Georgia Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Efforts to Block Election Probe Grand Jury

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously that lawyers for former President Donald Trump have “not been able to prove a reason for them to quash the grand jury investigation into whether he and his allies should be criminally charged for allegedly illegally meddling in the 2020 election.”

On behalf of Trump, last week attorneys filed a petition just days after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney swore in two grand juries on Tuesday. One of the grand juries is “expected to hear evidence in the Georgia election case.”

Trump’s lawyers claim that the “original special purpose grand jury that spent eight months hearing evidence went beyond its lawful purview. The petition also alleges that Trump’s “attempts to quash the report and disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis have been ignored by Judge McBurney.”

Trump’s lawyers wrote in their petition arguably aggressive language in framing Trump’s situation. “Stranded between the Supervising Judge’s proactive passivity and the District Attorney’s looming indictment, Petitioner has no meaningful option other than seek this Court’s intervention.”

Trump’s request for judicial relief is far reaching. His lawyers are asking Georgia’s Supreme Court “to bar the special purpose grand jury’s report from ever being used in future legal proceedings, forbid Willis from introducing any evidence her office received from the special purpose grand jury to a regular grand jury, and disqualify Willis from acting in any proceeding involving Trump.”

Willis has previously commented that a similar motion by Trump was “procedurally

The Georgia Supreme Court rejected each of Trump’s grounds for quashing the grand jury report. The Court’s opinion is linked here. The Court stated, in part:

The Court has made clear that a petitioner cannot invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction as a way to circumvent the ordinary channels for obtaining the relief he seeks without making some showing that he is being prevented fair access to those ordinary channels. (Citing cases). Petitioner’s claim fails in the light of that precedent; he makes no showing that he has been prevented fair access to the ordinary channels. 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.”

D & B Staff

More from this show

Subscribe

Episode 1