Trump Is Pissing Off Judges in Georgia. Bigly.
The indictment hasn’t even come down yet in the Peach State, but the former president has already managed to lose twice in court there and get sent packing.
The first was a Hail Mary pass by Trump which failed two weeks ago. His plea had gone straight to the Georgia Supreme Court, where his lawyers filed it as an “Original Petition.” There, the Court denied his petition in an unsigned, five-page opinion.
The next loss came on a motion before Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney, who had overseen the first “special purpose grand jury” which conducted an investigation into election interference. Trump filed a motion back in March to throw out the report of the grand jury and to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the case. On Monday, Judge McBurney ruled against Trump. I really should say, he skewered him well and good.
And there’s one more ruling to come—possibly—with a hearing set for August 10. No one is expecting a different result from that third desperate move, bless his heart, though Trump did manage to get the court to hear the case outside of Fulton County. But as I’ll explain below, that hearing might not ever even happen.
Let’s take a closer look at these rulings and take the temperature of the courts in Georgia, at least so far, as they mull over the legal arguments of the Trump team, such as they are.
Supreme smackdown
Trump’s lawyers filed a petition with the state Supreme Court arguing that the grand jury report, which apparently recommends charges against over a dozen defendants including Trump, ought to be quashed and all evidence obtained by it excluded from use by District Attorney Willis. Trump further asked that Willis be disqualified from the case.
Trump contended that the entire special purpose grand jury system in Georgia is so vague that it violates his constitutional rights to due process. He also claimed Willis was simply out to get him, having signaled her intent to use the investigative grand jury’s report to secure indictments from a regular grand jury, which he worried might then simply “uncritically ratify” the findings rather than take its duties seriously. He complained the process was “ponderously slow” and that as a presidential candidate, he would suffer reputational harm if he had to defend against an indictment based on “unlawful” evidence.
Okay…
So, let’s be clear. This was a long shot from the get go, even though its requested relief was really quite dangerous. He was basically asking the state Supreme Court to undo the grand jury system as it has operated in the state for all other defendants. And he was arguing that he should get special treatment because he’s running for president.
Trump may have been hoping that politics would help him here. After all, among the nine justices of the high court, eight were appointed by Republican governors and the ninth won a nonpartisan statewide election.
But no matter. The state Supreme Court quickly dispensed with Trump’s arguments, ruling unanimously against him on all claims.
Trump “makes no showing that he has been prevented fair access to the ordinary channels,” the high court wrote. It then called him out for wasting the court’s time by doubling up on already pending matters.
Notably, Petitioner does not assert that the superior court has denied him the opportunity or ability to seek therein the relief he now requests from this Court. Indeed, he admits that, in March 2023, he submitted, and the superior court clerk filed, motions in which he sought to quash the Special Purpose Grand Jury’s report and to disqualify Willis. And, although he complains that Judge McBurney has yet to rule on those motions, he is not asking this Court to compel Judge McBurney to rule. Instead, he is asking this Court to step in and itself decide the motions currently pending in the superior court. This is not the sort of relief that this Court affords, at least absent extraordinary circumstances that Petitioner has not shown are present here.
Translation: You filed the same crap before the judge in this case, and now before he’s even ruled, you run to us to get a ruling. But you haven’t shown any good reason why we should step in.
The court then addressed the substance of Trump’s argument, even though it didn’t really have to. It found that the remedy for improper actions by a special purpose grand jury was not to quash its findings or the evidence it had gathered because no constitutional violation has yet occurred. “[G]rand juries,” it wrote, “are authorized to consider evidence without regard to its eventual admissibility at trial.” In other words, how a grand jury arrives at an indictment isn’t anything you can really challenge. Save your tears for the trial court.
On the subject of Willis’s disqualification, the court was similarly dismissive, writing that “we note only that Petitioner has not presented in his original petition either the facts or the law necessary to mandate Willis’s disqualification by this Court at this time on this record.” In sum, Trump took his best shot, but he came up far short.
Superior smackdown
The ruling that Trump complained about having not come down yet from Judge McBurney then landed Monday. And ouch.
Judge McBurney lit into Trump in his nine-page ruling. It is a very satisfying read because it fairly drips with sarcasm and you’ve-got-to-be-joking verbiage. Here’s an example:
[W]hile being the subject (or even target) of a highly publicized criminal investigation is likely an unwelcome and unpleasant experience, no court ever has held that that status alone provides a basis for the courts to interfere with or halt the investigation.
