I might catch flak for this here, but I have watched a lot of the televised proceedings in this case and I think Judge McAfee has been more than fair so far in this case. This sucks but it is a legitimate procedural issue and a judge has to rule on these things. Frankly, I’m disappointed in the prosecution at this point. Between this and the relationship allegations, they have let multiple outside factors interfere in what might have been the best case against Trump for his election interference.
It’s important to note that this was not an exoneration, but rather more procedural. The judge’s argument is that the charges brought are not specific enough as to what elements of their oaths were broken. Now, the prosecutors will either have to drop those charges or refile them in front of a grand jury with more specific charges. The racketeering charges remain and are unaffected by this ruling.
We also still haven’t heard anything on the removal of the prosecutor for an alleged inappropriate relationship. This case is a clusterfuck.
The alleged inappropriate relationship, which was it’s own box of mess all on its own still never indicated why that was prejudicial to the case.
Y’know - the main point of brining it up? Unless the whole point was to create smoke and noise to delay and obfuscate. Or else they just got in there and then - didn’t have anything.
It’s one of those things where it’s obviously intended to derail the case, but I’m still pretty upset with everyone involved for leaving themselves open to this. When you shoot for the king, you better not miss. If you’re not interested in being a super clean goody-goody, don’t take this job. It’s part of the obligations for the important job you chose to do.
But yeah, agreed. I don’t think the defense’s argument is that it would be prejudicial to their case, but rather just arguing that there is other incentive for the prosecutor to be removed. Having the lead prosecutor removed just completely screws a case in the short term.
It’s also important to realize that this is how our justice system works. Participants will rarely file a single charge if there are thirty that may apply - it’s essentially free to file those 29 extra charges and it’s extremely punishing if you file one and choose poorly. The early stages of trial are throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
“Defense lawyers for Trump and the others argued, among other things, that the indictment charging them with that specific count did "not detail the exact term of the oaths that are alleged to have been violated,” McAfee noted in his order.
McAfee agreed, saying that the language in the indictment accusing the defendants of soliciting elected officials to violate their oaths to the U.S. and Georgia constitutions “is so generic as to compel” dismissal of the charges.”
I understand dismissing a charge of “failure to uphold and oath” when the accuser cannot establish which part of an oath was broken through specific actions in a legal case.
I’m not exactly familiar with the law, or the oath in question.
Hopefully oaths become more legally binding with updated, specific, terminology and do away with generic, vague platitudes that are entirely open to interpretation.
Washington, D.C. 4 federal felonies January 6th Election Interference
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - The trial, originally scheduled for March 4th, has been placed on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential Immunity. They are due to hear those arguments on April 25th.
Conviction
Sentencing
Florida 40 federal felonies Top Secret Documents charges
Investigation
Indictment
Original indictment was for 37 felonies.
3 new felonies were added on July 27, 2023.
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - May 20, 2024
Conviction
Sentencing
Georgia 10 state felonies Election Interference
As of 3/13/24 - Judge McAfee cleared 6 charges, 3 against Trump, saying they were too generic to be enforced.
Other grand juries, such as for the documents at Bedminster, or the Arizona fake electors, have not been announced.
The E. Jean Carroll trial for sexual assault and defamation where Trump was found liable and ordered to pay $5 million before immediately defaming her again resulting in a demand for $10 million is not listed as it’s a civil case and not a crimimal one. He was found liable in that case for $83.3 million.
There had been multiple cases in multiple states to remove Trump from the ballot, citing ineligibility under the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled on March 4th that states do not have the ability to determine eligibility in Federal elections.
Prosecutors have a bad habit of throwing the kitchen sink at anyone they come across and tossing a charge because it’s too broad is okay - it can always be re-filed with added specificity. I would hope it would be.
Add comment