Transcription
You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, Donald Trump had been contending with one prosecution that hadn't yet been dismissed. That was the state prosecution in Georgia over his election crimes. We now have a major update on that prosecution against him. Can you explain what just happened?
>> Yeah, Brian. I would call this a major update and it's not a good one. The the only remaining criminal case against Donald Trump was the Georgia State RICO prosecution. Our viewers will remember Fawnie Willis brought that case. However, her office ended up being removed. That got transferred to this prosecutor's council for the appointment of a new prosecutor. And what we just got was a 22-page memo from the head of the Georgia State Prosecuting Attorneys Council, a gentleman named Peter Scandalakis, and he decided that, um, there was nothing left to do but dismiss the criminal prosecution against Donald Trump and all of his remaining co-conspirators, the ones who didn't plead guilty. Remember, four pleaded guilty. And basically, when you plow through this memo, what Mr. Scandalakis concludes is that, you know, this case was really more appropriately a federal prosecution. And gosh, it would take too long, it would be too hard, and it would cost too much. So he decided to put the case out of its misery. And he filed a motion, a summary motion with the presiding judge, Judge Scott McAfee. And in a summary order, Judge McAfee granted the motion to dismiss. If there is any slight silver lining lurking behind this big dark orange cloud, it is that he dismissed it without prejudice, which means at least in theory, Brian, this case could be rebroad sometime in the future. But I don't think I would bet a nickel on that happening.
In terms of the excuse that it's going to be too difficult, uh, expend too many resources, be too costly. I mean, isn't isn't that the whole point of what a prosecutor's office does, that they take on these cases, that yes, sure, they may be costly, they may they may take a lot of resources, they may take a lot of time, but when you have crimes big enough to warrant those prosecutions, isn't that the whole point of a prosecutor's office, of a DA's office?
>> Yeah. Brian, what price do we want to put on American democracy? What is the value of our free and fair elections? I was a prosecutor for 30 years. Let me tell you, I never did handle an easy case, a sure winner, a case where, you know, I knew it could be wrapped up in weeks, months, or even years. You know, I was involved in RICO prosecutions that lingered from the time of investigation until the last defendant was sentenced. Took more than a decade, Brian. But we stayed after it every damn day. And I don't want anybody to think I'm taking liberties with what Pete Scandalakis said in his memo. Now, mind you, he is the executive director of the prosecuting attorney attorneys council of Georgia. He was tasked with finding prosecutors who could step into this case, being as Fawny Willis and her office were removed from the case. And he said, "Well, you know, no prosecutors were wildly enthusiastic about picking up this hot potato." But I want to quote his own words because to me, Brian, this is a travesty. As you just pointed out in your question, nobody said prosecuting some of the most consequential crimes in our nation's history was going to be fast, cheap, or easy. Here are some of the quotes from Pete Scandalakis. He said, "The strongest and most prosecutable case against those seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and prevent the certification of those votes was the one investigated and indicted by special counsel Jack Smith." Well, it's wonderful that you observe that Jack Smith had perhaps the best chance of a successful prosecution against Donald Trump, but Scandalakus is not saying we didn't have a prosecutable case in Georgia, just that that one was a little bit better, a little bit stronger, and was probably the most appropriate, what we call venue, place to bring the the case. Well, we know that case went away courtesy of, you know, a complicit Supreme Court granting Donald Trump presidential immunity and Donald Trump getting reelected because the DOJ has opined that you can't prosecute a sitting criminal president. But Mr. Scandalakus wasn't done with the excuses. He also said, quote, "The criminal conduct alleged in the Atlanta Judicial Circuits prosecution was conceived in Washington D.C., not the state of Georgia. The federal government is the appropriate venue for this prosecution, not the state of Georgia." And he added, you know, there's no realistic prospect that a sitting president could be compelled to stand trial in Georgia while he's still in office. And even after that, when he could be compelled to sit in a trial conducted by the state of Georgia, even after that, it could take years to litigate the complex presidential immunity issues and constitutional fights raised in the indictment. So he concludes that it would be, quote, unduly burdensome and costly to try the remaining 14 defendants in the case without Trump. So you know what? I'm just going to recommend that we dismiss the entire thing because gosh darn it, it's just too hard. It's just too costly and it would take just too long. To which I say again, what price do we put on free and fair elections? What price do we put on the viability of American democracy? Apparently, the cost was too high for Pete Scandalakus. Well, you know, the good news for criminals out there is as long as you make sure that your crimes are complex enough and include enough people and, uh, and, and rise to the highest levels of government, then then it's, you know, then then commit those crimes in Georgia because as far as, uh, these prosecutors are concerned, it's not, you know, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Um, a a quick note before we continue on for those who are watching. If you'd like to follow along with our legal analysis, not just on this case, but all other legal news, please make sure to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm going to put the links right on the post description of this video. Completely free to sign up, and it's a great way to support our work.
Glenn, you know, they had brought this question to Judge McAfee, who was forward-leaning in in in how he ruled, uh, against the defendants in this case. Why would he accept, um, this request by Pete Scandalakis, basically basically abdicating their duty as prosecutors when he had been, you know, so aggressive as a judge in terms of not allowing this stuff to fall by the wayside in terms of ruling quickly and what seemed like his appetite to hold the powerful to account?
