This debate assumes that Raffensberger wanted to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution, when it’s far more likely he just wanted the conversation to end and the problem to go away, so he had no incentive to lure Trump into admissions. The tape was to protect himself, not aid a prosecutor.
Yes, that’s correct. I’m not asking what he should have done but what he could have done.
You’re correct that he could have asked for an explicit description of a criminal act.
What’s the contention or debate or whatever past that?
Just musing about what we might have learned by applying hindsight. If Raffensberger had been motivated to have Trump incriminate himself, he could have gone much further than he did. But he wasn’t so motivated, so we lost out on getting some valuable statements out of Trump.
I am reminded of the quote attributed to Henry II “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”. Of course, he was referring to Thomas Beckett and later on, he was able to swear on the Bible (a serious thing in 12 century England) that he did not order the attack.
Of course. And it would have been swell if someone had asked, “Pardon me, Your Majesty, but are you suggesting that you would like for someone to kill Thomas Beckett?”
“Nonsense. I just don’t ever want to see him come into my sight again.” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
Practically, I have to cast my lot with the “nothing” crowd.
In multiple interviews, Raffensperger strikes me as the best kind of civil servant – dedicated, principled, smart, and hard working.
That somebody pressed the ‘record’ button is nothing short of a miracle.
But for me to wonder what he could have done differently is to make something of him that I think he isn’t: wily.
Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
― George Bernard Shaw
Trump’s a pig. I don’t make Raffensperger as a likely pig wrestler.
And what could a non-Raffensperger type, cast in that role, have done? It’s a bit like the 2016 Republican primaries: nobody could out shit-bag Trump. He took them all out. Every one of them. It was his game (being an awful human being) and he took home the gold.
So I find it difficult to imagine another geeky civil servant SoS being as crafty and scheming as Trump, and Trump definitely did have a 50+ year head start.
ETA: Please note that I actively resisted the urge to declare it a “perfect call,” but only on Raffensperger’s part 
I don’t think Raffensperger’s intent was to entrap Trump. I think he was playing defense.
At the time he took that call, he’d been dodging Trump’s calls for a while, and Trump had made dozens of attempts to call him. He simply wanted to have “proof” when Trump inevitably mischaracterized the call, which he did the next day.
I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ballots under table scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!
He didn’t want to put the screws to Trump. He wanted Trump to win. If he could have found a legal way to make that happen, he would have. Same with Kemp. They failed in all the legal ways to affect the vote and self-preservation took over at that point.
Exactly.
Seriously. Raffensberger didn’t want Trump to be the next president like Mitch Mcconnell didn’t want Trump appointing judges.
Trump was, however, threatening Raffensberger (and none too subtly) with criminal charges in that phone call. It only makes sense for Raffensberger to make clear that the criminal acts were being committed by Trump, not by him.
In other words, the best defense is a good offense.
He probably, naively, believed that the tape itself does that. Which it does. It’s the same thing that has sane people all over wondering why Trump gets away with things that are obviously out of line.
Raffensberger could have used “Well, what are the other states doing to find votes?”. That could have put Trump on a ramble.
This is the one and only thing that Raffensberger wanted. To end that phone call ASAP.
@slicedalone , I think you are under-estimating how difficult it is to get an admission out of an individual in a conversation, especially an individual as skilled in avoiding any admissions as Trump.
It’s extremely rare on cross-examination of an accused for the prosecutor to get an admission, or to “nail down” facts truly harmful to the accused. A good, slippery individual, as Trump has proven himself time and time again, can see the “danger!” sign flashing and give an answer that is not responsive and starts to skate away from the trap. Good cross-examination of an accused is very difficult for a prosecutor to do.
I agree with the others who have posted that Raffensberger was trying to rebut Trump’s strange arguments and get off the call without calling his own innocence into question. He wasn’t trying to entrap Trump. He succeeded in that goal, and in doing so, he did get Trump to make some damaging admissions. That’s about the best you can expect.
Yes, I think Raffensberger would need to play along as if he was on Trump’s side to get him talking. Say something like “we can’t think of any way to “find” votes for you from here but certainly you must have some ideas, sir?” Trump cannot resist that ego stroke and he’ll talk.
I was going to make this same semantic point. It is an important distinction.
I haven’t claimed that Raffensberger had the least intention of tricking Trump into giving self-incriminating evidence about his illegal interference in the election. What I am doing is wondering what techniques Raffensberger might have used if he were trying to do that.
I’ve rarely had a conversation with an adversary in which I couldn’t, afterwards, second-guess myself. “I should have said this at that point” or “I should have asked that question sooner” or “I shouldn’t have accepted his argument at that point” etc.
I’m sure Raffensberger, in theory, could have forced Trump’s hand a little better, in retrospect. Unless you’re claiming that, from my hypothetical Raffensberger’s perspective, it was a perfect phone call.