Things did not go well for Georgia gubernatorial hopeful Stacey Abrams, the Democrat gadfly that’s been ranting about how Georgia Governor Kemp “stole” the Governor’s Mansion from her back in 2018, when she appeared for an interview with Fox News Channel’s Shannon Bream.
That’s because Bream, unlike Abrams, had a healthy command of the facts and so could open up a can of whoopa** on Abrams, using the recent ruling from the Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Steven Jones against her and her group’s claims of voter suppression in Georgia. She began her takedown by describing what the judge could and what even the New York Times was forced to admit, saying:
“You are a successful author and attorney. You’ve said that words are very careful. You choose them carefully. They’re important. You’ve used the words rigged and stolen about the 2018 gubernatorial election. You said it was proper because you can back it up. But a federal judge has now said the voter protocols that you challenged in Georgia, by his estimation, didn’t violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.
“New York Times adds this: ‘The judge who was nominated by President Barack Obama added that verified action did not provide direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, was confused about voter registration status’” Do you take issue with Judge Jones’ findings in this case?”
Abrams attempted to push back on Bream but failed miserably at seeming convincing, particularly given that she lost at the hands of an Obama-appointed judge, saying:
“I take issue with the characterization that you’ve read. What the judge said in the 288-page decision was that repeatedly under the Greenville Standard, Georgia violated Section two of the Voting Rights Act. Under the Brnovich standard, which existed as of 2021. The Greenville existed in 2020.
“And when we filed the lawsuit Brnovich, which was the weakening of the Voting Rights Act that happened out of Arizona in 2021. And under the new standard, he did not have the authority to find that we proved our case under violations of Section two. But he said that it was a racially discriminatory system. He spent copious amounts of time explaining how Brian Kemp oversaw a racist system that disproportionately affected Brown voters.
“He said that while he was deeply concerned about what happened, he could not, under the Brnovich categorization, actually hold him accountable. That is very different than saying nothing happened and what we were able to prove and what took four months. What was the longest, the longest trial on a voting rights case in Georgia in decades. What the court said is that he was not able to find that we could meet the standard under the new weakened Voting Rights Act.
“And that’s the reason that I’m pushing so hard for the Voting Rights Act to be restored and expanded. But it’s also why I’m running for governor. We need a governor who actually cannot be credibly accused of having overseen a racist system. And Brian Kemp, according to Judge Jones, oversaw and helped architect a racist voter suppression system in the state of Georgia.”
Bream then countered Abrams’ claims masterfully, pointing out that despite all her claims of voter suppression, there was actually an increased turnout…which would bely claims that Kemp was suppressing Georgia voters. Speaking on that, Bream said:
“Well, I’ve read the opinion as well, and I would say the characterization is a bit different. But he does ultimately, Judge Jones say no violation of Voting Rights Act. And you mentioned there are different standards in case law that’s evolved through the Supreme Court on that front. But the direct quote from his ruling says, ‘No evidence that a voter couldn’t vote, experienced wait times or confused about voter registration status.’
“And I know the issue here for you is voter suppression. So let’s look at the numbers. In Georgia, the last gubernatorial primary versus now, there was a net increase of 763,380 voters. That sounds like the opposite of voter suppression.”
Then Abrams, getting desperate, ridiculously claimed that voter suppression and turnout are different, saying:
“Voter suppression is not about turnout. It’s about the barriers and obstacles to access. And that’s one of the other conflations I think it’s very important that we distinguish. Voter suppression exist when there is difficulty registering, staying on the rolls, being able to cast a ballot and having that ballot counted.”
Watch the two go back and forth here:
"In Georgia — the last gubernatorial primary versus now — there's a net increase of 763,380 voters. That sounds like the opposite of voter suppression?"
STACEY ABRAMS: Oh actually that's not what I meant pic.twitter.com/WlD7DUlrCq
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 9, 2022