In an intriguing turn of recent legal discourse, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has defended former President Donald Trump’s phone call to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump urged him to “find 11,780 votes”. According to Dershowitz, rather than a potential legal minefield for Trump, this phone call is “the most exculpatory piece of evidence,” as he mentioned in his interview with Fox Business host Larry Kudlow – a statement picked up by the Daily Caller.
Dershowitz’s understanding takes into account the argument that Trump’s word “find”—rather than terms such as “concoct” or “manufacture”—implies the votes Trump referred to are existent but unaccounted for. This semantic distinction places Trump in a position where he appears to be requesting a more rigorous search for purportedly existing votes, rather than urging an unlawful modification of the election’s outcome.
However, against Dershowitz’s interpretation are the distinct and very specific numbers Trump referenced during the call, such as alleged “4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list”, “18,325 vacant address voters”, among many others. Given that these allegations had been countered by multiple recounts and a signature audit conducted before Trump even made the call – actions that certified Trump’s loss in the state – doubt arises whether Trump’s request can be characterized as “exculpatory” or potentially incriminating.
Moreover, Trump’s numerical breakdown during the call didn’t equate to the excess of votes he would have needed to topple President Joe Biden’s victory margin of 11,799 votes in Georgia. Trump’s plea for 11,780 additional votes—regardless of the substantial unofficial tally he cited—suggests to some observers a request to amend the official tally to make him the winner, which could be interpreted as soliciting the creation of a false election record.
Therefore, Dershowitz’s assertion that Trump’s call was entirely ‘exculpatory’ remains subject to intense scrutiny and debate. As the lines between the semantic interpretation and the possible legal implications blur, these assertions underscore the complexities of the law and the unique perspectives that legal scholars bring to such critical situations.
For more details on this piece of analysis, see the original article.