newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
A judge in Georgia has dismissed, at least for now, six of the state’s 41 RICO indictments brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis against 18 people, including former President Donald Trump.
In his nine-page judgment,, Judge Scott McAfee dismissed six charges that Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and others solicited state employees to violate the terms of their oaths of office. The ruling does not affect the remaining 35 counts, including the RICO charges. (RICO refers to the state Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is an analogue of the federal RICO Act.)
In connection with the six charges at issue, the indictment alleges, in very general terms, that the defendants will do the following to Georgia state legislators and/or election officials (primarily the Secretary of State): He claims that he solicited him to do so.
* Illegally appointing presidential electors (Counts 2, 5, 6, and 23).
* Unlawfully influencing certified election results (Count 28).and
* Fraudulently decertifying an election (count 38).
Judge McAfee ruled that the indictment was flawed regarding these charges because it did not specify what term of oath the state employees were being asked to violate.
Judge dismisses some charges against Trump in Fani Willis election interference case
The justices reasoned that the Georgia and U.S. constitutions, to which state officials are sworn to abide, contain numerous provisions that impose myriad responsibilities on officials. Mr. McAfee concluded that the indictment was insufficient because the above counts did not detail which of these responsibilities the defendant’s alleged solicitation involved.
In my view, the indictment is one of the most egregious in the indictment against Mr. Willis. Americans have a constitutional right to petition the government. It is permissible to ask members of parliament or government officials to exercise power in ways that are uncontroversial and may even be illegal, as long as it does not involve bribery or extortion.
For example: Many people are calling on President Biden to cancel student loans. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that Biden did not have the authority to do so.
Fulton Da Fani Willis faces Democratic-Republican challenger in re-election bid
The court’s interpretation of the law was absolutely correct, and this case shows how our system works: when government officials harm people because they do something outside of their authority and therefore violate their oath of office. (in this case Mr. Biden) has taken an oath to faithfully enforce the law), the court should rule that the action is wrong and force the official to stop the action.
But there has never been a law that allows people who encourage public officials to engage in controversial or even illegal behavior to face a felony charge of incitement. Such action would override your constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. There is no law that says you can only demand what is legal under current law. In fact, we frequently ask governments to change laws.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
The fact is that Georgia, like other states, has a legal process to challenge election results. It is the right of Americans to take advantage of these laws. Obviously, if a person commits a crime in order to do so, such as bribing or blackmailing a public official or intentionally making a false statement under oath, then it is appropriate to prosecute those crimes. But asking state officials to question election results is not a crime.
Finally, charges dismissed by McAfee are not necessarily removed from the case. Judge McAfee stated that prosecutors can resubmit (or “rescind”) an indictment, and that exactly what duties are involved, i.e., whether the performance of certain duties is a condition of the officers’ oath. He said that it is possible to be more specific about how this will be reflected. take.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Judge McAfee is currently considering a defense motion to disqualify District Attorney Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade from participating in future cases. They admit to having an affair. The disqualification issue is when the affair began, that is, whether Willis was already in a romantic relationship when he hired the married Wade and paid him an unusually high salary by Fulton County standards; It has to do with whether the benefits of salary are shared (among some people). Other things) I went on a lavish vacation with him and then lied about it in court.
A decision on disqualification could be made by the end of this week. Judge McAfee did not address the disqualification controversy in Wednesday’s ruling dismissing the various charges.
Click here to read more articles by Andrew C. McCarthy