“Trump Will Be Indicted” – Yes, But Where? “Trump Will Be Indicted” It’s Likely That Boxgate Will Happen, But Georgia Might Be the First, If Not the Only One
The Accusation of Trump
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 29, 2022) — Recent articles published in a variety of outlets, including but not limited to The Daily Beast, Business Insider, Yahoo, Salon, Political Wire, Newsweek, and the Washington Monthly, all state that “Trump will be indicted.” Even Tucker Carlson is on board, claiming that indictments against Trump are “clearly” going to be brought. According to public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who assisted in the appointment of special prosecutors during the original scandal involving a “gate,” Watergate, everyone was concentrating on the documents that were involved in the search of Mar-a-Logo, which has been dubbed by some as “Boxgate.”
In contrast, Banzhaf and Alan Dershowitz both argue that a federal government led by Democrats will be hesitant to indict a former president who is also the clear front runner to challenge the Democrats’ control of the White House in 2024, and that the first and maybe only indictment of Trump may occur in Georgia, where the same “optics” and other political considerations do not apply.
As reported by The Hill in late July, “An Atlanta-area prosecutor’s investigation into former President Trump’s effort to overturn his 2020 electoral defeat in Georgia poses the most significant legal threat to the former president, legal experts say,” notes Banzhaf, who may be somewhat biased because it was his detailed complaint which triggered that current criminal investigation of Trump, including the empaneling of a special grand jury and the issuance of subpoenas for manifold witnesses. “The most significant legal
Since then, a number of different media outlets have reported that the District Attorney for Fulton County, Fani Willis, has stepped up her investigation efforts. These efforts include making demands for the testimony under oath of a large number of Trump’s aides and confidants in connection with the alleged plot to undermine the presidential election by “discovering” a large number of new votes for Trump in the state.
“The stakes in holding Trump accountable for an attack on our democratic system of government could not be higher, and the evidence is extremely compelling,” said one expert. “The steps her office has taken, including empaneling a special grand jury and subpoenaing high-profile witnesses, are very likely not steps she would have taken if she did not feel there was at least a significant possibility that she will move forward with charges,” said another expert. “The evidence is extremely compelling.”
Willis is likely to be the first to indict Donald Trump, according to Professor Banzhaf, who has listed a number of additional grounds, including the forecasts of a large number of specialists, to support this assertion.
As has been mentioned, the special grand jury that is investigating Trump and others regarding criminal interference in the 2020 elections has convinced a judge to issue subpoenas to compel the testimony under oath of a large number of close collaborators in the alleged criminal schemes. This indicates that prosecutors are getting closer to Trump and to his own criminal involvement in the plots that are under investigation.
According to Banzhaf’s speculations, some individuals who are threatened with the possibility of being prosecuted themselves may “flip” on Trump, thereby supplying crucial information regarding what he knew and what he said behind closed doors.
Banzhaf, whose criminal complaint triggered her investigation, and who also played a role in obtaining special prosecutors for Nixon, and finally bringing former Vice President Spiro Agnew to justice, suggests that this is yet another indication that Willis may be the first (and perhaps only) prosecutor to indict Trump. This is yet another indication that Willis may be the first (and perhaps only) prosecutor to indict Trump.
According to Banzhaf, Willis has already formally reported that evidence gathered earlier, including that which was filed with her office by the law professor, indicated “a reasonable probability that the State of Georgia’s administration of elections in 2020, including the State’s election of the President of the United States, was subject to possible criminal disruptions.” Banzhaf notes that Willis has already formally reported that the evidence indicated “a reasonable probability that the State of Georgia’s administration of elections in 2020, including the State’s election
Willis had before made the assurance that “anyone who breaks the law will be prosecuted, regardless of what their social status is.” regardless of their socioeconomic status, the color of their skin, or the gender they were born into. We will not differentiate our treatment of any individual. She also stated, quite some time ago, that the grant jury would issue more subpoenas to those in Trump’s “close circle,” and that she hasn’t ruled out even issuing one to Trump himself. This statement was made in reference to the fact that she made the announcement quite some time ago.
Willis has recently received new evidence and analysis from Banzhaf, which might help build what looks to be an already strong criminal case against Trump. Banzhaf has just filed this data and analysis with Willis.
According to Banzhaf, it is standard procedure and the best course of action for prosecutors to first investigate and secure the testimony of “smaller fish” in a criminal inquiry before moving on to individuals in higher positions who were also involved.
