SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE:
As for the original, erroneous characterizations given by [Jordan Fuchs, Deputy Secretary of State of Georgia], if she was truly concerned about illegal pressure being applied on the phone call, which Watson claims she did not feel, she could have gone to law enforcement and preserved the call record. Instead, she went to the Washington Post and the recording was put in the trash.
“They secretly recorded the telephone call, mischaracterized its contents to the news media and then attempted to destroy the recording. It is confidence-shattering,” David Shafer, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, told TAC.
Fuchs’s involvement in the December 23 incident has led many to assume she was the source of the leaked recording from January 2 as well, also published by the Washington Post. Two sources told TAC that this was, in fact, the case. The only three people on Raffensperger’s side of the January 2 call were Raffensperger himself, general counsel Ryan Germany, and Fuchs. Fuchs also had an existing relationship with one of the Post reporters whose byline was on the story.
“She refuses to acknowledge whether she recorded the call on January 2,” Mark Rountree, president of Landmark Communications, tells TAC. “That’s what she’s hiding from.” A second source who works in Georgia politics also identified Fuchs as the source of the January 2 recording.
“She hid from both, but the Washington Post has outed her for the first call. The question now becomes, will they out her in the second call?” Rountree told TAC.
* * * * * * * *
If Fuchs was not the source of the leaked recording, that means there is more than one official in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office who is leaking in a politicized way. That means the office has bigger problems.
As does the DNC-MSM: “WaPo may point to its correction as proof that the paper tries to hold itself accountable, but an honest outlet would have never run the story in the first place. Plus, these corrections never get nearly the same amount of coverage as the initial, false article. The result is an even further divided populace: one side that is angry about a story that is untrue, and the other that is angry at repeatedly being lied to by the media. The former president is right: this is not good for democracy.”