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.
6 of 41 counts
6 of 91, but only 13 in Georgia, so that count is now 7.
How are you 50 off? That’s more than twice your guess. 👀
This seems like lazy reporting in an effort to be first…
“On its own, the United States Constitution contains hundreds of clauses, any one of which can be the subject of a lifetime’s study,” McAfee wrote.
Why is this included? It seems like it would be important to the story, but there’s no context or explanation…
Full quote for visibility
"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.
If you’re trying to keep track of where we’re at in the Trump prosecutions:
Updated 03/13/2024
New York
34 state felonies
Stormy Daniels PayoffInvestigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - March 25th, 2024
As with the January 6th trial, Trump lawyers are attempting to delay citing Presidential Immunity, despite the fact that Trump was not President when the crimes were committed.
Conviction
SentencingWashington, D.C.
4 federal felonies
January 6th Election InterferenceInvestigation
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
SentencingFlorida
40 federal felonies
Top Secret Documents chargesInvestigation
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
SentencingGeorgia
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.Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
All 19 defendants have surrendered.
Trial - A trial date of Aug. 5, 2024 has been requested, not approved yet.
Three defendants, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and bail bondsman Scott Hall, have all pled guilty and have agreed to testify in other cases.
Conviction
SentencingOther 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.
The weakness of our system is that it often assumes everyone is acting in good faith
Judge Scott McAfee appointed by Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. In case you were wondering.
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.
