Time to stop this Dung Beetle charade and move on. The 2020 election was stolen and that’s now history. We’ve had four years of the demented sh*thead destroying America and it’s too late to do anything about it. His buddy, Kenyan boy, is proud of him.
Fox is reporting 6 charges were dropped not 3
I bet the GA Tourism peeps issued a “Save our seeking ship” plea.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24478989-georgia-v-trump-order-on-special-demurrers
p
While the averments do contain a reference to the terms of the violated oaths, this Court finds that the incorporation of the United States and Georgia Constitutions is so generic as to compel this Court to grant the special demurrers. On its own, the United States Constitution contains hundreds of clauses, any one of which can be the subject of a lifetime’s study. Academics and litigators devote their entire careers to the specialization of a single amendment.
To further complicate the matter, the Georgia Constitution is not a “mere shadow[]” of its federal counterpart, and although some provisions feature similar language, the Georgia Constitution has been interpreted to contain dramatically different meanings. See, e.g., Nels S.D. Peterson, Principles of Georgia Constitutional Interpretation, 75 Mercer L. Rev. 1, 11 (2023).
This is in marked contrast with say, aggravated assault with a handgun, which can be perpetrated “in only a limited number of ways,” and an indictment that merely refers to a handgun is “not too vague” because it infers that “the weapon was used either as a firearm or as a bludgeon.” Arthur v. State, 275 Ga. 790, 791 (2002).7
The Court’s concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants – in fact it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal. 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. Under the standards articulated by our appellate courts, the special demurrer must be granted.
I dont know if this judge is just throwing Trump a bone and will keep Willis on the case or this is the beginning of the ENTIRE case being dismissed
No, seriously, saying, "No fish for your fishing expedition."
Fani Willis’ corruption. criminality and incompetence are so obvious that every possible review board is coming after her. Fani thought she was untouchable because she had support from the white house. She was so eager to be rich and famous that she did not realize how they used her and hung her out to dry. She did this to herself.
I find the precedent exerpted at the foot of page 8 to be highly significant:
“Defendant Cheeley goes further and claims Count 23 also fails because there is no nexus between the offense and the public officers’ official duties. See, e.g., State v. Tullis, 213 Ga. App. 581, 582 (1994). The Court disagrees and finds that the Georgia Senate can play a role in election contests and that the appointment of presidential electors relates to their official duties.”
Applying logic:
1) Playing a role in election contests and the appointment of presidential electors relates to the official duties of Georgia Senators.
2) Patently, it is not a “Violation of their Oaths of Office” for Georgia Senators [and other State officers] to perform their official duties.
3) Lobbying Georgia Senators regarding performance of official duties that do not Violate their Oaths of Office is not a crime.
4) Therefore, the charges of “Soliciting Violation of Oath of Office” in the Trump RICO case are logically impossible.
They are nullities that should be dismissed.
On page 7 of his Order the Judge notes that the State describes and alleges an “abundance” of conduct, but fails to show that any of it constitutes crime. The Judge knows that what the Defendants did was legal.
