According to Mediate, CNN delivered sharp criticisms of the recent ruling against former President Donald Trump, who attempted to halt the investigation into his alleged role in election interference during the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney’s nine-page ruling not only denied Trump’s request but was deemed by CNN’s Dana Bash as a severe “dressing-down” of the ex-president. CNN’s political correspondent, Sara Murray, went even further, describing it as a legal “smackdown” against Trump’s attempt to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis and suppress evidence before the grand jury.
Though no indictments have been filed against Trump in Georgia, he has been informed that he is the target of the ongoing investigation, making Judge McBurney’s ruling highly significant. McBurney strongly rebuked Trump’s legal team, declaring their asserted “injuries” to be insufficient and speculative, emphasizing that merely being the subject of a widely publicized criminal investigation does not grant grounds for the courts to interfere or halt the investigation.
The movants’ asserted “injuries” that would open the doors of the courthouse to their claims are either insufficient or else speculative and unrealized. They are insufficient because, while 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. …
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 maybe a popular game for the media and blogosphere, but it is not a proper role for the courts and formal legal argumentation.
The judge argued that premature arguments made in the pending motions could be more reasonably and effectively presented and ruled upon once the full scope of charges and individuals involved becomes clear. He disapproved of engaging in speculation before all the investigative pieces are connected, stating that such practices are better suited for media discussions and the blogosphere, not formal legal proceedings.
While Trump faced this legal setback, District Attorney Fani Willis expressed her determination to proceed with the investigation despite potential criticisms and attempts to obstruct her work. She acknowledged that some people might not agree with her decisions but asserted that her team had been diligently working for two and a half years and was prepared to move forward.
The movants’ asserted “injuries” that would open the doors of the courthouse to their claims are either insufficient or else speculative and unrealized. They are insufficient because, while 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. …
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 maybe a popular game for the media and blogosphere, but it is not a proper role for the courts and formal legal argumentation.
Some people may not be happy with the decisions that I am making, and sometimes when people are unhappy they act in a way that could create harm. The work is accomplished. We’ve been working for two and a half years and we’re ready to go.
