The Georgia grand jury considering possible charges regarding the 2020 election may be in a legal bind. A combination of factors may undermine the grand jury’s final decision, especially if it decides to seek prosecution for former President Donald Trump.
The grand jury is seeking more information surrounding the Trump campaign’s efforts to bring clarity to the 2020 election results in the state.
According to official counts, Joe Biden narrowly beat the former president. Then-President Trump contacted Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), requesting a further review of the votes. The grand jury is considering the legal implications of this conversation.
The efforts of the grand jury are limited by several factors. One is jurisdiction, especially since the former president lives in Florida.
Also being considered is the potential constitutionality of the current proceedings. It is likely that there will be a federal court case regarding whether or not the Georgia grand jury’s work was lawful. This may set a series of precedents regarding the power of state and local governments to prosecute federal issues.
All of these issues make the chance of an indictment of former President Trump less likely. It also increases the doubt in the integrity of the process of the grand jury, according to a number of Republican elected officials.
The third factor is directly caused by a media tour by the foreperson of the grand jury, Emily Khors. The media circuit showed much of the potential intent behind the foreperson’s decisions. In particular, she called the possibility of subpoenaing a former president a potential “awesome moment.”
Georgia Grand Jury Foreperson: "I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in…that would be an awesome moment." pic.twitter.com/24pRdBbX9z
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 22, 2023
Some conservative critics describe the Georgia effort as a “witch hunt.” There is particular concern that Khors’ interviews with a number of major media outfits show a potential bias against the former president. Furthermore, other legal experts, including anti-Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz, believe that the potential case does not have legal standing.
Conservative critics point to a number of other initiatives to harm the former president, including long-debunked claims that the Trump 2016 team colluded with the Russian government.
