Judge McAfee Dismisses Six Counts Against Trump, Cites Lack of Detail

ATLANTA, GEORGIA – In a recent ruling from Fulton County, a judge has dismissed certain allegations against former President Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants within the Georgia election meddling lawsuit. Judge Scott McAffee, on a Wednesday decision, articulated that the prosecution did not present adequate specifics for six charges of “solicitation of violation of oath by public officer.”

Judge McAffee emphasized that while the prosecution did indeed outline numerous actions by the defendants, the charges suffered due to a lack of specifics about a crucial legal aspect, rendering them ineffective. McAffee pointed out that although the charges detailed the crimes’ essential components, they did not offer enough information on how the crimes were allegedly committed. This lack of specificity, he argued, left the defendants without sufficient information to mount an effective defense, given the myriad ways they could have potentially breached the statutes in question.

List of the six counts

The six counts are as follows:

• Count Two alleges that multiple Defendants solicited elected members of the Georgia Senate to violate their oaths of office on December 3, 2020, by requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors;

• Count Five alleges that Defendant Trump solicited the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives to violate his oath of office on December 7, 2020, by requesting or importuning him to call a special session to unlawfully appoint presidential electors;

• Count Six alleges that Defendants Smith and Giuliani solicited members of the Georgia House of Representatives to violate their oaths of office on December 10, 2020, by requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors;

• Count 23 alleges that multiple Defendants solicited elected members of the Georgia Senate to violate their oaths of office on December 30, 2020, by requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors;

• Count 28 alleges that Defendants Trump and Meadows solicited the Georgia Secretary of State to violate his oath of office on January 2, 2021, by requesting or importuning him to unlawfully influence the certified election returns; and

• Count 38 alleges that Defendant Trump solicited the Georgia Secretary of State to violate his oath of office on September 17, 2021, by requesting or importuning him to unlawfully decertify the election.

“As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited. Kimbrough, 300 Ga. at 884. They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways,” McAfee wrote.

Further complicating matters for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was a misconduct hearing that has since tarnished her credibility. The hearing delved into Willis’s personal relationship with an individual she appointed to spearhead the Georgia case against Donald Trump. Despite the hearing’s revelations and the shadow of possible perjury charges, legal analysts suggest such charges are highly unlikely.

 

The Wednesday ruling did not eliminate all charges against Trump, who is viewed as the likely Republican candidate for the presidency in 2024. While six charges were dismissed, including three against Trump, the judge’s order does not affect other allegations within the indictment. Moreover, the judge indicated that the prosecution could seek to re-indict on the dismissed charges, suggesting a potential avenue for revisiting these allegations.

This development marks a significant setback for DA Willis, whose professional conduct and the integrity of her case have been called into question due to her romantic involvement with a colleague. This is notably the first instance of charges being dismissed in any of the four criminal cases against Trump, highlighting the judge’s stance that the prosecution’s descriptions of the alleged criminal activities were insufficiently detailed.

Central to the dismissed charges are allegations tied to Trump’s attempts to influence Georgia’s elected officials to contravene their oaths of office. This includes accusations stemming from a phone call on January 2, 2021, to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump reportedly sought to “find 11,780 votes,” just enough to surpass his vote tally.

 

The broader case accuses Trump and his co-defendants of engaging in a concerted effort to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, favoring Democrat Joe Biden. The extensive indictment outlines numerous attempts by Trump and his associates to challenge his election defeat, including intimidating an election worker with unfounded fraud accusations and efforts to convince Georgia legislators to disregard the electorate’s choice in favor of electors aligned with Trump.

These delays cast a shadow over the proceedings, viewed by some as overly politicized or as “kangaroo courts” aiming to influence the electoral outcome in favor of Joe Biden by undermining his political adversary. The perception that the legal challenges against Trump are politically motivated rather than grounded in impartial justice fuels skepticism among his supporters and a segment of the electorate. This skepticism, combined with the procedural delays, may well culminate in the court of public opinion playing a decisive role in evaluating Trump’s legacy and his eligibility for future office.

As the judicial narrative unfolds, the possibility that Trump’s fate will be decided by voters rather than through the legal system becomes increasingly plausible. This shift from legal judgments to electoral decisions emphasizes the unique interplay between law and politics in the United States, particularly in matters involving high-profile political figures. It underscores the principle that, in the end, it is the electorate that holds the ultimate power in a democracy, capable of rendering the final verdict on the actions and fitness of its leaders.