US elections 2020

After news broke on Monday night of Donald Trump’s indictment in Fulton county, Georgia, attention quickly turned to the possible spectacle of a trial unfolding on television as a former president attempts to rebut charges of racketeering and conspiracy over his efforts to overturn the results of an election.But before the district attorney Fani Willis can have the opportunity to make her case against Trump with the cameras rolling, she must first clear a key procedural hurdle to keep the case in Fulton county. Trump’s legal team is expected to rely on a little known legal statute to argue the case should be moved to federal court, and that jurisdictional question could delay a trial for months. The stakes of that procedural fight will be high, as a conviction in Fulton county would leave Trump facing years of prison time with no clear pathway to a pardon.Fulton county is already bracing for a media frenzy when Trump’s case goes to trial, which could happen in March 2024 if Willis gets her way. A Georgia trial could provide Americans with their sole opportunity to see one of the criminal cases against Trump play out in real time, as state law generally requires cameras to be permitted inside courtrooms to cover judicial proceedings. That policy would be a stark contrast to rules for federal courtrooms – unless Trump succeeds at moving the case by invoking the federal officer removal statute.The statute allows a federal official to have a state case moved to federal court if the matter of concern is “for or relating to any act under color of such office”. Trump’s legal team is expected to argue that, as he attempted to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia, he was acting in his official capacity as president, and thus the case is a federal issue. Some of Trump’s 18 codefendants in the Fulton case may attempt to make the same argument, as the statute also covers “any person acting under” a federal officer. Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, filed a motion on Tuesday to have his case moved to federal court based on this legal doctrine.A federal judge will be called upon to determine whether Trump’s case will remain in state court. If a judge rules in Trump’s favor, the case would move out of Fulton county, killing the possibility of a televised trial and significantly altering the legal stakes for the former president.“This jurisdictional issue is the key to this case right now,” said Eric Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “Talking about anything other than the federal removal statute is putting the cart before the horse.”If Trump’s motion is successful, the case could continue in federal court, but Segall warned that such a ruling might ultimately result in a dismissal of the charges.“He may get immunity in federal court … States aren’t allowed to arrest federal officers for performing federal duties,” Segall said. “The issue is not, did he do the acts? The issue is, is it part of his official conduct? And if it is, charges could get dropped.”But there is warranted skepticism that Trump’s efforts to remove the case will prove successful. Trump’s lawyers attempted to make a similar argument in New York, where he is facing 34 felony charges of falsifying business records over his alleged role in a hush-money scheme to silence an adult film star who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with the former president. The federal judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s alleged misdeeds did not qualify as acts under color of his office as president.“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President – a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” Hellerstein wrote in his ruling. “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”Of course, the New York and Georgia cases differ significantly in terms of their substance, which will affect Trump’s chances of success in Fulton county. Trump could theoretically make a stronger argument that questions of election administration fall under the umbrella of his presidential duties, a more far-fetched claim when it comes to his involvement in a hush-money scheme. But Willis will likely rebut that Trump’s efforts to overturn the outcome of a free and fair election, after he had already lost dozens of lawsuits challenging the results, do not qualify as official presidential duties.Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, predicted a federal judge would soon issue a ruling keeping the Fulton county case in state court.“Removal of cases from state court to federal court is something that is a more typical process in the civil arena. The rules of civil procedure do allow that with much more liberality than in the criminal arena,” Carlson said. “So in criminal cases, the presumption is that, if it’s a Georgia charge, it’ll be tried in a Georgia court.”Even if the case does stay in state court, legal wrangling over state versus federal jurisdiction could theoretically stretch on for months, jeopardizing Willis’s preference for a quicker trial date.“Whichever way the federal judge rules on the removal question, it will be appealed and then appealed again,” Segall said. “That could take a really long time. That’s why six months is not reasonable.”Much will be riding on Trump’s ability to remove the case to federal court. The racketeering charge filed against Trump carries a sentence of five to 20 years in prison. If Trump were convicted in Georgia, he could not pardoned by a sympathetic president because the charges were filed at the state level. In Georgia, the governor does not even have the power to issue pardons, as that duty lies with the state’s board of pardons and paroles. According to Carlson, Trump could not even apply for a pardon until he has been convicted and served five years in a Georgia prison.“The stakes for the Trump team are really high in Georgia, so I expect a full-fledged defense by President Trump,” Carlson said. “Probably a lot of that will verge on political bias.”Trump has already offered a preview of that politically driven strategy. In a statement issued Monday night, Trump’s presidential campaign attacked Willis as a “radical Democrat” and “rabid partisan”. Despite those personal attacks, Willis appeared undaunted as she spoke to reporters on Monday night, shortly after the indictment was unsealed.“All elections in our nation are administered by the states, which are given the responsibility of ensuring a fair process and an accurate counting of the votes,” Willis said. “The state’s role in this process is essential to the functioning of our democracy.”Although Segall believes Trump may succeed at removing the case to federal court, he expressed hope that a group of Georgians will eventually have the opportunity to issue a verdict on the former president’s election subversion efforts.“I’m talking as a citizen more than as a law professor, but I think Donald Trump is an existential threat to our country,” Segall said. “And I think a Georgia jury should decide if he broke the law in Georgia.” More

