The recent indictment against former President Donald Trump in Georgia has stirred significant debate and controversy. Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor from Wash University, has weighed in on the matter, raising several pertinent questions and concerns.
The Rushed Indictment
One of the most striking aspects of this indictment is the manner in which it was handled. The rush to release the indictment late into the night, followed by a premature release and subsequent denial of knowledge by the district attorney, raises eyebrows. Turley finds the district attorney’s statement about being unaware of the clerk’s office’s actions “baffling.” If the publication of the indictment was indeed premature, it represents a grave oversight, and one would expect the district attorney to be more inquisitive about such a significant mishap.
The Broad Racketeering Claim
The foundation of the indictment is a broad racketeering claim. With 18 individuals charged, it appears that the indictment has cast a wide net, encompassing every call, tweet, and speech as a separate criminal act contributing to the alleged conspiracy. This approach raises serious concerns about the potential criminalization of challenges to elections.
Turley points out that challenges to election results, whether by Democrats or Republicans, have been a common occurrence in past presidential elections. Some challenges are based on strong evidence, while others are not. For instance, Mark Elias, representing the Democratic Party, previously challenged an election, alleging that voting machines in New York were responsible for flipping its outcome. Such challenges, Turley argues, are not crimes but rather calls for judicial review.
Timing Concerns
The timing of the indictment, coming two and a half years after the events in question, is another point of contention. Why was there such a delay in bringing this to court? The proximity of the indictment to the upcoming election, with court cases likely to coincide with the polls, raises questions about potential political motivations.
The Challenge of Racketeering Cases
The indictment’s basis on the racketeering statute means it will be challenging to dismiss on preliminary grounds. Racketeering cases are primarily fact-based, and prosecutors typically argue for the opportunity to present their evidence. As such, the likelihood of this indictment surviving a review is relatively high.
In contrast, in the DC case, the judge could pose challenges for Trump in reaching the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court on significant constitutional questions. Unlike the situation in Georgia, where the case revolves around state action and elections, the DC case involves the creation of new law, potentially leading to disagreements with higher courts.
Conclusion
The Trump Georgia indictment has opened a Pandora’s box of legal and political debates. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to distinguish between genuine legal concerns and potential political motivations. The coming months will undoubtedly shed more light on this intricate legal battle.