of the jury in Houston as her defense Attorney Neal Davis holds her arm in 2004

Susan Wright reacts to the verdict of the jury in Houston as her defense Attorney Neal Davis holds her arm in 2004

Susan Wright stabbed her 34-year-old husband, Jeff, 193 times in 2003. Detectives found this broken knife at the crime scene

Susan Wright stabbed her 34-year-old husband, Jeff, 193 times in 2003. Detectives found this broken knife at the crime scene

The shocking reenactment saw prosecutor Kelly Siegler straddling a male colleague as she demonstrated how the killing occurred during which she called called Wright a ‘card-carrying, obvious, no-doubt-about-it, caught-red-handed, confirmed, documented liar.’

The scene was ultimately recreated for a Lifetime television movie in 2012 entitled Blue-Eyed Butcher.   

Wright’s lawyer described her as having been her husband’s ‘physical and mental punching bag.’ The couple were married for five years before the killing took place.

‘193 stab wounds shows how much Susan feared her husband,’ trial attorney, Neal Davis said in court.

‘Jeff Wright had emotionally and physically abused his wife throughout their marriage, and the reason she did not leave him was that she was afraid he would kill her,’ the defense argued. ‘On the night of his death, Jeff had come home under the influence of cocaine and hit their son in the face.’

Susan Wright and husband Jeffrey with Kaily (left) and Bradly in an undated family photo

Susan Wright and husband Jeffrey with Kaily (left) and Bradly in an undated family photo

Defendant Susan Wright reacts as the prosecution gives their closing argument during her murder trial in Houston. On trial for stabbing her husband 193 times, Wright testified she killed her husband only after he raped her and threatened her with a butcher knife

Defendant Susan Wright reacts as the prosecution gives their closing argument during her murder trial in Houston. On trial for stabbing her husband 193 times, Wright testified she killed her husband only after he raped her and threatened her with a butcher knife

Susan Wright testified in her own defense at the trial saying that she confronted her husband who had come home from a boxing lesson and asked about his getting help for a drug problem.

‘He ‘threw Susan on their bed, forcibly raped her and threatened to kill her with a knife,’ the court heard.

Wright claimed that she and her husband were engaged in a struggle for the knife and when she finally got it proceeded to stab him with abandon.  

‘I couldn’t stop stabbing him; I couldn’t stop,’ Susan Wright testified. ‘I knew as soon as I stopped, he was going to get the knife back and he was going to kill me. I didn’t want to die.’  

Jeff Wright suffered 41 stab wounds to his face, 23 wounds to his neck and 46 cuts to his chest. There were a further 22 wounds to his abdomen, 19 to his legs, 23 to his arms, one to his back and seven wounds to his pubic area ‘for all the times that he made her have sex and she didn’t want to.’ 

The stabbing was so forceful that the tip of a knife broke off in the top of Wright’s skull.

Susan Wright then moved her husband’s body into a hole near the patio of their home where a home improvement project was taking place, and buried him.

A scene from the Lifetime TV show Blue-Eyed Butcher which told the shocking true story

A scene from the Lifetime TV show Blue-Eyed Butcher which told the shocking true story

Drawings from the autopsy report show numerous stab wounds on the body

Drawings from the autopsy report show numerous stab wounds on the body

Susan Wright bought cleaning supplies to cover up the crime scene, including several large jugs of bleach

Susan Wright bought cleaning supplies to cover up the crime scene, including several large jugs of bleach

Her lawyers said that she then spent several days in a fog where she still believed her husband was still alive and that he would climb out of his makeshift grave to kill her.  

Prosecutors argued that Wright was fully aware of what she was doing and even told family and friends in the days after the murder that was was a victim of abuse by her husband. 

‘As part of her plan, Susan Wright also reported physical abuse to her doctor and filed criminal charges against Jeff, resulting in a warrant being issued for his arrest,’ court records state. 

‘It was only after the family dog dug up Jeff’s body, the state concluded, that her plan fell apart.’

Jeff Wright’s remains were found five days after the murder. 

‘The officers also found a mattress, box springs, comforter and headboard in the backyard,’ court records state. ‘The mattress was soaked with blood.

The young mother of two dumped this bloody mattress in her family's backyard. In 2004, Susan Wright testified that her husband, Jeff, abused her

The young mother of two dumped this bloody mattress in her family’s backyard. In 2004, Susan Wright testified that her husband, Jeff, abused her

This is the dolly prosecutors say Susan Wright used to drag her husband's body out of the bedroom. The thin 5'5", blonde used it to get Jeff Wright's 6'2" 220-pound lifeless frame to the patio

This is the dolly prosecutors say Susan Wright used to drag her husband’s body out of the bedroom. The thin 5’5′, blonde used it to get Jeff Wright’s 6’2′ 220-pound lifeless frame to the patio

Susan Wright emptied several drawers of her children's clothing and placed the clothes in the family car shortly after she stabbed Jeff. A few days later, she filed for an order of protection

Susan Wright emptied several drawers of her children’s clothing and placed the clothes in the family car shortly after she stabbed Jeff. A few days later, she filed for an order of protection

‘Inside the home, one wall of the master bedroom had been freshly painted and a piece of the carpet had been cut out. Painting supplies, a box cutter and scissors were found in the room.’ 

Wright had attempted to clear the scene with bleach, but police found blood spatter on the walls, ceiling and furniture of the bedroom.   

She ended up confessing to her mother that she’d had killed her husband.

‘Momma, it wasn’t me. I snapped,’ she said, according to the criminal complaint in the case. ‘I was up there and I saw somebody do it, but it wasn’t me.’

During the trial, Wright clashed with prosecutor Siegler several times who accused  Wright of rehearsing her testimony beforehand and crying on cue.

‘She cries when you’re in the room and she stops when you leave,’ the prosecutor told jurors.  

‘I haven’t cried on cue once,’ Wright protested. ‘I don’t see how someone could not cry during this.’

Police found blood spatter in multiple locations inside the Wright home despite Susan Wright's efforts to clean the crime scene after the murder. Susan would tell the court that the week of the murder she was in a "fog."

Police found blood spatter in multiple locations inside the Wright home despite Susan Wright’s efforts to clean the crime scene after the murder. Susan would tell the court that the week of the murder she was in a ‘fog.’