The Georgia district attorney Fani Willis delivered an extensive 41-count indictment against former president Donald Trump and 18 others over their plot to subvert the 2020 US presidential election, unsealed late on Monday night. While each defendant faces a different list of charges, all 19 have been charged with racketeering in violation of Georgia’s powerful Rico (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, which carries a sentence of five to 20 years.The racketeering charge also lists 30 “unindicted co-conspirators”, as participants in the “criminal enterprise in Fulton county, Georgia, and elsewhere”.Willis did not charge the 30 unnamed co-conspirators in her investigation, but that doesn’t mean they can never face penalties for their involvement in the election fraud plot to keep Trump in power.Here’s what to know about the 30 unnamed co-conspirators.13 unnamed Georgia Republican electorsDavid Shafer, Cathy Latham and Shawn Still are the three fake electors – out of 16 total – that are named as defendants in Willis’s indictment, charged with racketeering and other felonies. But the other 13 appear to be listed among the unnamed co-conspirators: “Individual 2, Individual 8, Individual 9, Individual 10, Individual 11, Individual 12, Individual 13, Individual 14, Individual 15, Individual 16, Individual 17, Individual 18, and Individual 19.”On 14 December 2020, the 16 Republican electors had met to cast fraudulent votes for Trump by signing a document titled “CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA’’ that declared a Trump victory, falsely claiming that they were the “duly elected and qualified Electors” from the state. They then mailed that document, attempting to file it in a Georgia district court.According to the indictment, the fake electors committed three felony offenses, including: impersonating a public officer, forgery in the first degree, and false statements and writings; and they attempted to commit a fourth felony offense of filing false documents, according to the unsealed indictment.Individual 3: references point to Trump adviser Boris EpshteynReferences to “Individual 3” within Willis’s indictment point to Boris Epshteyn, a political consultant and adviser to Trump, as one of the unindicted co-conspirators who aided the plot to subvert the election.Epshteyn, who is also believed to be one of the six co-conspirators in the federal investigation into Trump’s January 6 involvement by Jack Smith, attended a 19 November 2020 press conference on behalf of the Trump campaign along with Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell where they made false statements of election fraud.Epshteyn was also copied on previously reported emails that detail parts of the fake electors scheme, which the Willis indictment identifies as being received by Individual 3.Individual 4: references point to Robert Sinners, Trump 2020 campaign election day operations officialDavid Shafer sent a previously reported email to Robert Sinners on 20 November 2020, asking him to help Georgia bail bondsman Scott Hall “as needed”, which matches a reference involving “Individual 4” from the Willis indictment. Individual 4 was also copied on a number of messages asking for help with the 16 Georgia Republican electors scheme on 14 December 2020, to “avoid drawing attention” and ensure everything went according to plan.From the indictment: “On or about the 20th day of November 2020, DAVID JAMES SHAFER sent an e-mail to unindicted co-conspirator Individual 4, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, and other individuals. In the e-mail, DAVID JAMES SHAFER stated that SCOTT GRAHAM HALL, a Georgia bail bondsman, “has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie” and asked unindicted co-conspirator Individual 4 to exchange contact information with SCOTT GRAHAM HALL and to “help him as needed.” This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”Sinners sent the 14 December 2020 email referenced in the Willis indictment to Michael Roman and others saying: “All votes cast, paperwork complete, being mailed now. Ran pretty smoothly” which was previously presented by the House January 6 select committee.OthersIndividual 1: discussed with Trump on 31 October 2020 a draft speech for a widely televised 4 November 2020 news conference during which Trump falsely declared victory.Individuals 5 and 6: met with a group of Pennsylvania legislators at the White House on 25 November 2020 along with Trump, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis to discuss holding a special session of the Pennsylvania general assembly.They also met with Arizona legislators, along with Giuliani and Ellis, on 30 November 2020 where the two Trump attorneys requested the Arizona legislators to unlawfully appoint Republican electors from their state.Individual 7: ‘Electors Whip Operation’Assisted with the fake electors scheme in six states – Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.This person is probably among a group of individuals associated with the Trump campaign whom Mike Roman enlisted to participate in his “Electors Whip Operation” – who kept track of Trump electors. That team included G Michael Brown, Peter McGinnis, James Fitzpatrick, Shawn Flynn, Jesse Law, Thomas Lane, Valerie Phillips McConahay, Robert Sinners and Ryan Terrill, as revealed by the House January 6 select committee.Individual 20: met with Trump, Giuliani, Powell and others at the White House where they “discussed certain strategies and theories intended to influence the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election, including seizing voting equipment and appointing SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL as special counsel with broad authority to investigate allegations of voter fraud in Georgia and elsewhere”. While the individual’s identity is unclear, the 18 December 2020 meeting was infamously “unhinged” as Trump and his allies screamed at White House aides who pushed back against their plan to overturn the election. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, and Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock.com, were among the Trump allies at that meeting.Individuals 21 and 22: copied on a 21 December 2020 email from Sidney Powell to the chief operations officer of SullivanStrickler LLC, who instructed him that they were to “receive a copy of all data” obtained by SullivanStrickler LLC from Dominion Voting Systems equipment in Michigan.Individual 23: Participated in a four-way phone call with Harrison Floyd, Trevian Kutti and Steve Lee on 5 January 2021.Coffee county, Georgia, voting machine data schemeIndividual 24: traveled with Scott Hall to Coffee county, Georgia on 7 January 2021. That day, Hall, Cathy Latham and Misty Hampton sought to unlawfully access voting machines at the Coffee county board of elections & registration office.Individuals, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29: unlawfully sought to access data from voting machines in Coffee county, Georgia, at various points in January and February 2021.Individual 30: involved with the unlawful effort to access voting machine data. More