The New way to News

Picture credit : Evan El-Amin /
Trump Likely to Face Indictment in Georgia

Trump Likely to Face Indictment in Georgia

By RZR News Team
Jul 24, 2023

Fast Facts

Please subscribe to continue viewing this content.

Starting at just $8 per month


The recent indictment of former President Trump on racketeering charges in Georgia has raised eyebrows, as it appears to be a questionable legal tactic aimed at undermining his potential bid for the presidency. This indictment is an example of manipulating the law for political gain rather than pursuing genuine justice.

Racketeering charges are traditionally associated with organized crime activities and conspiracies involving multiple criminal acts. Applying this charge to a former president, one who has been maligned in nearly every legal way possible and survived, seems like a disingenuous stretch at best and an outright attempt at silencing political dissidence at worst.

Such an indictment appears to be part of a broader strategy to smear Trump’s reputation and prevent him from running for president again. It raises concerns about the selective use of legal tools for political ends, rather than adhering to the rule of law and impartiality.

Additionally, this indictment comes amidst a highly charged, hyperpartisan political environment, adding fuel to the perception that it is driven by partisan interests rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. It risks further deepening the political divide and undermining faith in the legal system’s integrity.

The timing of this indictment also cannot be ignored. With upcoming elections coming in mere months for the primary and the general taking place in just over one year, it gives the impression of strategic legal maneuvering to influence the political landscape, which undermines the principles of fairness and equal treatment under the law.

Simply put, the Georgia indictment against former President Trump on racketeering charges raises well-grounded doubts about its legitimacy and fairness. It seems far more like legal manipulation aimed at blocking his next presidential bid than a genuine pursuit of justice. In these times of heightened political tension, it is crucial to uphold the integrity of the legal process and ensure that legal tools are not abused for partisan ends – unfortunately, this indictment does the exact opposite. 

Learn more about the conservative viewpoint

Former President Trump is under fire again. District Attorney Fani Willis is researching allegations concerning Georgia’s 2020 election concerning Trump’s possible inferences. Trump’s lawyer Jennifer Little explains, “We absolutely do not believe that our client did anything wrong, and if any indictments were to come down, those are faulty indictments. We will absolutely fight anything tooth and nail,” However, a phone call between Georgia’s top election official, Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger and Donald Trump says differently

The call was recorded and Trump was quoted as saying, “So, what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes.” 11,780 votes is the number Trump needed to overtake Joe Biden to win Georgia. 

Trump, though, sees nothing wrong with the phone call, even referring to Willis, a Black woman, as “ a local racist Democrat district attorney in Atlanta who is doing everything in her power to indict [Trump].” 

Willis was unphased by his comment, saying, “It does not concern me at all. But I support his [Trump’s] right to be protected by the First Amendment and say what he likes … People have the right to say whatever they choose to say as long as it does not rise to the level of threats against myself, my staff, or my family.”

Trump’s questionable statements have led New York attorney, Nick Akerman, to believe that the former president’s harsh language is going to negatively affect the cases in the prosecutors’ offices and courts. Nick Akerman, explained, “At some point, it’s going to get him charged with a separate crime of intimidation,” and that “Trump is coming awfully close to the edge.”

That case is currently scheduled for trial on August 14, but Trump’s attorneys filed a motion for an indeterminate delay. His lawyers believe that there is no urgent reason to hold the trial at this time but ideally would like it to be held after the 2024 election.

– Caitlin Everhart

Learn more about the independent viewpoint

As of now, Fulton County prosecutors, led by District Attorney Fani Willis, are preparing to charge former President Donald Trump with racketeering charges for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results. Specifically, Trump is being accused of illegally attempting to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger into “finding” votes that would allow him to falsely claim victory over the duly-elected candidate, President Joe Biden. 

To fully understand the magnitude of this charge, it is important to first break down the meaning of a racketeering offense and then determine whether Trump and his “Stop the Steal” organization did, in fact, satisfy the requisite elements of this crime. 

One of the main elements that needs to be proven for a racketeering charge is “fraud.” Fraud, in this context, is satisfied when two or more people conspire to engage in activity that they know to be false or misrepresented and intentionally take steps to further the goals of the enterprise. In the case of Trump, there is substantial evidence to conclude that his phone call with Raffensperber directly violated this law because he had the intent of pressuring another party into creating fraudulent electoral certificates. These facts, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, are more than enough to hold Trump criminally liable.

Now, one might argue that Trump and company really had no intent of defrauding the public and that the conversation with Raffensperger was simply their way of trying to rectify the massive amount of voter fraud that, they believed, compromised the 2020 election. 

Even if we were to grant this proposition as true, it should be noted that when it comes to satisfying the intent element of almost any crime, recklessness can be just as sufficient as outright maliciousness. For Trump, the series of court cases in which his legal team tried to overturn the election results ended in a complete failure. Because of this, it should have registered to them that there was no proof of widespread voter fraud and that President-elect Biden was the fair winner. 

This did not happen, however. Despite the substantial knowledge, on the contrary, Trump persisted with these claims. Therefore, any acts of wrongdoing on behalf of him and his team can not be excused simply because they recklessly disregarded the truth. 

All that being said, it will be interesting to see how the grand jury interprets the evidence presented. This group of civilians will be given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decide whether Trump will advance to the next stage of accountability. 

– James Demertzis

Learn more about the liberal viewpoint

There is an age-old question: does art represent life, or does life represent art? In a more concrete sense, how does this idea figure into a show like Seinfeld maintaining a strong presence, twenty-five years after it went off the air? Well in a lot of ways the show is timeless, as one pop culture writer notes Seinfeld is made of “little annoyances” that have happened to us all, after all, who has not lost at least one dollar to a stubborn vending machine?  

It is the show’s clever and arguably sadistic use of irony that we as viewers enjoy maybe a little too much, perhaps because we as human beings experience it all too often in our own lives. For example, former President Donald Trump might soon be facing a new set of legal troubles, as a District Attorney in Georgia is preparing to bring racketeering charges relating to Trump’s 2020 election meddling in the state. 

The irony about this situation predates the 2020 election and involves the state of Georgia as a whole. Georgia, similar to most of the American South, tends to vote red in elections across the board. Interestingly, it seems this conservative sentiment has started shifting, coincidentally around the time Trump carried Georgia in 2016. 

Any successful candidate will tell you they couldn’t have won without the base, a term used to refer to the group of voters who support them. In Trump’s case, Georgia’s base seems to be dissolving. Trump went into a tie with Biden for Georgia in 2020, after carrying it by a solid five-point lead in 2016. In addition, many incumbent Republicans lost their seat, while Democrats flipped another in the Georgia state legislature. 

The question then is why? And how does this relate to Trump’s defeat in the state and subsequent indictment? The short answer to both questions: new voters with new expectations. The slightly longer answer to both questions: young voters, suburban women alienated by the Trump campaign, and minorities in the state inspired by Stacey Abrams’ narrow miss to become governor. Abrams’ campaign illustrates the voice of a new generation of voters and is one that should not be ignored. Furthermore, it shows Georgia is diversifying as a state, creating new and different needs for its citizens, which remains the underpinning of American democracy. 

Objectively speaking, these are three groups that are not targeted by the Trump campaign, nor are they considered part of what one may call the “Trump base.” Their votes also indirectly sealed the fate of Mr. Trump, leading to his soon-to-be indictment in Georgia related to election tampering. Nevertheless, no person should hold the power to silence the voice of Americans when it comes to elections. In the immortal words of Cosmo Kramer, “Without rules, there’s chaos!”

Learn more about the libertarian viewpoint