Trump and others charged with conspiring to overturn 2020 election in Georgia

[N.E. Brigand]

There's no decision yet on the motion to disqualify Fani Willis's office.

But Judge McAfee today dismissed three charges against Donald Trump and some other defendants because the charges weren't specific enough. Willis can try to indict with more specific charges. Some commentators are saying she won't need to, because the remaining charges still cover the conduct. (If the charges were dismissed like this a second time, she couldn't try again after that.) If she does, it will certainly delay the case, because defendants must be given sufficient time to prepare for trial.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree with Anthony Michael Kreis that she will refile the charges.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, Judge McAfee denied a request from Harrison Floyd to revise his bond agreement so that he could work on Trump's 2024 campaign (he was the head of "Blacks for Trump" in 2020).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

According to the Lawfare crew, Judge McAfee has indicated that he is definitely going to issue his decision on the motion to disqualify Fani Willis by tomorrow.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge McAfee:

"However, an odor of mendacity remains."

I couldn't agree more. His ruling is really quite Solomon-esque.

[Dave_LF]

One tried to overthrow the US government, one failed to fill out the HR forms for an office romance. Guess who gets punished? What a crock; Trump doesn't deserve to win, but his pusillanimous "opponents" certainly deserve to lose.

This is a critical moment in history--Putin and Trump are working around the clock to annihilate everything that makes your life better than that of a medieval peasant; meanwhile, the good guys are too busy arguing about angels and pinheads to resist them in any meaningful way.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm confused by your post, Dave. The case against Trump continues unchanged. Willis has not been disqualified, and as an officer of the court, she absolutely should be chastised for almost certainly lying under oath. A country in which that is not the case is the kind of country that Donald Trump would want to have, not you or I. Ultimately, the only thing that would stand in the way of Trump getting punished for his conduct is if the U.S. electorate is foolish enough to elect him again. And if we are, we will get what we deserve.

[N.E. Brigand]

Judge McAfee: "However, an odor of mendacity remains."

I couldn't agree more. His ruling is really quite Solomon-esque.

The Covid test I took today was negative, but I came down hard with something overnight: 101 F degree fever, aches, shakes, and weakness. Knowing that a decision was coming, I feverishly dreamed about this case, and the word "Solomonic" kept running through my head. How, I wondered, would Judge McAfee split this baby? Or so it seemed. But what we remember of dreams is often just the last minutes, so maybe I just heard the television shortly before waking up. I certainly didn't expect this outcome. Some people were saying last month that Wade should just resign, but almost no one was predicting that McAfee would order that.

Anyway, in response to the judgment, Nathan Wade submitted his letter of resignation and Fani Willis accepted it.

Also, Judge McAfee had his decision ready last week, but because he was receiving threats, he waited until today to allow security measures to be put in place.

[N.E. Brigand]

Whew. Nathan Wade was scheduled to be interviewed tomorrow on Meet the Press but cancelled due to a "family emergency."

[N.E. Brigand]

Earlier today, Judge McAfee ruled against Donald Trump's motion asking that the case against him be dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And another one bites the dust. The day after Judge Cannon essentially killed any chance of the Mar-a-Lago documents case going to trial before the election, the Georgia Court of Appeals does the same for this case.



In about a month and half to two months, the SCOTUS will likely make it three, leaving only the much-maligned NY case.

[N.E. Brigand]

Anthony Kreis is right to say that this is largely Fani Willis's fault because she didn't take the case seriously enough to, at the very least, consider when starting a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired just what the defense might do with that situation. I am beyond angry at Willis. But regardless of whose fault it is, I think Kreis's follow-up point is only half true:

"The right to a speedy trial belongs to a defendant alone. The public has an interest in swift justice but that yields to regular order and due process."

The public has a right to know before the election whether or not one of the two leading candidates for president is a criminal.

We really do. I have that right and you have that right. It's self evident that we do -- it'd deeper than the Constitution itself -- because if we don't have that right, then we don't really have a democracy because we can't make informed choices. The Constitution isn't worth spit if a criminal can use it to seize power.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Both Kreis and you are correct. He is making a technical legal point; you are a making a broader, more general statement.

[N.E. Brigand]

And to temper my dismay: we have been here before, but we didn't know it. Richard Nixon probably didn't need to break the law to win the 1972 election, but that's what he did, with Watergate and other acts of election interference. Nixon probably broke the law in 1968 as well, by undermining the U.S.-Vietnamese peace talks, and that race was close enough that it very likely did make a difference -- and also likely led to the deaths of 20,000 U.S. servicemembers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. I think it's now clear that Donald Trump needed to break the law to win the 2016 election, and so that's what he did -- even if Robert Mueller couldn't prove it in court. (Alvin Bragg seems likely to prove one small part of it, but we'll see.) And in all three cases, the public was not aware of it, and didn't know that they were electing criminals, who once in power behaved, to some degree, like fascists, slowly moving the U.S. away from democracy. Somehow we survived, but we seem closer to the precipice now than ever before.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And to temper my dismay: we have been here before, but we didn't know it. Richard Nixon probably didn't need to break the law to win the 1972 election, but that's what he did, with Watergate and other acts of election interference. Nixon probably broke the law in 1968 as well, by undermining the U.S.-Vietnamese peace talks, and that race was close enough that it very likely did make a difference -- and also likely led to the deaths of 20,000 U.S. servicemembers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. I think it's now clear that Donald Trump needed to break the law to win the 2016 election, and so that's what he did -- even if Robert Mueller couldn't prove it in court. (Alvin Bragg seems likely to prove one small part of it, but we'll see.) And in all three cases, the public was not aware of it, and didn't know that they were electing criminals, who once in power behaved, to some degree, like fascists, slowly moving the U.S. away from democracy. Somehow we survived, but we seem closer to the precipice now than ever before.

Don't forget Reagan and the hostages in Iran in 1980. That was as bad as Nixon in 68.