The ties Susan Wright used to bind Jeff to their bed were still wound around his wrists and ankle when police uncovered his body

The ties Susan Wright used to bind Jeff to their bed were still wound around his wrists and ankle when police uncovered his body

Murder defendant Susan Wright pictured during her murder trial for stabbing her husband 193 times

Murder defendant Susan Wright pictured during her murder trial for stabbing her husband 193 times

Jurors took just five hours to find Wright guilty of first-degree murder.

‘Just about everyone in Houston believed Susan Wright was a monster,’ Wright’s appellate attorney, Brian Wice, told Texas Monthly. 

 ‘Everyone believed that she was some real-life reincarnation of Sharon Stone from the first reel of Basic Instinct. There was just one problem. Everyone had gotten it wrong.’

Wice, who represented Wright during her appeal said that Davis as part of her defense counsel failed her for not calling witnesses who could corroborate her claims of domestic abuse.

He also suggested that they had failed to bring in experts who could testify that Wright suffered from battered woman syndrome as a result of the abuse.

Nor was a psychologist called who saw Wright after her arrest and found her to be convinced her  dead husband was still alive and would kill her.

During her resentencing, she was diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder and although the judge, Jim Wallace, who had presided over Wright’s original trial, he felt that there was a ‘wealth of mitigating evidence not presented at the punishment stage that painted a dramatically different picture of her and her moral blameworthiness.’ 

Categories
Georgia Headline USA Politics

Donald Trump tried to call Brad Raffensperger 18 times but kept getting treated as a PRANK CALLER

The Washington Post published the full transcript of the call between Donald Trump and Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which has led to calls for Trump to face a criminal probe, accused by two House Democrats of conspiracy to interfere in elections.

On the call on Saturday January 2 were Trump, his chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Republican attorneys Cleta Mitchell and Kurt Hilbert, and from Georgia Raffesnperger and his general counsel Ryan Germany. Not on the call but mentioned was Georgia Governor Brian Kemp.

Here is the full transcript: 

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows: Okay. Alright. Mr. President, everyone is on the line. This is Mark Meadows, the chief of staff. Just so we all are aware. On the line is secretary of state and two other individuals. Jordan and Mr. Germany with him. You also have the attorneys that represent the president, Kurt and Alex and Cleta Mitchell — who is not the attorney of record but has been involved — myself and then the president. So Mr. President, I’ll turn it over to you. 

President Donald Trump: Okay, thank you very much. Hello Brad and Ryan and everybody. We appreciate the time and the call. So we’ve spent a lot of time on this, and if we could just go over some of the numbers, I think it’s pretty clear that we won. We won very substantially in Georgia. You even see it by rally size, frankly. We’d be getting 25-30,000 people a rally, and the competition would get less than 100 people. And it never made sense.

But we have a number of things. We have at least 2 or 3 — anywhere from 250 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls. Much of that had to do with Fulton County, which hasn’t been checked. We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County — you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged. And we are quite sure that’s going to happen.

Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger

Donald Trump (left) pressured Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (right) to ‘find’ enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the Peach State during an extraordinary leaked phone call on Saturday

Another tremendous number. We’re going to have an accurate number over the next two days with certified accountants. But an accurate number will be given, but it’s in the 50s of thousands — and that’s people that went to vote and they were told they can’t vote because they’ve already been voted for. And it’s a very sad thing. They walked out complaining. But the number’s large. We’ll have it for you. But it’s much more than the number of 11,779 that’s — the current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That’s something I think everyone — at least that’s a number that everyone agrees on.

But that’s the difference in the votes. But we’ve had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we’re able to actually — we’ll get you a pretty accurate number. You don’t need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779. But you also have a substantial numbers of people, thousands and thousands, who went to the voting place on November 3, were told they couldn’t vote, were told they couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on their name. And you know that’s very, very, very, very sad.

We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted, but they weren’t on the voter registration roll, which they had to be. You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant, and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.

Smaller number — you had 904 who only voted where they had just a P.O. — a post office box number — and they had a post office box number, and that’s not allowed. We had at least 18,000 — that’s on tape, we had them counted very painstakingly — 18,000 voters having to do with [name]. She’s a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler [name]. That was the tape that’s been shown all over the world that makes everybody look bad, you, me and everybody else.

Where they got — number one they said very clearly and it’s been reported that they said there was a major water main break. Everybody fled the area. And then they came back, [name] and her daughter and a few people. There were no Republican poll watchers. Actually, there were no Democrat poll watchers, I guess they were them. But there were no Democrats, either, and there was no law enforcement. Late in the morning, early in the morning, they went to the table with the black robe and the black shield, and they pulled out the votes. Those votes were put there a number of hours before — the table was put there — I think it was, Brad, you would know, it was probably eight hours or seven hours before, and then it was stuffed with votes.

They weren’t in an official voter box; they were in what looked to be suitcases or trunks, suitcases, but they weren’t in voter boxes. The minimum number it could be because we watched it, and they watched it certified in slow motion instant replay if you can believe it, but slow motion, and it was magnified many times over, and the minimum it was 18,000 ballots, all for Biden.

You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia, but they were from out of state, of 4,925. You had absentee ballots sent to vacant, they were absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses. They had nothing on them about addresses, that’s 2,326.

And you had dropboxes, which is very bad. You had dropboxes that were picked up. We have photographs, and we have affidavits from many people.

I don’t know if you saw the hearings, but you have dropboxes where the box was picked up but not delivered for three days. So all sorts of things could have happened to that box, including, you know, putting in the votes that you wanted. So there were many infractions, and the bottom line is, many, many times the 11,779 margin that they said we lost by — we had vast, I mean the state is in turmoil over this.

And I know you would like to get to the bottom of it, although I saw you on television today, and you said that you found nothing wrong. I mean, you know, and I didn’t lose the state, Brad. People have been saying that it was the highest vote ever. There was no way. A lot of the political people said that there’s no way they beat me. And they beat me. They beat me in the . . . As you know, every single state, we won every state. We won every statehouse in the country. We held the Senate, which is shocking to people, although we’ll see what happens tomorrow or in a few days.

And we won the House, but we won every single statehouse, and we won Congress, which was supposed to lose 15 seats, and they gained, I think 16 or 17 or something. I think there’s a now difference of five. There was supposed to be a difference substantially more. But politicians in every state, but politicians in Georgia have given affidavits and are going to that, that there was no way that they beat me in the election, that the people came out, in fact, they were expecting to lose, and then they ended up winning by a lot because of the coattails. And they said there’s no way, that they’ve done many polls prior to the election, that there was no way that they won.

Ballots were dropped in massive numbers. And we’re trying to get to those numbers and we will have them.

