Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at declarationsoftruth.locals.com!

1 month ago

335

News Law and Order election election of 2020 politicians president presidential election judiciary election fraud

Georgia judge dismisses six counts
By Terry A. Hurlbut
Today, Judge Scott McAfee of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, dismissed six counts in the Georgia election-subversion case. Three of the counts involve Donald Trump directly, and deal with requests he made of the Speaker of the Georgia House, and of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, on January 2, 2021. While the rest of the indictment remains, the judge dismissed the six counts because the district attorney worded them incorrectly. These dismissals, in the form of special demurrers, cast doubt on the competence of the Fulton County D.A.’s office, even apart from the allegations of collusion, conflict of interest, and embezzlement.
The constitutional principle at issue in the Georgia case
A special demurrer is a challenge to the form of an indictment on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally nonspecific. Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution specifies certain rights that all criminal defendants enjoy in any prosecution. The relevant right here is “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Trials that imitate the titular Trial in the Franz Kafka story are, by that definition, unconstitutional.
In this case, lawyers for Trump and at least some of his eighteen co-defendants filed special demurrers against six counts of the Georgia election-subversion indictment. Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit, in his coverage of today’s action, has an image of the first two pages. The list forty-one counts, and of these, the defense team challenged counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28 and 38. All these counts charge “solicitation of violation of oath by public officer.” The first four counts have to do with asking various legislators to appoint their own slate of Presidential electors, or to summon the Legislature into special session to do this. The last two specifically are about the infamous – and likely misquoted – telephone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, either to “find [more] votes” or to decertify the election.
Why the judge felt the need to throw those counts out
The Gateway Pundit is hosting its own copy of the judge’s nine-page order. Examination of each of the counts shows exactly why the Georgia judge had to dismiss them. The oath-takers involved, besides Secretary Raffensperger, included the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives and several Members of the Georgia State House and Senate. The only oath they took was to support the United States and Georgia Constitutions. So which oath they took, is clear enough.
But: how would each officer had violated his oath by granting the requests Trump and his co-defendants made? The counts don’t say! It’s not enough to allege, as District Attorney Fani Willis does, that Trump and his team wanted the Georgia legislature to appoint its own electors, or the Secretary of State to “find [more] votes” or decertify the election. She needed to show how these acts were unlawful and unconstitutional. Willis didn’t do that, and that left the court with only a vague understanding of the offense she was charging.
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. Id. At 882.
Judge McAfee listed five other defendants that this order affects: Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Ray Smith, and Bob Cheeley. Interestingly, the judge gave the D.A. six months from today to go back to a grand jury to seek fresh indictments on these six counts. He also lamented that Georgia law does not allow the filing of bills of particulars to remedy such defects.
More at issue
Judge McAfee still must deal with whether to disqualify D.A. Willis, and indeed her entire office, from this case.
Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe suggested that Willis’ special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, might have written the defective pleading. The extracurricular relationship between Willis and Wade is the main issue prompting the disqualification proceedings now playing out in Judge McAfee’s court. Concerning the flawed counts, Jim Hoft quotes Ratcliffe:
I think, if anything, my first take is it really sort of lends itself to the argument that the special prosecutor, special prosecutor Wade in this case is inexperienced in these types of cases and didn’t plead it properly, and as a result, these counts are being dismissed.
https://rumble.com/v4j0xei-former-dni-john-ratcliffe-on-judge-tossing-out-several-charges-against-trum.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
At first glance, the dismissal of six out of forty-one counts might not seem like much. But the calls to Secretary Raffensperger, even more than any calls to Georgia legislators, were the heart of her case. Even had the judge let those counts stand, Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist reported last week that the video record of that call was illegally obtained. The co-authors of a book on this case admit that Jordan Fuchs, Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida when the call took place. Florida is a two-party-consent State. So a party to a telephone call in Florida, may not record that call without the consent of all other parties. Fuchs didn’t ask for that, and that could make that recording inadmissible as evidence.
Jim Hoft reports that Willis might have been proceeding with a false transcript anyway. Fuchs sent a false transcript to The Washington Post, then deleted the sound recording. But she did not expunge it. Investigators later found it in the “Trash” folder of her laptop.
Where does the Georgia case go?
Speculation is already breaking out that the case cannot move forward, even if Judge McAfee does not disqualify D.A. Willis. Jeff DiSantis, Willis’ deputy, says only that the office is “reviewing the ruling,” according to the Associated Press. Actually he has two other questions to answer. Why did he allow someone to file flawed pleadings in a case of paramount importance to the White House? And with whom is he “reviewing the ruling”? The White House Counsel, perhaps?
https://rumble.com/v4ga2hf-fani-willis-legal-ecdysiast.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
Of course, a truly fair-minded District Attorney wouldn’t be stretching – and selectively applying – the law to disallow an election challenge. The case of Curling v. Raffensperger provides ample evidence that Georgia elections – State-wide – have been dirty for years.
https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
So if Fani Willis wanted to prosecute someone for violating his oath of office, she should have gone after Raffensperger. If she couldn’t prosecute him criminally, she could have gone to the Speaker of the Georgia House and recommended impeachment. Raffensperger knew the Election of 2020 was dirty even when he spoke to Donald Trump by telephone. But he has always run dirty elections, tilting them to the right, or the left, whomever paid the more. Willis should have known that. But she so loved her identity politics that she had to take sides, thereby becoming worse than Raffensperger. Add a touch of romantic embezzlement, and we have the flawed indictment with which Judge McAfee had to deal.
Link to:
The Constitution:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/