Prosecutors can gain valuable information that will be used to press those with greater responsibility (“larger fish”) to testify under oath by offering immunity in exchange for damaging testimony from those with lesser responsibility (and occasionally also damning documents).
Consequently, Banzhaf expects that the probe is nearing its finish, maybe with an indictment of Trump, as it has moved on to interview Giuliani, Graham, and other people very close to Trump.
Some others share this view. It wouldn’t surprise me for Georgia to become the first jurisdiction to indict a former president on felony charges,” stated Laurence Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard University. And I believe these accusations will hold water.
According to an Op-Ed published in the New York Times by two veteran prosecutors (one Democrat and one Republican), Trump faces “the most serious prospect of prosecution” in Fulton County, Georgia, lending credence to the findings of a 100-page analysis by seven legal experts who concluded that the former president faces a “substantial risk of possible state charges predicated on multiple crimes.”
A former prosecutor and DA Fani came to this conclusion. According to the article, “Willis’ work may present the most serious potential of prosecution that Mr. Trump and his collaborators are facing. She has shown herself to be brave and determined. As the primary prosecutor in Atlanta’s teacher cheating scandal, she has taken on and successfully prosecuted a politically powerful group: the city’s teachers. And she has a lot of cards to play in this probe. Mr. Trump’s post-election work in Georgia is supported by substantial evidence.
It was also mentioned that Willis’s work may create the most serious possibility of prosecution for Trump and his collaborators, notwithstanding the importance of Justice Department investigations.
In fact, she can use a law that seems to have been written with this scenario in mind. Georgia has “some of the most favorable criminal statutes in the country” for investigating Trump, the New York Times writes. What Mr. Trump evidently did in Ms. Willis’s state of Georgia is illegal under state law. This is called “solicitation of election fraud.” Anyone who “solicits, requests, instructs, importunes, or otherwise seeks to cause” another person to commit election fraud is guilty of a crime under this article [GA Code 21-2-604].
Additional Criminal Laws Violated
In addition to breaking GA Code 21-2-603 – Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud, Banzhaf’s complaint to Willis also accused Trump of breaching GA Code 21-2-597 – Intentional Interference With Performance of Election Duties.
The legal expert speculates that, unlike the other major DOJ investigations, Willis’s inquiry is more likely to result in an indictment against Trump.
There’s also the fact that it wouldn’t look as awful for an incoming president to attempt and lock up his political opponents in an effort to prevent them from running against him in future elections if they were indicted and tried in Georgia. Banzhaf argues that the idea that a new president may simply lock up his predecessor is something we associate with tin-horn dictators in corrupt third-world countries, not the United States.
It’s even worse in this case because Trump is widely seen as the Democratic Party’s most formidable opponent in the 2024 presidential election, including Joe Biden. As a result, many people would view any attempt to indict Trump, let alone throw him in jail, during this election as politically motivated.
Many people also believe that it is unfair to use the complete power of the United States government against a single individual, even if that person is as wealthy and powerful as Trump.
Banzhaf points out that a county district attorney’s office prosecution would sidestep most of these issues and preconceptions, giving it a potentially higher chance of success and protecting against jury nullification.
Also, Willis intends to employ the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of Georgia in any prosecution of Trump.
Since Banzhaf wrote the memorandum that led to the federal government’s successful RICO prosecution against the major tobacco firms, he is well-versed in the federal RICO legislation. He notes, however, that the Georgia RICO statute is even more powerful and far-reaching than the federal one.
When compared to federal law, it has a broader definition of racketeering, requires less evidence to establish a pattern of racketeering action, and does not always require the existence of a “enterprise,” specifically an illegal or criminal enterprise, to constitute racketeering. Willis did, in fact, use RICO to successfully pursue a case of teacher cheating.
In addition, as pointed out by Banzhaf, even though RICO requires at least two independent illegal racketeering activities – “predicate acts” – to prove a pattern of corruption by Trump and his alleged co-conspirators, making false statements like Trump and some of his allies are alleged to have made would more than satisfy Georgia’s RICO law. Racketeering is a crime in Georgia punishable by up to 20 years in prison, a substantial fine, and the return of any illegally obtained funds. The vast majority of Georgian criminals convicted of racketeering do go to jail or prison.
The law expert warns that those who believe Trump should be punished should not place all their hopes in either Mar-a-Lago or the Department of Justice.