>> That's a great point because, you know, I admire Judge McAfee. He's a young judge. He, uh, he really did a remarkable job presiding over some really fraught litigation and as you say, Brian, he continued to, I think, air on the side of the rule of law, on the side of accountability, and ultimately on the side of justice, and he kept moving the case forward. Um, but here is the the core problem. When we ask, well, why didn't the judge deny the motion to dismiss, it becomes something of a separation of powers problem. Judges don't have prosecutors available to assign to prosecute cases. So when the person entrusted with making this decision, who happens to be this Pete Scandalakis guy, who is the executive director of the prosecuting attorneys council of Georgia, under the laws of Georgia, that is the agency, the organization that gets to make this decision and that gets to go about trying to find, uh, district attorneys, prosecutors who are willing and able to step in and take over now that Fony Willis, you know, was removed from the case. So, Brian, the real challenge becomes, who's going to prosecute this case once the decision has been made by the person with the authority to make that decision that it will not be prosecuted? The state of Georgia will not pursue it. We do not have prosecutors assigned to the case. Judge McAfee, if he said, um, you know what, I deny your motion to dismiss, the case would just sit there and languish. It would, in fact, go unprosecuted. So, um, I think it was a practical matter at that point. Judge McAfee didn't have the tools available to deny the motion to dismiss and then somehow cause the case to continue to move forward. And let me just say, this Pete Scandalakus guy might be a wonderful fella. I don't know. You know, he kind of boasts in his 22-page memorandum about, hey, hey, I'm an elected official who ran as both a Republican and as a Democrat, so I'm obviously fair. I'm taking liberties with the, I'm obviously fair, but he talked about being elected and running for office for both parties. I, I'm sorry, that doesn't necessarily, in my view, make you the perfect career prosecutor to make these extraordinarily difficult decisions. But you know where I have a a real disagreement with his result is if you have concluded that there was a conspiracy or at least the evidence supports that these were righteous cases, righteous charges, and this was a righteous prosecution to bring on behalf of the people of Georgia. Well, then I am not persuaded by your argument that it will take too long. It's too hard. It's it's an uphill climb. Um, we'd have to wait until Donald Trump left office. And by the way, Brian, what about all of Donald Trump's co-defendants who still stood indicted for their crimes? Four of whom pleaded guilty, including two of Donald Trump's own lawyers who worked on behalf of him as part of this effort to overturn the elections results in Georgia. Kenneth Chzbbor, who not only pleaded guilty, so he was convicted of his crimes pursuant to his guilty plea, he's been disbarred for his misconduct in this matter. And Jenna Ellis, who also pleaded guilty, she stands convicted of her crimes, and she was suspended from the practice of law for a period of time. I mean, what about all of the other lingering defendants who we don't have to wait until Donald Trump leaves office to go against them and try to hold them accountable for their crimes? This is an abdication of the responsibility of the criminal justice system in Georgia writ large to vindicate crimes that were committed against the voters of Georgia. But what I think this emphasizes, Brian, and I reached this conclusion some time ago, it has now been reinforced by this horrific decision. In my opinion, the criminal justice systems, both state and federal, do not have the appetite or the interest, uh, to hold what I call the ruling class criminals accountable. The rule of law seems to be optional for people with power and connection and influence and wealth. And this is where we are in America today. And you know, we had better begin to fight our way out of this because if we don't, you know, I think our future looks bleak.
That's a great point and and it's infuriating as well. One last question here, Glenn, and that is, you know, the office that was prosecuting this case was the Fulton County DA's office. Fony Willis obviously had her, um, had had these issues with the one prosecutor, and that's why she was removed from this case. But why couldn't somebody take her place in the Fulton County DA's office, an office where there was clearly an appetite to continue prosecuting this very prosecutable case? Again, to your exact point, a case where a number of of the defendants had already pleaded guilty, showing that there is is, uh, a justification to continue on with this case. Why couldn't it just be handed off to somebody else in that office even if Fonnie Willis was found, uh, uh, not to be the right person to continue on with it?
>> Yeah, it's a fair question, but I actually agree with the following proposition of conflicts law. When one person, particularly the head of an office or an agency, is conflicted out, the entire office or agency is conflicted out. Why? Well, because you know the people who worked under Fawnie Willis, who may have been fiercely loyal to Fawnie Willis, you know, might have disagreed with the decision, they might be motivated by something other than what is in the best interest of the case. So, let me, let me, um, use by analogy a law firm. When there's one attorney in a law firm that is conflicted out of representing somebody, the whole law firm is conflicted out. Even though that doesn't make any common sense, it is because we want to make sure there isn't even a whiff, a hint, or any appearance of conflict. One more very quick story. Um, I was once conflicted out of a matter because I had a hitman following me around and so I couldn't really be involved in the case that was in that, um, involved prosecuting the hitman or the person who hired the hitman. It's a long, tortured story, but because I became a witness in the case, um, the entire United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia was conflicted out of prosecuting the hitman and the person who hired the hitman to kill the witnesses. Didn't hire anybody to kill me. Just happened to be following me around, I think, as a vehicle to try to find the witnesses. But we had to go across the river to the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney's office, which has been in the news a good bit these days, to even get a prosecution team to come over to Washington D.C. and prosecute it. And I was then the first witness called in the trial. But that sort of highlights the principle when one person in an agency or an organization or a law firm has a conflict, then just to make sure nobody can accuse any sort of tentacles of conflict, um, you know, from making their way out into the people who remain in that office, agency, or law firm. Better safe than sorry. And the whole office, agency, or law firm gets taken off a case.
>> Well, I'm sure you would be, uh, I'm sure you would feel relief to know that, uh, that if Lindseay Halligan was in office back when you needed her, that she would be the the right woman for the job. If, uh,
>> I think I, I think I'd rather dismiss the case involving the hitman rather than have Lindsay Hallagan head up the prosecution.
Well, look, there is obviously more legal news to continue following along with. So, for those who are watching, if you'd like to follow along with our analysis, please make sure to subscribe. I'm going to put the links to both of our channels right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. It's a great way to support our work, great way to support independent media, and it is 100% free. So again, those links are right here on this screen. I'm Brian Teller Cohen.
>> and I'm Glenn Kersner.
>> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.