They’ll take a period of time. Certified. But but they’re massive numbers. And far greater than the 11,779.

The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted, and I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number, and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.

The bottom line is, when you add it all up and then you start adding, you know, 300,000 fake ballots. Then the other thing they said is in Fulton County and other areas. And this may or may not be true . . . this just came up this morning, that they are burning their ballots, that they are shredding, shredding ballots and removing equipment. They’re changing the equipment on the Dominion machines and, you know, that’s not legal.

And they supposedly shredded I think they said 300 pounds of, 3,000 pounds of ballots. And that just came to us as a report today. And it is a very sad situation.

But Brad, if you took the minimum numbers where many, many times above the 11,779, and many of those numbers are certified, or they will be certified, but they are certified. And those are numbers that are there, that exist. And that beat the margin of loss, they beat it, I mean, by a lot, and people should be happy to have an accurate count instead of an election where there’s turmoil.

I mean there’s turmoil in Georgia and other places. You’re not the only one, I mean, we have other states that I believe will be flipping to us very shortly. And this is something that — you know, as an example, I think it in Detroit, I think there’s a section, a good section of your state actually, which we’re not sure so we’re not going to report it yet. But in Detroit, we had, I think it was, 139 percent of the people voted. That’s not too good.

In Pennsylvania, they had well over 200,000 more votes than they had people voting. And that doesn’t play too well, and the legislature there is, which is Republican, is extremely activist and angry. I mean, there were other things also that were almost as bad as that. But they had as an example, in Michigan, a tremendous number of dead people that voted. I think it was, I think, Mark, it was 18,000. Some unbelievably high number, much higher than yours, you were in the 4-5,000 category.

And that was checked out laboriously by going through, by going through the obituary columns in the newspapers.

So I guess with all of it being said, Brad, the bottom line, and provisional ballots, again, you know, you’ll have to tell me about the provisional ballots, but we have a lot of people that were complaining that they weren’t able to vote because they were already voted for. These are great people.

And, you know, they were shellshocked. I don’t know if you call that provisional ballots. In some states, we had a lot of provisional ballot situations where people were given a provisional ballot because when they walked in on November 3 and they were already voted for.

So that’s it. I mean, we have many, many times the number of votes necessary to win the state. And we won the state, and we won it very substantially and easily, and we’re getting, we have, much of this is a very certified, far more certified than we need. But we’re getting additional numbers certified, too. And we’re getting pictures of dropboxes being delivered and delivered late. Delivered three days later, in some cases, plus we have many affidavits to that effect.

Meadows: So, Mr. President, if I might be able to jump in, and I’ll give Brad a chance. Mr. Secretary, obviously there is, there are allegations where we believe that not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted, and that’s at odds with the representation from the secretary of state’s office.

What I’m hopeful for is there some way that we can, we can find some kind of agreement to look at this a little bit more fully? You know the president mentioned Fulton County.

But in some of these areas where there seems to be a difference of where the facts seem to lead, and so Mr. Secretary, I was hopeful that, you know, in the spirit of cooperation and compromise, is there something that we can at least have a discussion to look at some of these allegations to find a path forward that’s less litigious?

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger: Well, I listened to what the president has just said. President Trump, we’ve had several lawsuits, and we’ve had to respond in court to the lawsuits and the contentions. We don’t agree that you have won. And we don’t — I didn’t agree about the 200,000 number that you’d mentioned. I’ll go through that point by point.

What we have done is we gave our state Senate about one and a half hours of our time going through the election issue by issue and then on the state House, the government affairs committee, we gave them about two and a half hours of our time, going back point by point on all the issues of contention. And then just a few days ago, we met with our U.S. congressmen, Republican congressmen, and we gave them about two hours of our time talking about this past election. Going back, primarily what you’ve talked about here focused in on primarily, I believe, is the absentee ballot process. I don’t believe that you’re really questioning the Dominion machines. Because we did a hand re-tally, a 100 percent re-tally of all the ballots, and compared them to what the machines said and came up with virtually the same result. Then we did the recount, and we got virtually the same result. So I guess we can probably take that off the table.

I don’t think there’s an issue about that.

Trump: Well, Brad. Not that there’s not an issue, because we have a big issue with Dominion in other states and perhaps in yours. But we haven’t felt we needed to go there. And just to, you know, maybe put a little different spin on what Mark is saying, Mark Meadows, yeah we’d like to go further, but we don’t really need to. We have all the votes we need.

You know, we won the state. If you took, these are the most minimal numbers, the numbers that I gave you, those are numbers that are certified, your absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses, your out-of-state voters, 4,925. You know when you add them up, it’s many more times, it’s many times the 11,779 number. So we could go through, we have not gone through your Dominion. So we can’t give them blessing. I mean, in other states, we think we found tremendous corruption with Dominion machines, but we’ll have to see.

But we only lost the state by that number, 11,000 votes, and 779. So with that being said, with just what we have, with just what we have, we’re giving you minimal, minimal numbers. We’re doing the most conservative numbers possible; we’re many times, many, many times above the margin. And so we don’t really have to, Mark, I don’t think we have to go through . . .

Meadows: Right

Trump: Because what’s the difference between winning the election by two votes and winning it by half a million votes. I think I probably did win it by half a million. You know, one of the things that happened, Brad, is we have other people coming in now from Alabama and from South Carolina and from other states, and they’re saying it’s impossible for you to have lost Georgia. We won. You know in Alabama, we set a record, got the highest vote ever. In Georgia, we set a record with a massive amount of votes. And they say it’s not possible to have lost Georgia.

And I could tell you by our rallies. I could tell you by the rally I’m having on Monday night, the place, they already have lines of people standing out front waiting. It’s just not possible to have lost Georgia. It’s not possible. When I heard it was close, I said there’s no way. But they dropped a lot of votes in there late at night. You know that, Brad. And that’s what we are working on very, very stringently. But regardless of those votes, with all of it being said, we lost by essentially 11,000 votes, and we have many more votes already calculated and certified, too.

And so I just don’t know, you know, Mark, I don’t know what’s the purpose. I won’t give Dominion a pass because we found too many bad things. But we don’t need Dominion or anything else. We have won this election in Georgia based on all of this. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, Brad. You know, I mean, having the correct — the people of Georgia are angry. And these numbers are going to be repeated on Monday night. Along with others that we’re going to have by that time, which are much more substantial even. And the people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated. Because the 2,236 in absentee ballots. I mean, they’re all exact numbers that were done by accounting firms, law firms, etc. And even if you cut ’em in half, cut ’em in half and cut ’em in half again, it’s more votes than we need. 

