As Trump Faces Indictment in New York, Lawyers Move to Dismiss Georgia Case With Victory in Sight

Tracy Beanz, an investigative journalist and the editor-in-chief of UncoverDC, stated in a long Twitter thread that “there is much more than meets the eye” over Trump’s attorney’s filing of a motion to dismiss the Georgian Special Purpose Grand Jury (SPGJ) against him citing the motion to dismiss document throughout. Aside from the infamous Manhattan DA’s case against Trump, there is also a Fulton County DA who is also gunning for Trump over alleged criminal violations in how Trump and his team pressed state officials in their belief that the 2020 election in Georgia was not conducted properly.

Law professor Jonathan Turley called the Georgian case against Trump “weaker [than the Manhattan case]” but that it was at least “based on a stronger legal foundation” in a recent essay he wrote on the politicized prosecution of Trump. One may have heard of the Georgia case due to the scandal over how the juror forewoman, Emily Kohrs, went on live television describing how she fantasized about swearing Trump in and that she would be “sad if nothing happens. That’s about my only request there is for something to happen.” Such was the outcry from many in the legal community over the improper remarks by Kohrs that even Vanity Fair had to mention that “many a legal expert was aghast to see Kohrs’s media hits”.

It is in this context that Tracy Beanz made her analysis of the attempt by Trump’s lawyers to dismiss the jury. As Beanz noted, “Donald Trump is asking not only for the judge to order that the Special Grand Jury be rendered useless but also requesting that the DA be barred from further involvement at all.”

Renowned Legal Scholar Destroys Alvin Bragg Case Against Trump, Calls It ‘The Ultimate Frankenstein’

She further observed that “President Trump was always a non-witness. He was never subpoenaed or asked to testify. The DA gave interviews to the media throughout the process. The Supervising Judge decided that much of the report would remain publicly unavailable, citing due process concerns. The statute is very unclear about what happens after the SPGJ is dissolved. The judge ruled that for now, only the DA should have access to the report.”

She then startlingly noted that “But, alas, that didn’t happen. The foreperson went on a media blitz, sharing her experience publicly. As per the filing, the public comments demonstrated that the constitutional rights of the individuals who testified weren’t protected. To add insult to injury, the SUPERVISING JUDGE also gave a number of media interviews, despite still presiding over the matter. This isn’t how it’s supposed to work.”

Tracy Beanz then summarized the three main points of the motion and what she thought of them. She wrote that “[h]ere is what they are addressing in the motion. 1. The unconstitutionality of the SPGJ as a whole and also as used in this case. (I think this is going to fail. It’s far too late in the process) 2. The conflict of interest suffered by the DA, exacerbated by forensic misconduct and extrajudicial activity (This is very strong – she was already barred from calling one witness because she publicly campaigned against him) 3. The unconstitutional taint caused by the supervising judge, both in court and out. (Strong, if they have a fair hearing.).”

The motion detailed how bias infected the DA and the case against Mr. Trump such that it merits disqualification. On this point, Beanz agrees. She recorded that “Because of the way the foreperson spoke in interviews, it was clear that the SPGJ was not properly instructed on their duties and wasn’t supervised properly. The foreperson’s comments violate notions of fairness. I don’t think this is so far out there when even legacy media argued about her ruining this case.”

She also noted that the motion mentioned how “the judge who SUPERVISED this SCGJ acted improperly. His actions during, in decisions made about the report, and the prior rulings he has made during the case necessitate a review by the Chief Judge of the Superior Court.” Her analysis touched upon yet more points on the legal problems of the case against Trump that were documented by the motion. Enclosed for the reading pleasure of the reader is her remarkable Twitter thread.

Get Updated

© 2023 DC Enquirer, Privacy Policy