Clark Neily discusses the indictment of former president Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia for allegedly attempting to subvert the will of Georgia voters in the 2020 election. They explore Trump's defense, disappointment in senators, the issue of cameras in courtrooms, and the complexities of the indictment process.
The absence of presidential pardon power for state convictions could be a game changer for Trump's indictment in Georgia, with no possibility of a pardon if convicted.
Trump's veiled threat to the Georgia Secretary of State during a phone call, along with his insistence on finding votes, could be seen as crossing a line and warranting a conviction.
Deep dives
Difference between state charges and federal charges
The main difference between state charges and federal charges is the absence of presidential pardon power for state convictions. In the case of the former President Trump's indictment in Georgia, if he and his co-defendants are convicted, there will be no possibility of a presidential pardon. This lack of pardon power could potentially be a game changer for the case. Moreover, having multiple co-defendants, including individuals who worked for the administration, increases the chances of someone cutting a deal with prosecutors and providing incriminating information against others.
The incriminating January 5th phone call
One significant allegation against Trump is his January 5th phone call, where he appeared to make a veiled threat to the Georgia Secretary of State. During the call, Trump urged the secretary to find roughly 12,000 votes in his favor and hinted at possible criminal consequences if this demand wasn't met. While the defense may argue that Trump sincerely believed there were issues with the election, the manner in which he pressed his concerns, with an implied threat, could be seen as crossing a line and warranting a conviction.
The overarching focus of the indictment
Instead of getting caught up in the granular details of the indictment, it is essential to recognize that the thrust of the case is centered on the alleged conspiracy among 19 defendants to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election. The focus is not solely on individual actions or specific incidents, but on determining whether there was a criminal attempt to undermine the election through illicit means. The jury's ultimate decision will likely rely on a holistic evaluation of the overall case rather than fixating on every individual count of the 41 charges.
Former president Trump and more than a dozen codefendants will face charges in Georgia over claimed attempts to subvert the will of Georgia voters in 2020. Cato’s Clark Neily discusses the indictment.