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 was a person named Mr. Braynard who 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 number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that’s wrong.

Trump: Well, Cleta, how do you respond to that? Maybe you tell me?

Trump attorney Cleta Mitchell: Well, I would say, Mr. Secretary, one of the things that we have requested and what we said was, if you look, if you read our petition, it said that we took the names and birth years, and we had certain information available to us. We have asked from your office for records that only you have, and so we said there is a universe of people who have the same name and same birth year and died.

But we don’t have the records that you have. And one of the things that we have been suggesting formally and informally for weeks now is for you to make available to us the records that would be necessary —

Trump: But, Cleta, even before you do that, and not even including that, that’s why I hardly even included that number, although in one state, we have a tremendous amount of dead people. So I don’t know — I’m sure we do in Georgia, too. I’m sure we do in Georgia, too.

But we’re so far ahead. We’re so far ahead of these numbers, even the phony ballots of [name] , known scammer. You know the Internet? You know what was trending on the Internet? ‘Where’s [name]?’ Because they thought she’d be in jail. ‘Where’s [name]?’ It’s crazy, it’s crazy. That was. The minimum number is 18,000 for [name] , but they think it’s probably about 56,000, but the minimum number is 18,000 on the [name] night where she ran back in there when everybody was gone and stuffed, she stuffed the ballot boxes. Let’s face it, Brad, I mean. They did it in slow motion replay magnified, right? She stuffed the ballot boxes. They were stuffed like nobody has ever seen them stuffed before.

So there’s a term for it when it’s a machine instead of a ballot box, but she stuffed the machine. She stuffed the ballot. Each ballot went three times, they were showing: Here’s ballot No 1. Here it is a second time, third time, next ballot.

I mean, look. Brad. We have a new tape that we’re going to release. It’s devastating. And by the way, that one event, that one event is much more than the 11,000 votes that we’re talking about. It’s, you know, that one event was a disaster. And it’s just, you know, but it was, it was something, it can’t be disputed. And again, we have a version that you haven’t seen, but it’s magnified. It’s magnified, and you can see everything. For some reason, they put it in three times, each ballot, and I don’t know why. I don’t know why three times. Why not five times, right? Go ahead.

Raffensperger: You’re talking about the State Farm video. And I think it’s extremely unfortunate that Rudy Giuliani or his people, they sliced and diced that video and took it out of context. The next day, we brought in WSB-TV, and we let them show, see the full run of tape, and what you’ll see, the events that transpired are nowhere near what was projected by, you know —

Trump: But where were the poll watchers, Brad? There were no poll watchers there. There were no Democrats or Republicans. There was no security there.

It was late in the evening, late in the, early in the morning, and there was nobody else in the room. Where were the poll watchers, and why did they say a water main broke, which they did and which was reported in the newspapers? They said they left. They ran out because of a water main break, and there was no water main. There was nothing. There was no break. There was no water main break. But we’re, if you take out everything, where were the Republican poll watchers, even where were the Democrat pollwatchers, because there were none.

And then you say, well, they left their station, you know, if you look at the tape, and this was, this was reviewed by professional police and detectives and other people, when they left in a rush, everybody left in a rush because of the water main, but everybody left in a rush. These people left their station.

When they came back, they didn’t go to their station. They went to the apron, wrapped around the table, under which were thousands and thousands of ballots in a box that was not an official or a sealed box. And then they took those. They went back to a different station. So if they would have come back, they would have walked to their station, and they would have continued to work. But they couldn’t do even that because that’s illegal, because they had no Republican pollwatchers. And remember, her reputation is — she’s known all over the Internet, Brad. She’s known all over.

I’m telling you, ‘Where’s [name] ‘ was one of the hot items . . . [name] They knew her. ‘Where’s [name]?’ So Brad, there can be no justification for that. And I, you know, I give everybody the benefit of the doubt. But that was — and Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? You know, they put ’em in three times.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, they did not put that. We did an audit of that, and we proved conclusively that they were not scanned three times.

Trump: Where was everybody else at that late time in the morning? Where was everybody? Where were the Republicans? Where were the security guards? Were the people that were there just a little while before when everyone ran out of the room. How come we had no security in the room. Why did they run to the bottom of the table? Why do they run there and just open the skirt and rip out the votes. I mean, Brad. And they were sitting there, I think for five hours or something like that, the votes.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, we’ll send you the link from WSB.

Trump: I don’t care about the link. I don’t need it. Brad, I have a much better —

Mitchell: I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that they made everybody leave — we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots. We don’t know that. If you know that . . . 

Trump: It was 18,000 ballots, but they used each one three times.

Mitchell: Well, I don’t know about that.

Trump: I do think we had ours magnified out.

Mitchell: I’ve watched the entire tape.

Trump: Nobody can make a case for that, Brad. Nobody. I mean, look, you’d have to be a child to think anything other than that. Just a child.

Mitchell: How many ballots, Mr. Secretary, are you saying were processed then?

Raffensperger: We had GBI . . . investigate that.

Germany: We had our — this is Ryan Germany. We had our law enforcement officers talk to everyone who was, who was there after that event came to light. GBI was with them as well as FBI agents.

Trump: Well, there’s no way they could — then they’re incompetent. They’re either dishonest or incompetent, okay?

Mitchell: Well, what did they find?

Trump: There’s only two answers, dishonesty or incompetence. There’s just no way. Look. There’s no way. And on the other thing, I said too, there is no way. I mean, there’s no way that these things could have been, you know, you have all these different people that voted, but they don’t live in Georgia anymore. What was that number, Cleta? That was a pretty good number, too.

Mitchell: The number who have registered out of state after they moved from Georgia. And so they had a date when they moved from Georgia, they registered to vote out of state, and then it’s like 4,500, I don’t have that number right in front of me.

Trump: And then they came back in, and they voted.

Mitchell: And voted. Yeah.

Trump: I thought that was a large number, though. It was in the 20s.

Ryan Germany, Raffensberger’s General Counsel: We’ve been going through each of those as well, and those numbers that we got, that Ms. Mitchell was just saying, they’re not accurate. Every one we’ve been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately. And in many cases —

Trump: How may people do that? They moved out, and then they said, ‘Ah, to hell with it, I’ll move back.’ You know, it doesn’t sound like a very normal . . . you mean, they moved out, and what, they missed it so much that they wanted to move back in? It’s crazy.