Rubbing salt in a recent wound, McBurney cited the 11th Circuit federal opinion that excoriated Judge Aileen Cannon’s preferential treatment of Trump. “No doubt the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily on the mind of anyone under investigation. But without diminishing the seriousness of the burden, that ordinary experience cannot support extraordinary jurisdiction.” Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689, 700 (11th Cir. 2022).
McBurney acknowledged the potential harm that a wrongful indictment could inflict upon someone’s reputation. But Trump’s claims lacked specificity.
“The Court appreciates that ‘a wrongful indictment is no laughing matter; often it works grievous, irreparable injury to the person indicted,’” McBurney wrote. “However, in this situation, movants’ rather overwrought allegations of prosecutorial overreach and judicial error do not suffice to show that there is significant risk of ‘wrongful’ indictment.”
Lawyers love to look at footnotes to see what the judge is really thinking, and McBurney didn’t disappoint. In footnote 2, he remarked on how Trump was making great political hay (and money) off of the multiple indictments—hardly someone suffering from the burden of them: “And for some, being the subject of a criminal investigation can, à la Rumpelstiltskin, be turned into golden political capital, making it seem more providential than problematic.”
*Chef’s kiss* (though I would have said “Trumpelstiltskin” for extra credit.)
On the posture of the case, which hasn’t even reached the actual indictment phase, McBurney refused to get out over his legal skis. “Arguments like those being made prematurely in the pending motions can be more effectively (and reasonably) presented and ruled upon when the full picture of who is being charged with what has been painted. Guessing at what that picture might look like before the investigative dots are connected may be a popular game for the media and blogosphere, but it is not a proper role for the courts and formal legal argumentation,” he wrote.
On the motion to disqualify Willis, he was clearly frustrated with how much extrajudicial posturing was taking place on social media. But it didn’t mean he should kick Willis off the case. “While both sides have done enough talking, posting, tweeting (‘X’ing’?), and press conferencing to have hit (and perhaps stretched) the bounds of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct,” Trump had not “pointed to any averments from the District Attorney or her team of lawyers expressing belief that Trump … is guilty or has committed this or that offense.”
He had some praise, too, for how Willis had conducted herself given the national attention the case has been receiving, remarking that Willis had been careful in her comments and noting that she is following the evidence while acknowledging that her case was important, all without suggesting anything about Trump’s guilt.
“Put differently, the District Attorney’s Office has been doing a fairly routine — and legally unobjectionable — job of public relations in a case that is anything but routine,” the judge wrote.
Third time’s NOT the charm.
There’s a third matter yet to be ruled upon, which is really just a remix of the arguments that have already failed before the state Supreme Court and before Judge McBurney. And McBurney is pissed off about it.
So, footnote time again! In note 15, the judge laid into Trump’s team for wasting court time and filing confusing and overlapping motions: “Perplexingly, prematurely, and with the standard pugnacity, Trump has filed not one but two mandamus actions against the District Attorney and this Court—one in the Supreme Court of Georgia (Case S23O1134, which the Supreme Court has already dismissed) and one in the Superior Court of Fulton County,” McBurney wrote.
He then points out that the only relief which ought to have been sought was for another court to force him to issue his ruling—which wasn’t even due until August 2023 based on what he notes is “basic calendar math.” His frustration and annoyance is palpable. He notes that his order, now issued as of Monday, should therefore moot the need for further Superior Court action.
That third matter is set to be heard on August 10, but it will be interesting to see if it’s taken off calendar in light of McBurney’s ruling.
Then there was this parting shot at Trump’s attorneys: “In the future, counsel is encouraged to follow the professional standard of inquiring with chamber’s staff about timing and deadlines before burdening other courts with unnecessary and unfounded legal filings.”
So, it’s starting well for Trump in Georgia, right?
Clear and concise as usual. I love reading anything where Trump has lost in court. And thanks for turning us onto the footnotes for extra zingers!
It seems that Trump’s legal team has forgotten (or perhaps never understood) that this is a CRIMINAL case. They apparently don’t see that “victory” cannot be achieved by drowning your opponent in filings to run up their legal fees to the point at which the opponent cries “uncle” because they don’t want to spend any more money. These are PROSECTORS… they make their money “the old-fashioned” way, and they get paid regardless of which criminal they put away.