Ex-Federal Prosecutor Deems Fulton County Indictment on Trump and Allies Flawed.

A Flawed Case: Indictment Against Trump and Allies

A former federal prosecutor ‍has raised ​concerns about the racketeering conspiracy indictment against former ‍President Donald Trump and his allies. According to the prosecutor, attempts⁤ to change⁤ an election outcome ‍are legal, and a criminal‍ enterprise must pose a continuing threat.

Fulton ‌County District Attorney Fani Willis recently launched a 41-count indictment against ⁢Trump and 18 co-conspirators. The indictment accuses them of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election result ⁢by violating Georgia’s ​version of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and soliciting⁣ an official ‍to violate their oath of office.

While Georgia’s RICO Act allows prosecutors to connect various crimes committed by multiple defendants, a former Chief⁣ Assistant U.S. Attorney ⁤in‍ the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, pointed out a flaw in the ⁣case. In an ​opinion piece for The Messenger, McCarthy highlighted⁤ “a giant hole” in the indictment‌ due to⁢ the lack of a clear crime to which‍ Trump and his co-defendants can be said to ​have agreed.

“Racketeering‍ conspiracy charges typically apply to mafia-type criminal organizations that engage in offenses you would see in an episode of ‘The Sopranos.’ But because⁤ conspiracy charges require an ​agreement⁢ with two or more people to violate⁤ a criminal statute, if there is no agreement about committing a crime, there is no ⁣conspiracy,” McCarthy explained.

In the indictment, Willis alleges that Trump and the co-conspirators attempted to change ⁤the election outcome in favor of Trump. However, McCarthy argues that trying to reverse the election results without an ⁤overarching objective is not technically a crime.

“That​ is, the lawful objective of changing the election outcome somehow becomes unlawful⁣ because she invokes the apparently talismanic word ‘unlawful.’ But there is⁢ no crime of unlawfully trying to change an election outcome ⁣— not in Georgia law nor any other American law,” McCarthy wrote.

McCarthy also disputes‌ the use of the RICO charge in the Georgia⁤ case, stating that Trump and the co-defendants did not ‌intend or desire to belong to a group or see themselves as a group. ‌Their alleged objective was ⁤to maintain Trump in power, not to participate in‍ an‍ enterprise.

Democratic State Representative Tonya Miller of⁢ Georgia, who is also a former prosecutor in Fulton County, defended the indictment. She explained that under Georgia law, the term “enterprise” is defined broadly and includes‍ individuals, legal or​ illegal businesses, ‌and government agencies.

“RICO is particularly‍ broad in ‍Georgia, more so than‍ the federal‌ version, because it isn’t just crimes that can form the ⁣basis of racketeering activity. It can be ‍acts involving crimes, threats involving⁤ crimes, so it really can encompass conduct that isn’t necessarily on its face criminal. We see that in this indictment,” Miller said.

At the⁢ end of each‍ act in the indictment, Willis alleges that the defendants and other members​ and associates of the enterprise committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Emory University Law Professor Fred Smith Jr. explained that as long as the actions were in furtherance of‌ the same goal, the act of conspiracy could be counted, even if they ‍were not‍ themselves illegal.

“Now, of course, there does need to be illegal activity, a pattern​ of illegal ‌activity, which under Georgia law is two crimes that are listed in that particular state statute. But all other actions that may not themselves be illegal, so long​ as they were⁢ in furtherance of that same scheme, that same illegal goal can​ qualify,” Smith clarified.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases