Legal AF by MeidasTouch - MAJOR DECISION in Trump Georgia RICO Case JUST ISSUED

Episode Date: March 13, 2024

Legal AF hosts Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok report on the ruling by Judge Scott McAfee in the Fulton County, Georgia criminal RICO case against Donald Trump and co-defendants. Thanks to Smileactives! Visit smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Tressame. Want silky smooth hair that's still full of natural movement? The Tressame Carrot and Smooth Weightless Collection is your simple solution. This new collection features a wide range of products from nourishing shampoo and conditioner to lightweight heat protectants, and a silky smooth serum for a sleek finish. Wave goodbye to Frizz and say hello to three days of smooth hair with a Tressame keratin smooth weightless collection. Visit Tressame.com to learn more. A major development to report in the Fulton County RICO criminal case against Donald Trump and

those co-defendants who remain have not, who have not pled guilty. Judge Scott McAfee is granting Donald Trump and the Code Defendants special demer, which is a motion to dismiss on six of the counts in the felony RICO indictment. We'll go through what those counts are. It's count two, it's count five, it's count six, it's count It's count two, it's count five, it's count six, it's count 23, it's count 28, and it is count 38 are the ones that we have a graphic right there. These various counts relate to the issue of solicitation of a violation of oath of a public officer, whether it was telling the governor, the secretary of state or others to violate their oath.

Judge McAfee states that there are not sufficient facts that were put in the indictment by Fonny Willis and the district attorney's team. Popak, why don't you discuss more about this order? Then why don't you and I discuss a little bit about our thoughts on it? Yeah, and where we think it goes from here. Look, we were waiting for an order from Judge McAfee today.

We just thought it was going to be the one on Fawney Willis, whether she was going to be kept on the case or disqualified along with Nathan Wade. In a way, we might be able to read you and you and me a little bit of the tea leaves here. Good news is the two major headlines here, I think for our audience before we dive into the molecular level is the indictment overall and all 161 of its overax bad conduct that formed the basis of the indictment survived the motions to dismiss or the special demures as you as you framed it in Georgia procedural law. That's headline number one. So in other words, he did not dismiss the indictment.

We were afraid because that is an ask in the motion to disqualify Fawty Willis and Nathan Wade. They also asked for the indictment to be dismissed. And if he was going to do that in an order later today or later this week, along with her disqualification decision, his disqualification decision, he would not have picked and chosen through a number of elements here. So I think that's a good sign for justice, the fact the indictment has survived. And it's not unusual for certain elements of an indictment to be dismissed. And in this case, the ones that he did mostly were against

Giuliani and others, but there are two at the heart of it that go against Donald Trump. And yes, not the overact, not the allegation that Donald Trump and Mark Meadows picked up the phone and tried to make the phone call on January 2nd, after the election, to Brad Raffensperger, Jean Sperling and others, and get them to find the 11,758 votes that he needed to overcome the election results. The phone call is in and is still a part of the racketeering conspiracy allegations against Donald Trump.

But there was two standalone counts based on that phone call for separate crimes. And it's the counts that you, some of the counts that you just referenced there towards the end, 23, 28 and 38, I think, although you'll clean up for me when you get it back. The counts themselves, the judge found that as a matter of his interpretation of Georgia law, there is a missing there's not enough information

provided to Trump and the others, Mark Meadows particularly, about what oath of office the constitutional officers were being asked to violate. Well, there's only two that they take. They take one or one in particular, one to uphold the Georgia Constitution and the US Constitution. So, Fawney and her indictment, despite the fact that it goes on for 98 pages and contains 161 over acts 41 original indicted counts from a grand jury. And when we all have on Legal AF our dog-eared copies of this original indictment, even though she got that out of in return

from the grand jury, he's troubled the judge that as it relates to the oath that is allegedly violated that not enough information has been provided to the defense to allow them to fashion a defense. Now, you and I will disagree with that here on the midweek edition of legal AFN on the weekend edition. But the third headline for me is he gave, he gave, we may, we will disagree with the decision and the way he's ruled on it. But he knows that there are two ways to cure this problem and to re-indite and get these

standalone counts against Donald Trump back up and running. Again, the overt acts are part of the criminal conspiracy, and they're still alive in the indictment about the phone call in particular. Because I know that's the one everybody loves because it's direct evidence of Donald Trump's criminal conduct is alleged in the indictment. But you want to do footnote eight, because footnote eight for me is the entire ball of wax about where the judge has now left it in Fawney Willis's

court to do the next thing to try to save these counts. Are you self-conscious about your smile due to stains? Are your teeth aging you? Popular food and drinks are known to stain teeth. Beverage is like coffee and wine stained them over time. So what can you do to brighten your smile? Well, you should give smile actives a try. Smile actives is safe, effective, easy to use, and will keep you smiling proudly. As you probably know, because of all the videos we do, I'm a big coffee drinker and over time I noticed my teeth lost some of their brightness that I was used to seeing.

97% of Smile Actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades wider on average, all within 30 days. Simply add Smile Actives Pro Whitening Gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with polyclean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, grooves and crannies to get better whitening. Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that can simply be added to your toothpaste every time you brush your teeth. So no change in your routine, no extra time and no more messy strips, trays or lights. People will start commenting on your wider,

brighter smile in just days. Smile Actives is the whitening boost your favorite toothpaste needs to give you the smile you deserve. Visit smileactives.com slash legalaf today to receive a special buy one, get one free offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smileactives.com slash legal AF terms and conditions apply. See site for details.

Yeah, let's just take a look, you know, just at the technical counts for precision. If you pull up salty, that front page right there where it says the first page of this indictment, you see the counts against Donald Trump. So 159, 113, 1517, 1927 to 2938 to 39. Then when you look at the highlights, go back to the first page there. You see the ones that have been stricken right there, and you see the ones that relate to Donald Trump. So like that's what's at issue here when you have both Trump and kind of the accounts relating to the other code defendants. Right, what the underlying claim, the assertion,

the crime was this solicitation of these lawmakers, the governor, the secretary of state to violate their oath of office. One of the first arguments Trump and the co-defendants made is that Fawnie Willis, the district attorney's office, never said what the oath was. Judge McAfee says, no, it's fine. They said what the oath was.

But then what Judge McAfee says is that, even if the relevant oaths are apparent as a matter of law, the defendants contend that the counts do not detail the exact terms of the oaths that are alleged to be violated. The state first responds that defendants are only charged with solicitation, not the violation of the oath of office, and argues that the, quote, great weight of authority has never required charging language to reach beyond the elements of solicitation itself. But then Judge McAfee cites a Georgia case called the Sanders case, which says you have to then provide the elements of the predicate felony

here. And then they say that Fulton County District Attorney Fony Willis didn't do that. You go on and it says, Judge McAfee writes, and here's what you were pointing out, Pope. The court's concern is less that the state has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the defendants. In fact, it has ledged in abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is in the undersigned opinion referring to the judge fatal. As written, these six counts contained all the essential elements of the crimes, but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission. What he's referring to there is the

actual, in terms of what was being solicited to be violated in specific details. And I don't know, when you're talking about overthrowing the results of a free and fair election, my view, Michael Popak, is it's pretty clear on its face what it was referring to and what more do you need to say? If there's an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and you do the opposite, it seems that was alleged to me going to the footnote that you mentioned. Here's footnote 8. It says this does not mean the indictment is the entire indictment is dismissed. The state may also seek a re-indictment supplementing these six counts, even if the statute of limitation has expired.

The state receives a six month extension from the date of this order to resubmit the case to a grand jury. Then it goes on to say, alternatively, the state may request a certificate of immediate review pursuant to the Georgia law, which the court would likely grant due to the lack of precedential authority here. So kind of certifying it for an immediate review and appeal. So that's the lay of the land right now.

To your point, Popak, all other aspects of this indictment remain. It deals with those counts and some of those counts relate to Trump, some of them relate to other people. I disagree with the order, but it's not like this case is dismissed. I'll give you the five words. Yeah, I agree. That's why I wanted to lead with the headlines to sort of manage expectations here. Counts of indictments, especially ones that go on for 41 counts, it's not surprising or

unusual to lose a count or two. It's one of the reasons that you, I don't want to call it over-inditing because that would raise the blood pressure of our colleague, Karen Friedman, a conifolo former prosecutor. But they indict a lot in case they lose a count or two. The headlines that we'll see in the media, which is what we want to explain better here on Legal AF, is that, oh crap, the whole phone call is the direct connective tissue between Donald Trump himself because there's there's only about a

handful of places where Donald Trump picked up the phone and made phone calls as opposed to his having his henchmen do it at His request or behest he made phone calls to To Arizona he made phone calls to Wisconsin and he made phone calls to Wisconsin, and he made phone calls to Georgia. And we always liked it as observers of legal and political news and analysis because it is one of the clearest and most and easiest bit of evidence to present to a jury to link Donald Trump back to the entire conspiracy. He himself is on a recorded phone call making that. That overt act stays in and it will support the racketeering influence and corrupt organization,

RICO Count, that is really the foundation of the entire complaint. But I'm sure Fonnie Willis is not going to just say, well, I lost six, a couple against Giuliani, a couple against Meadows, and a couple against Trump and let it stand. The judge knowing that, as you said, has a safety valve, a circuit breaker in his foot note eight, in which he gives her those two choices.

Re-indite and you have six months to do it. So it'll be a superseding indictment where she cleans this up. And if you don't like that, Fawney, I'll certify you now to take an immediate appeal up to the Georgia court, the appellate court that's required. Reading the tea leaves to kind of end my piece here for this, reading the tea leaves, the indictment is still on solid foundational footing. For now, Fawni Willis, subject to his order on a motion to disqualify remains. He did not dismiss the indictment. He only took away parts of it, which indicate to me that at least a major component of what Mike Roman, Donald Trump,

and the others have been trying to do in trying to rake Fawni Willis over the coals about her to rake, um, Fonny Willis over the coals about her, uh, after our extracurricular dating life was to get the indictment dismissed, not and to get rid of Fonny Willis. Now we'll see how this indicates whether he is going to and we'll, we'll, we'll probably, he said two weeks Friday is the end of two weeks. We'll know better maybe by the time Ben you and I record on Saturday for the, uh, for the end of the week edition of legal AF will know what that means. Reading the tea leaves. I think it's neutral for me. It's neutral. I'm not sure he's signaled yet. I don't think Fawdy can take this and go, I'm in. I'm going to win the motion to disqualify. But I also think the there's cold comfort here for those defendants like Trump that

thought they were going to get rid of the indictment. They're not. One open question for you, Ben, and maybe you know this. Are we now done with the special demures? Are there any else that are pending? Or is this now wrap up all of the motions to dismiss against the indictment in one package? If Fulton County District Attorney Fawney Willis rebrings these charges, there would obviously be the right to bring special demers again based on these counts.

Are there any others still in the tank? Or this is... I'm not sure if there's any pending, but Trump has still has a lot of procedural moves that he can utilize to try to get this case dismissed. So it's nowhere near saying that this is being selling for a cause. Including immunity. I mean, whether it applies or not, he is now, Tay, as you've noted in a very good hot take you did, he's using whatever he can get from the federal side and on the immunity decision that's going to be up for an April 25th oral argument and decision-making and the ballot ruling in his favor and trying to bring it to various courts to throw that monkey wrench in.

Well, we will keep everybody posted. Hit subscribe. in his favor and trying to bring it to various courts to throw that monkey wrench in.