Trump and co-defendants seek to dismiss Fulton County charges after case is severed.
In a series of filings on Monday, lawyers representing former President Donald Trump made a bold move to dismiss seven charges against him from the Fulton County indictment. They adopted the arguments put forth by co-defendants who have already separated their cases from Trump’s, using those same arguments in their own motions.
Trump, along with 18 others, faces charges of racketeering in relation to their efforts to challenge the 2020 election results in Georgia. The indictment spans 98 pages and includes a total of 41 counts. As Trump gears up for a potential 2024 presidential run, he finds himself juggling a packed court schedule, with four criminal indictments and several civil cases looming over him.
Two of Trump’s co-defendants, Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, both attorneys who advised him after the 2020 elections, have had their cases separated from the rest. They are set to be tried together on October 23. Trump has now adopted Powell’s general demurrer and motion to dismiss the charge of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. He argues that this charge violates fundamental constitutional principles of due process and fair warning.
Seven Counts
All defendants were initially charged with violating RICO, with Trump facing a total of 13 counts, the highest among the 19 defendants.
Powell also sought to dismiss six charges related to alleged voting machine tampering, charges that Trump himself was not indicted on. Her attorneys argued that if these false charges were dismissed, it would disqualify her from being charged under the RICO statute, which requires involvement in two or more criminal acts.
Trump has also adopted Chesebro’s motions to quash charges on counts nine, 11, 17, 15, 13, and 19.
Count nine accuses the defendants of “conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer.” Chesebro argues that the indictment fails to identify the type of public officer the Republican electors allegedly impersonated, while mischaracterizing how the electors presented themselves.
Counts 11 and 17 are charges of “conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree.” Chesebro argues that these counts fail to allege a material element of forgery and go beyond the scope of the cited statute.
Count 15 is a charge of “conspiracy to commit filing false documents.” Chesebro argues that the indictment fails to properly allege that the document in question involved an effort to encumber property and that the Republican electors’ certificates contained any false statements.
Counts 13 and 19 are charges of “conspiracy to commit false statements and writings.” Chesebro argues that these counts fail to allege a false statement and that neither the governor nor the secretary of state had the authority to act on the statements within the allegedly mailed documents.
Alternate Electors
The case is being prosecuted by Fani Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County in Georgia. She claims that the actions outlined in the indictment constitute a “racketeering conspiracy enterprise.” According to the indictment, the organizing of Republican electors and their casting of ballots were deemed illegal, resulting in charges of impersonating public officers against several electors.
Chesebro played a role in organizing alternate slates of electors in multiple states, including Wisconsin and Georgia. The indictment cites his meetings and communications as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Several other attorneys who advised Trump after the 2020 elections are also named in the indictment. Many of them argue that the actions they were charged with were simply part of their duties as practicing lawyers. Chesebro contends in his motion to quash the charges that the counts themselves fail to allege any criminal activity.
Case Tested
The indictment is complex, involving 19 co-defendants who are not all acquainted with each other, 41 counts, and 150 witnesses for the prosecution alone. Given these circumstances, it is only logical that the case be divided into smaller, more manageable trials, as argued by the defense. Last week, Judge Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court agreed to try Powell and Chesebro together due to their request for a speedy trial, but he decided to keep the cases consolidated despite their distinct nature. He acknowledged that it is likely the remaining 17 defendants will also have their cases separated to alleviate the burden on the jurors.
The judge also noted another complication: five defendants are attempting to have their cases moved to federal court. Mark Meadows, former chief of staff for Trump, is currently appealing in the 11th Circuit after his request was denied by a federal judge. Meadows made a surprise appearance and testified at his own hearing, which lasted an entire day and involved multiple witnesses.
The four other defendants seem eager to avoid a similar experience and have waived their right to appear at the hearings. Jeffrey Clark, former assistant attorney general, was absent from his hearing on Monday, and three alternate electors will have their hearing on Wednesday.
Judge McAfee pointed out that any federal ruling or appeal may impact the state court proceedings, adding another layer of complexity to the case. Additionally, several defendants have filed motions to dismiss the entire case, and the prosecution has yet to respond.
Last week, Trump also filed a similar motion, adopting arguments made by co-defendants Rudy Giuliani and Ray Stallings Smith III to dismiss the Fulton County case.
How does Trump’s legal team emphasize the importance of upholding the constitutional right to free speech and political expression in their defense
Ies as legal counsel and that they were acting within the bounds of the law. They contend that their involvement in challenging the election results was an exercise of their First Amendment rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Constitutional Principles
Trump’s legal team is now highlighting the violation of constitutional principles in their motion to dismiss. They argue that the RICO charges against him are unfounded and that they are an overreach of the law. They claim that the indictment fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the charges and that the allegations are based on political motivations rather than legitimate legal grounds.
Furthermore, Trump’s lawyers assert that the charges against him violate due process and fair warning. They argue that the RICO charges are ambiguous and fail to specify the criminal acts committed by Trump. They contend that such vague charges are a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee the right to due process and fair notice of the charges against an individual.
Trump’s legal team also emphasizes the importance of upholding the constitutional right to free speech and political expression. They argue that Trump’s actions to challenge the election results were protected by the First Amendment and should not be criminalized. They contend that prosecuting Trump and his co-defendants for engaging in political speech and advocacy would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the principles of democracy and free speech.
Implications for Trump’s Future
The outcome of the motion to dismiss will have significant implications for Trump’s future legal battles and potential presidential aspirations. If the charges against him are dismissed, it would weaken the overall case against him and potentially deter other legal actions against him.
However, if the motion to dismiss fails, Trump will face a lengthy and complex legal battle. The multiple criminal indictments and civil cases hanging over him pose a significant obstacle to his potential political ambitions. They create a cloud of legal uncertainty and potential reputational damage that he will have to navigate if he decides to run for president again in 2024.
Regardless of the legal proceedings, Trump’s decision to adopt the arguments of his co-defendants reflects a strategic move to strengthen his defense and challenge the legitimacy of the charges against him. By aligning his defense with Powell and Chesebro, he seeks to establish a unified front against the prosecution and undermine the credibility of the case.
Awaiting the Court’s Decision
The fate of the seven charges in the Fulton County indictment hangs in the balance as the court considers Trump’s motion to dismiss. The outcome of this legal battle will not only impact Trump’s personal legal woes but also have broader implications for the legal treatment of individuals involved in challenging election results.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the world will be watching closely to see how the court navigates the complex legal issues at hand and whether Trump’s arguments will hold weight. Whatever the decision may be, it will undoubtedly be a pivotal moment in Trump’s ongoing legal saga and influence the trajectory of his political future.
Now loading...