“Trump’s Biggest Legal Challenge Yet”

We discussed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump. Then we dissected Special Counsel Jack Smith’s first federal indictment of the former President. We also reviewed the facts and charges Smith added to this first federal indictment. Next, we analyzed Smith’s second federal indictment of the 45th President.

Two federal indictments, one in Florida and another in Washington DC, as well as a New York City indictment would all be a heavy burden for any defendant, especially one who is running for President of the United States.

But wait – there’s more.

On August 14, 2023, “(f)ormer President Donald Trump was indicted…on racketeering, conspiracy and other charges by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, the result of a more than two-year investigation…into potential 2020 election interference in that state. Eighteen other people, including Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, were also indicted, accused of joining Trump in efforts to unlawfully change the outcome of the election.”

The indictment can be viewed here. Specifically, Trump and his co-defendants are alleged to have “unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in…a pattern of racketeering activity” while “associated with an enterprise” that allegedly violated Georgia law…Trump and the other defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump had lost (the 2020 Presidential election), and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”

As described by PBS, “(t)he nearly 100-page indictment details dozens of acts by Trump or his allies to undo his defeat, including beseeching Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to find enough votes for him to win the battleground state; harassing an election worker who faced false claims of fraud; and attempting to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and appoint a new slate of electoral college electors favorable to Trump.”

“The yearslong probe of former President Donald Trump and his allies by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis may prove to be Trump’s toughest legal challenge yet,” ABC News breathlessly reports. Yet, despite their obvious glee at yet another Trump indictment, the mainstream media seems to recognize that the shine is off the apple here. “What was once unprecedented — a former president facing criminal charges — has fallen into a familiar cadence…Trump and his campaign will decry the charges. His campaign will likely fundraise off of these charges. Trump and his campaign continue to conflate his personal legal problems with the cause of his political movement, using the charges as a tool to gin up his base. It has been working. Numerous charges haven’t slowed his campaign yet.”

You can hear the disappointment loud and clear – “Darn it! Won’t anything stop this man?”

Donald Trump is a human being, not a relentless Juggernaut. Certainly, something, or some event (such as several losses in upcoming primaries) could potentially “stop him.” But this indictment by another local prosecutor, this time in Fulton County, Georgia, isn’t likely to cause the derailment of the runaway Trump train.

Who has brought this latest Indictment against the former President? According to the BBC, Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis was born “in Inglewood, California in 1971 (and) was raised primarily by her father, a criminal defense lawyer and member of the Black Panthers, the radical political party which championed black rights…(s)he graduated from the historically black college Howard University in 1993, before receiving a law degree from Emory University in Georgia in 1996…Ms Willis joined the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, where she served in several different divisions until 2018..(a)fter her time in the office ended, Ms Willis spent several years in private practice. Then, in 2020, she decided to go head-to-head with her former boss, six-term Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard. She won in a runoff election with 73% of the votes, becoming the first black woman to serve as Fulton County’s top prosecutor.”

Unlike the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, who “received more than $1 million in support from the Color Of Change PAC, a racial justice group which receives funding from (George) Soros” during his campaign, there isn’t any clear evidence that Willis is yet another “progressive DA.” Her office’s website includes a pledge to “provide an environment of mutual respect, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, disability or gender identity,” however, there is also a statement of integrity, which reads “this office will now show a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.”

Further, unlike Bragg, who specifically campaigned on his plan “to personally focus on the high-profile probe into former President Donald Trump’s business practices,” there is scant evidence that Willis made similar overt promises during her race.

What Willis does bring to this prosecution, is a willingness to use racketeering charges indiscriminately against any and all defendants. In fact, it would seem that Willis only carries one hammer, which makes every criminal case look like a nail to her.

Similar to the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law, under Georgia Code Section 16-14-4, “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section.”

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

The article concludes tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.