Germany: They moved back in years ago. This was not like something just before the election. So there’s something about that data that, it’s just not accurate.

Trump: Well, I don’t know, all I know is that it is certified. And they moved out of Georgia, and they voted. It didn’t say they moved back in, Cleta, did it?

Mitchell: No, but I mean, we’re looking at the voter registration. Again, if you have additional records, we’ve been asking for that, but you haven’t shared any of that with us. You just keep saying you investigated the allegations.

Trump: Cleta, a lot of it you don’t need to be shared. I mean, to be honest, they should share it. They should share it because you want to get to an honest election.

I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There’s no way I lost Georgia. There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes. I’m just going by small numbers, when you add them up, they’re many times the 11,000. But I won that state by hundreds of thousands of votes.

Do you think it’s possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County? Because that’s what the rumor is. And also that Dominion took out machines. That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their, uh, machinery.

Do you know anything about that? Because that’s illegal, right?

Trump suggested that Raffensberger and his general counsel Ryan Germany (pictured) could be subject to criminal liability if they failed to find that thousands of ballots cast in Fulton County had been illegally destroyed - despite no evidence supporting that allegation

Trump suggested that Raffensberger and his general counsel Ryan Germany (pictured) could be subject to criminal liability if they failed to find that thousands of ballots cast in Fulton County had been illegally destroyed – despite no evidence supporting that allegation

Germany: This is Ryan Germany. No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.

Trump: But have they moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts?

Germany: No.

Trump: Are you sure, Ryan?

Germany: I’m sure. I’m sure, Mr. President.

Trump: What about, what about the ballots. The shredding of the ballots. Have they been shredding ballots?

Germany: The only investigation that we have into that — they have not been shredding any ballots. There was an issue in Cobb County where they were doing normal office shredding, getting rid of old stuff, and we investigated that. But this stuff from, you know, from you know past elections.

Trump: It doesn’t pass the smell test because we hear they’re shredding thousands and thousands of ballots, and now what they’re saying, ‘Oh, we’re just cleaning up the office.’ You know.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything.

Trump: Oh this isn’t social media. This is Trump media. It’s not social media. It’s really not; it’s not social media. I don’t care about social media. I couldn’t care less. Social media is Big Tech. Big Tech is on your side, you know. I don’t even know why you have a side because you should want to have an accurate election. And you’re a Republican.

Raffensperger: We believe that we do have an accurate election.

Trump: No, no you don’t. No, no you don’t. You don’t have. Not even close. You’re off by hundreds of thousands of votes. And just on the small numbers, you’re off on these numbers, and these numbers can’t be just — well, why wont? — Okay. So you sent us into Cobb County for signature verification, right? You sent us into Cobb County, which we didn’t want to go into. And you said it would be open to the public. So we had our experts there, they weren’t allowed into the room. But we didn’t want Cobb County. We wanted Fulton County. And you wouldn’t give it to us. Now, why aren’t we doing signature — and why can’t it be open to the public?

And why can’t we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don’t want to find anything? 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. But why don’t you want to find?

Germany: Mr. President, we chose Cobb County —

Trump: Why don’t you want to find . . . What?

Germany: Sorry, go ahead.

Trump: So why did you do Cobb County? We didn’t even request — we requested Fulton County, not Cobb County. Go ahead, please. Go ahead.

Germany: We chose Cobb County because that was the only county where there’s been any evidence submitted that the signature verification was not properly done.

Trump: No, but I told you. We’re not, we’re not saying that.

Mitchell: We did say that.

Trump: Fulton County. Look. Stacey, in my opinion, Stacey is as dishonest as they come. She has outplayed you . . . at everything. She got you to sign a totally unconstitutional agreement, which is a disastrous agreement. You can’t check signatures. I can’t imagine you’re allowed to do harvesting, I guess, in that agreement. That agreement is a disaster for this country. But she got you somehow to sign that thing, and she has outsmarted you at every step.

And I hate to imagine what’s going to happen on Monday or Tuesday, but it’s very scary to people. You know, when the ballots flow in out of nowhere. It’s very scary to people. That consent decree is a disaster. It’s a disaster. A very good lawyer who examined it said they’ve never seen anything like it.

Raffensperger: Harvesting is still illegal in the state of Georgia. And that settlement agreement did not change that one iota.

Trump: It’s not a settlement agreement, it’s a consent decree. It even says consent decree on it, doesn’t it? It uses the term consent decree. It doesn’t say settlement agreement. It’s a consent decree. It’s a disaster.

Raffensperger: It’s a settlement agreement.

Trump: What’s written on top of it?

Raffensperger: Ryan?

Germany: I don’t have it in front of me, but it was not entered by the court, it’s not a court order.

Trump: But Ryan, it’s called a consent decree, is that right? On the paper. Is that right?

Germany: I don’t. I don’t. I don’t believe so, but I don’t have it in front of me. 

Trump: Okay, whatever, it’s a disaster. It’s a disaster. Look. Here’s the problem. We can go through signature verification, and we’ll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn’t do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you’ll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren’t even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

Okay, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes because Fulton County is totally corrupt, and so is she totally corrupt.

And they’re going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they’re laughing at you. And you’ve taken a state that’s a Republican state, and you’ve made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody’s ever cheated before. And I don’t care how long it takes me, you know, we’re going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won’t . . . this is never . . . this is . . . We have some incredible talent said they’ve never seen anything . . . Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they’re very substantial numbers. But I think you’re going to fine that they — by the way, a little information — I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new, and they don’t have seals, and there’s a whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

And flipping the state is a great testament to our country because, you know, this is — it’s a testament that they can admit to a mistake or whatever you want to call it. If it was a mistake, I don’t know. A lot of people think it wasn’t a mistake. It was much more criminal than that. But it’s a big problem in Georgia, and it’s not a problem that’s going away. I mean, you know, it’s not a problem that’s going away.

Germany: This is Ryan. We’re looking into every one of those things that you mentioned.

Trump: Good. But if you find it, you’ve got to say it, Ryan.

Germany: . . . Let me tell you what we are seeing. What we’re seeing is not at all what you’re describing. These are investigators from our office, these are investigators from GBI, and they’re looking, and they’re good. And that’s not what they’re seeing. And we’ll keep looking, at all these things.

