Former President Donald Trump's legal team has launched a fervent bid to halt the investigation into allegations of election interference in Georgia. The team filed petitions with the Fulton County Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia to block evidence obtained during the special grand jury investigation. They also seek the removal of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the case.
The timing of this legal maneuver aligns with expectations that Willis may soon pursue indictments against Trump and potentially other individuals. Observers view the move as a last-ditch effort by Trump's team to evade charges amid the escalating GOP presidential primary.
The petitions by Trump's lawyers argue that the ongoing investigation would cause "reputational harm" to Trump as he seeks the presidential nomination, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights.
This recent filing builds upon an earlier petition submitted to the Fulton County Superior Court, which is still awaiting a response from the judge. Trump's legal team justifies the direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia by citing the lack of response and the imminent potential for injury.
The legal team of Drew Findling, Marissa Goldberg, and Jennifer Little advances several arguments in their filing. They contend that the special grand jury was unconstitutional, tainting any evidence uncovered during its proceedings, including the final report. Notably, the special grand jury interviewed 75 witnesses, including individuals with close ties to the former president.
According to the filing, Fulton County could issue an indictment at any time based on a report and investigative process that lacked proper authority. The legal team asserts that the district attorney intends to leverage this report, which they deem the product of a compromised process, to secure an indictment within a few weeks or even days.
Concurrently, as part of routine procedures, two regular grand juries have been empaneled in Fulton County, scheduled to hear multiple criminal investigations in the coming months. Willis has indicated that she plans to announce her charging decisions during their term. Furthermore, her correspondence with county officials suggests a narrower window for her announcement, as she informed them of her staff's remote working schedule from July 31 to August 18, cautioning against scheduling in-person hearings, a precaution many see as anticipation of potential unrest tied to her charging decisions.
Trump's legal team specifically highlights the final report of the special grand jury, asserting that access to it would predispose a regular grand jury to accept its findings uncritically, potentially enabling Willis to secure an indictment more easily. They liken the situation to the adage of indicting a "ham sandwich" but suggest that indicting the "mustard-stained napkin" it once sat on is an entirely different matter.
As the legal battle ensues, the future of the investigation and its potential impact on Trump's political aspirations remain uncertain.
