Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Deadline Legal Blog-Trump's Georgia case dismissal is unsurprising. The reasoning behind it almost is.
A new prosecutor took over Fani Willis’ beleaguered 2020 election case and promptly dumped it. He wrote up an explanation of his thinking.
Link to tweet
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-georgia-election-case-dismissal-fani-willis-new-prosecutor
When a new prosecutor took over the Georgia 2020 election case against Donald Trump and his co-defendants, I noted that one of the options was to “withdraw the case completely, as Trump hopes.” In a pre-Thanksgiving court filing, prosecutor Peter Skandalakis took that route. The case is now dead.
Though the outcome is unsurprising in light of the disqualification of the prosecutor who brought the case, Fani Willis, it’s worth analyzing Skandalakis’ thinking behind the burial. He provided it in a 22-page memorandum.
He wrote that he began “evaluating this case with a basic truth: It is not illegal to question or challenge election results.” That’s true, though it doesn’t answer the question of whether the case should proceed......
On top of that specific example, some of the general reasoning in the memo stands out as well. Take Skandalakis’ reference to special counsel Jack Smith’s federal prosecution of Trump over similar conduct, which Smith moved to dismiss after Trump won the 2024 election, due to the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Skandalakis wrote that Smith “ultimately concluded the federal case could not be prosecuted because of the U. S. Supreme Court’s [presidential immunity] decision in Trump v. United States and the re-election of President Donald J. Trump.”
But Smith wanted to continue the federal prosecution against Trump, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Smith was pressing the issue in the trial court after the high court’s July 2024 ruling, until Trump won the election later that year. In explaining to the trial judge why the DOJ was moving to dismiss the case due to its policy, Smith noted that he had just filed a motion “explaining that the conduct charged in the superseding indictment was not immune from prosecution under Trump and that the case should proceed to trial.”
Another notable point in the memo is where Skandalakis said his office lacked the resources to take on the case. “Our agency is simply not equipped to carry out this case while meeting the essential duties required under the current budget — or under any realistically conceivable budget the State could provide,” he wrote.
The implication is that, even if he had found the prosecution worthwhile, he wouldn’t have been able to move it forward anyway. Perhaps it would have been better to leave it at that.
Though the outcome is unsurprising in light of the disqualification of the prosecutor who brought the case, Fani Willis, it’s worth analyzing Skandalakis’ thinking behind the burial. He provided it in a 22-page memorandum.
He wrote that he began “evaluating this case with a basic truth: It is not illegal to question or challenge election results.” That’s true, though it doesn’t answer the question of whether the case should proceed......
On top of that specific example, some of the general reasoning in the memo stands out as well. Take Skandalakis’ reference to special counsel Jack Smith’s federal prosecution of Trump over similar conduct, which Smith moved to dismiss after Trump won the 2024 election, due to the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Skandalakis wrote that Smith “ultimately concluded the federal case could not be prosecuted because of the U. S. Supreme Court’s [presidential immunity] decision in Trump v. United States and the re-election of President Donald J. Trump.”
But Smith wanted to continue the federal prosecution against Trump, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Smith was pressing the issue in the trial court after the high court’s July 2024 ruling, until Trump won the election later that year. In explaining to the trial judge why the DOJ was moving to dismiss the case due to its policy, Smith noted that he had just filed a motion “explaining that the conduct charged in the superseding indictment was not immune from prosecution under Trump and that the case should proceed to trial.”
Another notable point in the memo is where Skandalakis said his office lacked the resources to take on the case. “Our agency is simply not equipped to carry out this case while meeting the essential duties required under the current budget — or under any realistically conceivable budget the State could provide,” he wrote.
The implication is that, even if he had found the prosecution worthwhile, he wouldn’t have been able to move it forward anyway. Perhaps it would have been better to leave it at that.