Trump: Well, you better check on the ballots because they are shredding ballots, Ryan. I’m just telling you, Ryan. They’re shredding ballots. And you should look at that very carefully. Because that’s so illegal. You know, you may not even believe it because it’s so bad. But they’re shredding ballots because they think we’re going to eventually get there . . . because we’ll eventually get into Fulton. In my opinion, it’s never too late. . . . So, that’s the story. Look, we need only 11,000 votes. We have are far more than that as it stands now. We’ll have more and more. And . . . do you have provisional ballots at all, Brad? Provisional ballots?

Raffensperger: Provisional ballots are allowed by state law.

Trump: Sure, but I mean, are they counted, or did you just hold them back because they, you know, in other words, how many provisional ballots do you have in the state?

Raffensperger: We’ll get you that number.

Trump: Because most of them are made out to the name Trump. Because these are people that were scammed when they came in. And we have thousands of people that have testified or that want to testify. When they came in, they were proudly going to vote on November 3. And they were told, ‘I’m sorry, you’ve already been voted for, you’ve already voted.’ The women, men started screaming, ‘No. I proudly voted till November 3.’ They said, ‘I’m sorry, but you’ve already been voted for, and you have a ballot.’ And these people are beside themselves. So they went out, and they filled in a provisional ballot, putting the name Trump on it.

And what about that batch of military ballots that came in. And even though I won the military by a lot, it was 100 percent Trump. I mean 100 percent Biden. Do you know about that? A large group of ballots came in, I think it was to Fulton County, and they just happened to be 100 percent for Trump — for Biden — even though Trump won the military by a lot, you know, a tremendous amount. But these ballots were 100 percent for Biden. And do you know about that? A very substantial number came in, all for Biden. Does anybody know about it?

Mitchell: I know about it, but —

Trump: Okay, Cleta, I’m not asking you, Cleta, honestly. I’m asking Brad. Do you know about the military ballots that we have confirmed now. Do you know about the military ballots that came in that were 100 percent, I mean 100 percent, for Biden. Do you know about that?

Germany: I don’t know about that. I do know that we have, when military ballots come in, it’s not just military, it’s also military and overseas citizens. The military part of that does generally go Republican. The overseas citizen part of it generally goes very Democrat. This was a mix of ’em.

Trump: No, but this was. That’s okay. But I got like 78 percent of the military. These ballots were all for . . . They didn’t tell me overseas. Could be overseas, too, but I get votes overseas, too, Ryan, in all fairness. No they came in, a large batch came in, and it was, quote, 100 percent for Biden. And that is criminal. You know, that’s criminal. Okay. That’s another criminal, that’s another of the many criminal events, many criminal events here.

I don’t know, look, Brad. I got to get . . . I have to find 12,000 votes, and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state. That’s before we go to the next step, which is in the process of right now. You know, and I watched you this morning, and you said, well, there was no criminality.

But I mean 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.

I just, I just don’t know why you don’t want to have the votes counted as they are. Like even you when you went and did that check. And I was surprised because, you know . . . And we found a few thousand votes that were against me. I was actually surprised because the way that check was done, all you’re doing, you know, recertifying existing votes and, you know, and you were given votes and you just counted them up, and you still found 3,000 that were bad. So that was sort of surprising that it came down to three or five, I don’t know. Still a lot of votes. But you have to go back to check from past years with respect to signatures. And if you check with Fulton County, you’ll have hundreds of thousands because they dumped ballots into Fulton County and the other county next to it.

So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. You know, we have that in spades already. Or we can keep it going, but that’s not fair to the voters of Georgia because they’re going to see what happened, and they’re going to see what happened. I mean, I’ll, I’ll take on anybody you want with regard to [name] and her lovely daughter, a very lovely young lady, I’m sure. But, but [name] . . . I will take on anybody you want. And the minimum, there were 18,000 ballots, but they used them three times. So that’s, you know, a lot of votes. And they were all to Biden, by the way, that’s the other thing we didn’t say. You know, [name] , the one thing I forgot to say, which was the most important. You know that every single ballot she did went to Biden. You know that, right? Do you know that, by the way, Brad?

Every single ballot that she did through the machines at early, early in the morning went to Biden. Did you know that, Ryan?

Germany: That’s not accurate, Mr. President.

Trump: Huh. What is accurate?

Germany: The numbers that we are showing are accurate.

Trump: No, about [name] . About early in the morning, Ryan. Where the woman took, you know, when the whole gang took the stuff from under the table, right? Do you know, do you know who those ballots, do you know who they were made out to, do you know who they were voting for?

Germany: No, not specifically.

Trump: Did you ever check?

Germany: We did what I described to you earlier —

Trump: No no no — did you ever check the ballots that were scanned by [name] , a known political operative, balloteer? Did ever check who those votes were for?

Germany: We looked into that situation that you described.

Trump: No, they were 100 percent for Biden. 100 percent. There wasn’t a Trump vote in the whole group. Why don’t you want to find this, Ryan? What’s wrong with you? I heard your lawyer is very difficult, actually, but I’m sure you’re a good lawyer. You have a nice last name.

But, but I’m just curious, why wouldn’t, why do you keep fighting this thing? It just doesn’t make sense. We’re way over the 17,779, right? We’re way over that number, and just if you took just [name] , we’re over that number by five, five or six times when you multiply that times three.

And every single ballot went to Biden, and you didn’t know that, but now you know it. So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do? We won the election, and it’s not fair to take it away from us like this. And it’s going to be very costly in many ways. And I think you have to say that you’re going to reexamine it, and you can reexamine it, but reexamine it with people that want to find answers, not people that don’t want to find answers. For instance, I’m hearing Ryan that he’s probably, I’m sure a great lawyer and everything, but he’s making statements about those ballots that he doesn’t know. But he’s making them with such — he did make them with surety. But now I think he’s less sure because the answer is, they all went to Biden, and that alone wins us the election by a lot. You know, so.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, you have people that submit information, and we have our people that submit information. And then it comes before the court, and the court then has to make a determination. We have to stand by our numbers. We believe our numbers are right.

Trump: Why do you say that, though? I don’t know. I mean, sure, we can play this game with the courts, but why do you say that? First of all, they don’t even assign us a judge. They don’t even assign us a judge. But why wouldn’t you . . . Hey Brad, why wouldn’t you want to check out [name] ? And why wouldn’t you want to say, hey, if in fact, President Trump is right about that, then he wins the state of Georgia, just that one incident alone without going through hundreds of thousands of dropped ballots. You just say, you stick by, I mean I’ve been watching you, you know, you don’t care about anything. ‘Your numbers are right.’ But your numbers aren’t right. They’re really wrong, and they’re really wrong, Brad. And I know this phone call is going nowhere other than, other than ultimately, you know — Look, ultimately, I win, okay? Because you guys are so wrong. And you treated this. You treated the population of Georgia so badly. You, between you and your governor, who is down at 21, he was down 21 points. And like a schmuck, I endorsed him, and he got elected, but I will tell you, he is a disaster.

