Donald Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Charges in Fulton County Election Case
Former President Donald Trump has filed a motion to dismiss two charges against him in the Fulton County election interference case. Trump’s lawyers argue that the state of Georgia lacks the authority to charge him with filing false documents in federal court because only the Justice Department or federal courts have that jurisdiction.
Trump’s motion cites an 1890 case that ruled that state courts do not have jurisdiction over perjury charges related to testimony before a notary public in a contested election for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Supplemental Briefs from Co-Conspirators
Judge Scott McAfee previously invited supplemental briefs from co-conspirators in the case, allowing them to comment on counts 14, 15, and 27. Counts 14 and 15 allege the filing of false documents in federal court, while count 27 alleges conspiracy to file such documents.
Trump’s Alleged Role in Michigan’s False Elector Plot
In related news, former President Trump has been identified as a co-conspirator in a scheme to claim an unearned victory in Michigan’s 2020 presidential election. According to testimony from an agent for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Trump, former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and lawyer Rudy Giuliani are considered unindicted co-conspirators in the state’s false elector plot.
RNC’s Election Integrity Efforts
Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), has revealed plans to increase the RNC’s role in election monitoring. The RNC aims to have personnel who can physically handle ballots at polling locations, allowing them to count ballots and detect any potential irregularities.
This move has drawn criticism from some, who question the RNC’s motives and express concerns about possible voter suppression tactics. Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele and NYU professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat have raised concerns about potential voter intimidation and the erosion of democratic processes.
Supreme Court Hearing on Idaho Abortion Ban
In another legal development, Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to align with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor during oral arguments on Idaho’s stringent abortion ban. Sotomayor questioned whether the law would allow a doctor to perform an abortion in a case where a pregnant woman’s life or health was at risk, suggesting that there was a significant gap between the law’s language and its practical application.
Barrett expressed surprise at the state lawyer’s response and noted that expert witnesses had previously testified that such cases would be covered under the law. The court’s eventual ruling on this case will have significant implications for abortion rights in the United States.
