Georgia Trump Case Delayed Until 2025

Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump-nominated judge confirmed after the people voted in 2020 (mid-November) continues to provide fodder. 

She held the national security trial in indefinite abeyance. However, Cannon still has the chance to put forth asinine orders, such as giving argument time for friends of the court (amici) regarding the constitutionality of Jack Smith's appointment. This sort of thing is simply not done and is just a continual exercise of delay, delay, and more delay. 

Multiple legal minds have been disgusted at her "incompetence" but the evidence at this point makes that generous. There is clear evidence of a pattern that shows bias or (at least) the appearance of bias. The rules in place make it extremely hard to remove her. The truth remains.

Question: Did Willis violate any laws, codes, or policies? If so, let them appeal. If not, there is no justice, and should be no peace.

Answer: I don’t think she did, no.

The Georgia trials (likely all of them though something may take place) will now be held up until 2025. Mid-2025, perhaps.

The appeals court agreed to hear if the trial judge's decision that Fulton DA Fani Willis could remain on the case after a conflict of interest dispute arose should stand. The appeals court has a busy schedule. So, on normal scheduling, this made it basically a goner. 

(ETA: Yes, it was a long shot for the trial to begin in 2024, but there was still a chance. This decision ended any hope. It also helps delay the trials even further. Generally, even if the trials — remember there are many defendants — did not come, the possibility still would keep them fresh in our minds. This pushes the whole thing into the future.)

I say "basically" since it is hard to believe there is no room to speed things up for a time-sensitive case of this importance. The U.S. Supreme Court could have heard the Trump immunity case in December or January. I grant I know little about Georgia appellate law. Nonetheless, it would surprise me if it was absolutely against the law for the court to this court to speed up. 

Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis (the "no" above) is an expert on Georgia law. He has regularly been a legal analyst, discussing state and federal constitutional law. Kreis is a reliable source. He is on Twitter/X and splits his time being a serious scholar and kidding around. I appreciate him except when he goes into "virtuous liberal" mode. 

There are only two people responsible for the Georgia trial not having a chance to go to trial before the November 2024 election. Neither of them wear robes. History will judge them for their poor decisions, especially if Donald Trump wins the presidency. And rightfully so.

He's wrong as are those who "yes" him on the thread. What is particularly bothersome is that he does not even think they should have taken the case! It angers me that he wants to remove the agency of judges here. Or whoever specifically was involved in taking a needless delaying tactic. 

The "poor decisions" in his view do not violate any laws, codes, or policies! Multiple ethics experts agree. Since articles often speak in generalities, here is a helpful timeline of events. 

A significant factor here is how long the judges involved take to deal with the situation. They have agency. People, including prosecutors, make mistakes. The proper thing to do is to balance all factors and not let the mistakes needlessly affect the overall process. People make mistakes and misjudgments. They are human. We have to factor that in. 

Should the two prosecutors have had an affair? No. The importance of the investigation also warrants an extra degree of due care. People rightly note that other prosecutors have affairs, including those in a supervisory position. This does not take them off the hook. My comments here are not meant to be a full apology for their actions. 

The bottom line still holds that this is not merely supposed to be a human resources or internal ethics matter. The dispute involves a conflict of interest that allegedly threatens the due process rights of the defendants. 

The "live in infamy" (reminds me of Pearl Harbor) stuff aside, how exactly is that involved here? The affair seems to have started after he was appointed (he was the third choice after two others turned her down). She did not pick her boyfriend for the role. And, picking people you have some personal relationship with (other than romantic) is regularly done. 

He is not incompetent. He had basic qualifications. There are also references to some spending that might be a misuse of public funds for personal reasons. Trips and the like.  

I don't know what relevance this has to the actual issue here -- the defendants' fair trial rights. It's all soap opera bullshit. The trial judge had a two-week (or so) hearing over this bullshit. It was just too drawn out. 

Yes, I am annoyed at the whole thing. Since she was personally attacked, Willis struck back when she was on the stand.  The trial judge in his ruling strongly criticized some of her remarks. The judge sets her up and denounces her when the expected happens. 

Yes, she should have toned down some of her remarks. A sense of perspective, however, is warranted all around. Again, the two prosecutors are not the only ones at fault. And, bottom line, as Prof. Kreis noted, she did not violate any laws, codes, or policies.