The people are so angry in Georgia, I can’t imagine he’s ever getting elected again, I’ll tell you that much right now. But why wouldn’t you want to find the right answer, Brad, instead of keep saying that the numbers are right? ‘Cause those numbers are so wrong?

Mitchell: Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, one of the things that we have been, Alex can talk about this, we talked about it, and I don’t know whether the information has been conveyed to your office, but I think what the president is saying, and what we’ve been trying to do is to say, look, the court is not acting on our petition. They haven’t even assigned a judge. But the people of Georgia and the people of America have a right to know the answers. And you have data and records that we don’t have access to.

And you can keep telling us and making public statement that you investigated this and nothing to see here. But we don’t know about that. All we know is what you tell us. What I don’t understand is why wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to try to get to the bottom, compare the numbers, you know, if you say, because . . . to try to be able to get to the truth because we don’t have any way of confirming what you’re telling us. You tell us that you had an investigation at the State Farm Arena. I don’t have any report. I’ve never seen a report of investigation. I don’t know that is. I’ve been pretty involved in this, and I don’t know. And that’s just one of 25 categories. And it doesn’t even. And as I, as the president said, we haven’t even gotten into the Dominion issue. That’s not part of our case. It’s not part of, we just didn’t feel as though we had any to be able to develop —

Trump: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. We found a way . . . excuse me, but we don’t need it because we’re only down 11,000 votes, so we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell. But we don’t need that. All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. We won Georgia easily. We won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But if you go by basic, simple numbers, we won it easily, easily. So we’re not giving Dominion a pass on the record. We don’t need Dominion because we have so many other votes that we don’t need to prove it any more than we already have.

Trump attorney Kurt Hilbert: Mr. President and Cleta, this is Kurt Hilbert, if I might interject for a moment. Ryan, I would like to suggest that just four categories that have already been mentioned by the president that have actually hard numbers of 24,149 votes that were counted illegally. That in and of itself is sufficient to change the results or place the outcome in doubt. We would like to sit down with your office, and we can do it through purposes of compromise and just like this phone call, just to deal with that limited category of votes. And if you are able to establish that our numbers are not accurate, then fine. However, we believe that they are accurate. We’ve had now three to four separate experts looking at these numbers.

Trump: Certified accountants looked at them.

Hilbert: Correct. And this is just based on USPS data and your own secretary of state data. So that’s what we would entreat and ask you to do, to sit down with us in a compromise and settlements proceeding and actually go through the registered voter IDs and the registrations. And if you can convince us that 24,149 is inaccurate, then fine. But we tend to believe that is, you know, obviously more than 11,779. That’s sufficient to change the results entirely in and of itself. So what would you say to that, Mr. Germany?

Germany: I’m happy to get with our lawyers, and we’ll set that up. That number is not accurate. And I think we can show you, for all the ones we’ve looked at, why it’s not. And so if that would be helpful, I’m happy to get with our lawyers and set that up with you guys.

Trump: Well, let me ask you, Kurt, you think that is an accurate number. That was based on the information given to you by the secretary of state’s department, right?

Hilbert: That is correct. That information is the minimum, most conservative data based upon the USPS data and the secretary of state’s office data that has been made publicly available. We do not have the internal numbers from the secretary of state. Yet we have asked for it six times. I sent a letter over to . . . several times requesting this information, and it’s been rebuffed every single time. So it stands to reason that if the information is not forthcoming, there’s something to hide. That’s the problem that we have.

Germany: Well, that’s not the case, sir. There are things that you guys are entitled to get. And there’s things that under law, we are not allowed to give out.

Trump: Well, you have to. Well, under law, you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, okay? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done. This is a faulty election result. And honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election coming up, and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam — and because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote. And a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected. Really respected, if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And I think that it is really is important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers. Because I know, Brad, that if you think we’re right, I think you’re going to say, and I’m not looking to blame anybody, I’m just saying, you know, and, you know, under new counts, and under new views, of the election results, we won the election. You know? It’s very simple. We won the election. As the governors of major states and the surrounding states said, there is no way you lost Georgia. As the Georgia politicians say, there is no way you lost Georgia. Nobody. Everyone knows I won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But I’ll tell you it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast.

Meadows: Mr. President, this is Mark. It sounds like we’ve got two different sides agreeing that we can look at those areas, and I assume that we can do that within the next 24 to 48 hours, to go ahead and get that reconciled so that we can look at the two claims and making sure that we get the access to the secretary of state’s data to either validate or invalidate the claims that have been made. Is that correct?

Germany: No, that’s not what I said. I’m happy to have our lawyers sit down with Kurt and the lawyers on that side and explain to him, hey, here’s, based on what we’ve looked at so far, here’s how we know this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong.

Meadows: So what you’re saying, Ryan, let me let me make sure . . . so what you’re saying is you really don’t want to give access to the data. You just want to make another case on why the lawsuit is wrong?

Germany: I don’t think we can give access to data that’s protected by law. But we can sit down with them and say —

Trump: But you’re allowed to have a phony election? You’re allowed to have a phony election, right?

Germany: No, sir.

Trump: When are you going to do signature counts, when are you going to do signature verification on Fulton County, which you said you were going to do, and now all of a sudden, you’re not doing it. When are you doing that?

Germany: We are going to do that. We’ve announced —

Hilbert: To get to this issue of the personal information and privacy issue, is it possible that the secretary of state could deputize the lawyers for the president so that we could access that information and private information without you having any kind of violation?

Trump: Well, I don’t want to know who it is. You guys can do it very confidentially. You can sign a confidentiality agreement. That’s okay. I don’t need to know names. But on this stuff that we’re talking about, we got all that information from the secretary of state.

Meadows: Yeah. So let me let me recommend, Ryan, if you and Kurt will get together, you know, when we get off of this phone call, if you could get together and work out a plan to address some of what we’ve got with your attorneys where we can we can actually look at the data. For example, Mr. Secretary, I can you say they were only two dead people who would vote. I can promise you there are more than that. And that may be what your investigation shows, but I can promise you there are more than that. But at the same time, I think it’s important that we go ahead and move expeditiously to try to do this and resolve it as quickly as we possibly can. And if that’s the good next step. Hopefully we can, we can finish this phone call and go ahead and agree that the two of you will get together immediately.

Trump: Well, why don’t my lawyers show you where you got the information. It will show the secretary of state, and you don’t even have to look at any names. We don’t want names. We don’t care. But we got that information from you. And Stacey Abrams is laughing about you. She’s going around saying these guys are dumber than a rock. What she’s done to this party is unbelievable, I tell you. And I only ran against her once. And that was with a guy named Brian Kemp, and I beat her. And if I didn’t run, Brian wouldn’t have had even a shot, either in the general or in the primary. He was dead, dead as a doornail. He never thought he had a shot at either one of them. What a schmuck I was. But that’s the way it is. That’s the way it is. I would like you . . . for the attorneys . . . I’d like you to perhaps meet with Ryan, ideally tomorrow, because I think we should come to a resolution of this before the election. Otherwise you’re going to have people just not voting. They don’t want to vote. They hate the state, they hate the governor, and they hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that right now. The only people that like you are people that will never vote for you. You know that, Brad, right? They like you, you know, they like you. They can’t believe what they found. They want more people like you. So, look, can you get together tomorrow? And, Brad, we just want the truth. It’s simple.

And everyone’s going to look very good if the truth comes out. It’s okay. It takes a little while, but let the truth come out. And the real truth is, I won by 400,000 votes. At least. That’s the real truth. But we don’t need 400,000 votes. We need less than 2,000 votes. And are you guys able to meet tomorrow, Ryan?

Germany: I’ll get with Chris, the lawyer who’s representing us in the case, and see when he can get together with Kurt.

Raffensperger: Ryan will be in touch with the other attorney on this call, Mr. Meadows. Thank you, President Trump, for your time.

Trump: Okay, thank you, Brad. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Bye.  

 

Categories
Headline USA

These are the worst times of the day to drink coffee, according to expert nutritionists | The State

Too much caffeine is associated with some side effects.

Photo:
Image by Karolina Grabowska from Pixabay / Pixabay

Without a doubt the coffee is one of the most revered drinks modern era and there are countless reasons to love it. Is delicious, aromatic, medicinal and of course provides the energy hit necessary to start the day, its caffeine content makes it one of the natural stimulants most consumed worldwide and their relationship with increase in productivity he returns it perfect ally of the mornings.

The truth is that benefits of a good cup of coffee are not limited to simple alertness, coffee can significantly improve cognitive habilyties, benefits digestion, it is a good ally of weight loss and it works as a great anti-inflammatory agent. In fact recently a new study suggests that the coffee could be a useful protection against dementia and Alzheimer’s.

Yet with so many benefits Are there circumstances in which coffee can do more harm than good? According to medical experts and nutritionyes. Find out what the worst times of the day and specific circumstances to drink coffee.

The worst times to drink coffee:

1. After noon

The effect of coffee literally changes after 12:00 noon and although for some it may seem harmless since it is “midmorning“, In cases of sensitive people can seriously interfere with the sleep schedule. A good alternative to overcome this problem, especially for coffee drinking lovers in the afternoon is to try substitute hot coffee in the morning for cold brew coffee. The cold infusion generally has a higher caffeine count than hot coffee and this is because generally more coffee grounds are needed per ounce of water to prepare a cold infusion that for the conventional hot coffee, which also produces a more concentrated cup. In such a way that drinking a cold infusion at 11:30 am could be a great way to stay more active for longer during the day and can even help give up afternoon coffee, that when it is a recurring habit alters the quality of sleep in the long term.

Cold coffe.
Cold coffee. / Photo: Pixabay

2. When you have already had two cups

As much as you love coffee, it is not a exception to old adage of “Everything in moderation.” Based on this, nutrition specialists advise limit intake to 2-3 cups; after 3-4 cups, it is considered an excess that can lead to dehydration and other symptoms related to caffeine overload in the body. In fact according to science one of the Feeding Habits which can shorten life, is to drink more than 4 cups of coffee a day.

Coffee
Coffee. / Source: Pixabay

3. On an empty stomach

In the last months one of the health and nutrition trends most popular, without a doubt it has been intermittent fasting. In such a way that it has become customary, start the day drinking coffee on an empty stomach. However, it is not entirely recommended, since as it is a highly acidic drink drink it with empty stomach it can cause discomfort. The reason is simple since acidity levels of the coffee are potentially troublesome for people with heartburn, Reflux, digestive problems and even only Stomach ache. Also in the cases of people who are sensitive to caffeine, it is normal that the symptoms that alter the nervous system as tachycardia and the anxiety. The good news is that there are ways to avoid these annoyances, one of the main ones is to buy organically grown non-GMO coffee beans, who have a lower toxin load and the highest content of antioxidants. It is also advisable to take the first cup of the day with a little low-fat or vegetable milk, it’s a great tip for counteract acidity. Another tip that can be from great utility for those who suffer from digestive disturbances, is drinking coffee cold since tends to be less bitter and acid than normal coffee.

Coffee. / Photo: Pexels

4. When you suffer from high cholesterol levels

Much has been said about coffee consumption and its limitations in the cases of people with pspecific health adaptations. One of the main is high cholesterol, however it is not necessary eliminate coffee altogether, However, it is very important that if you suffer from this condition you reconsider how you drink it. While it has been shown that most filtered coffee have a neutral effect Over the lipid levels, he french pressed coffee or without filter actually can increase LDL “bad” cholesterol“. Therefore, if you suffer from LDL levels are high, consider the consumption of filtered coffee with paper is a great help for prevent them from increasing and get out of control.

Why drinking coffee makes you happier according to science
Paper filtered coffee./Photo: Getty images

5. When drinking coffee is an “addiction”

It is well known that there are people who are avid coffee drinkers and by presenting an increase in intake, it can become a habit so strong what it becomes an addiction. That is why nutritionists and doctors recommend with special emphasis manage daily intake and seek moderation, since stimulants like coffee they have a direct effect Over the energy levels. They do this by increasing the activity of the Central Nervous System, stimulating hormones (like adrenaline) and neurotransmitters that considerably affect our energy. What happens is that it can become a problem, since the body adapts to the effects of coffee and requires increasing doses to get the same effect, which eventually leads to exhaustion and fatigue. Therefore a good alternative is to consume a maximum of a couple of cups between 4 and 5 days a week, and replace your intake with drinks like green tea and matcha.

Coffee
Coffee. / Photo: Pexels

.