Critics were upset for various reasons. What about Justice Alito and Judge Cannon? That is just whataboutism! Not quite. People have a right to be upset if the rules are applied selectively, especially if it leans one way. 

They (rightly in my view) think this is a tempest in a teapot. The core allegation is in the relevant form (the defendants' rights) a nothingburger. Why should this be dragged out so far? See also, the Supreme Court and the meritless Trump immunity claims. 

Yes, here Fani Willis specifically helped things along. But, her human failings do not take everyone else off the hook. The failure of people to understand this appalls me. Many examples in ordinary life would suggest the problem here. Ditto if we are judging legal liability. 

Consider someone who negligently leaves a loaded gun out. Someone else uses it to kill someone. The first person is not the only person responsible. Shared fault is a basic legal principle, is it not? And, multiple people with expertise argue Willis is not even on the same plane there. She was not legally negligent. She did not break the law or internal codes. 

They think sexism, racism, and partisanship (various Republican state judges) are involved. If this was not a successful delaying tactic, something else would have been. Prof. Kreis resists the idea but the facts are there to be suspicious. Some lashing back goes too far and adds fodder to his belief the critics are unreasonable and uninformed. Not everyone.  

He notes the New York trial was not blocked. Nonetheless, quite a few things (some of which people thought had some merit) were tossed at the wall. There is still plenty of time for something to be latched onto on appeal (see the Harvey Weinstein case). 

"History will judge" everyone here, including the judges and everyone else who has not taken things with a degree of seriousness and timeliness warranted by the situation. Oh well. Obviously, the true person at fault here is Merrick Garland. He is the general scapegoat, including of the Mets season. 

ETA: Kreis wants to be above the fray, an honest broker law professor but he is overcompensating. The emphasis on the two prosecutors having all the agency is a choice. 

He even eventually said that he probably would write an amicus brief in support of her! Not on his own. He only said that in response to criticism alleging he was biased against Fani Willis. I don't know how fair that charge is but at some point, I don't think it is totally unhinged either. 

His opposition to the appeal is only referenced in passing when he specifically was called on it. Isn't it RELEVANT to show how the appeal is a questionable choice?

The net result is counterproductive. It is akin to a liberal newspaper going out of its way not to support a candidate and in the process going too far the other way. I do not want him just to be a cheering session for the prosecution. Nonetheless, there is a middle path possible. 

People are not just treating (as he alleges) Fani Willis as a "celebrity." That is a bullshit charge. 

Kreis went this virtue-signaling route other times. 

Many people were upset at Trump (and others to some extent) repeatedly breaking the gag order. They wanted him to be locked up (it could be home detention). The threats to witnesses and court personnel are real. He argued this was one-note pro-prosecution stuff. 

He once put all the delays on the prosecution as if the defendants had nothing to do with it, including their complex criming by people that require an extra level of due care. Likewise, stonewalling by Sen. Lindsey Graham took months. That's the prosecutors' fault too? 

He was SURE Lindsey Graham did not testify to the grand jury regarding anything warranting punishment. It was unlikely -- given legislative immunity -- he would be. 

But, Kreis had no special inside knowledge of what Graham testified behind closed doors. His level of cocksure assurance here ("I'll eat my hat") was unnecessary. When people pushed back, he could have simply said, "Fine, we will see." 

(The idea Graham's involvement in "investigating" the 2020 elections by checking up on officials in other states was all part of his job voting for the electoral count is dubious. He is  a senator of South Carolina. Why would he call officials in Georgia? 

This would allow every single member of Congress to do this. They would have the clear authority to call officials to "suggest" certain things and "just ask questions" all over the country. They do not do that. It would be problematic if they did.

The selective nature of his actions is suspicious. Again, when pressed, he granted there were some outer limits to Graham's legislative actions. Since the grand jury deliberations were secret, we do not know what was exactly covered. 

A consciousness neutral law professor would qualify his remarks somewhat more.) 

He calls out the Supreme Court and Judge Cannon (though him merely calling her "incompetent" is annoying) for delaying the trials needlessly. But, his blessed Georgia court system is different! They are doing things by the book. I think there is some home court bias there.  

I respect him a lot. But, he deserves criticism too. I'm using him as a case study since I respect him. The stakes have led some people to yell at him, which I think overall makes him think he is doing his job. Sometimes, however, I think there is a kernel of validity mixed in. All the "attaboys" notwithstanding.