Staff Reports
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee made waves recently by dismissing two counts against former President Donald Trump due to a lack of jurisdiction. It’s a decision that raises a few eyebrows and might just end up being the judicial rollercoaster for Trump. It has everyone questioning if they mistakenly wandered into a sequel of a legal drama rather than a courtroom.
The charges in question stem from a broader indictment against Trump and 18 co-defendants. Still, as noted by eagle-eyed observers, Fulton County seems to have skipped over a crucial legal detail: it can’t enforce federal laws in state court. It’s like trying to use a butter knife to drive a nail—just wrong and not in the least bit effective. The indictment incorrectly cites behaviors that happened in other states, such as discussions about voting irregularities in Pennsylvania, indicating Fulton County’s overreach could rival that of a toddler trying to take control of a family road trip.
Pollak: Breitbart News Vindicated; Under Georgia Judge‘s Logic, Trump‘s New York Conviction Should Be Tossed https://t.co/473Brknb3W via @BreitbartNews
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) September 12, 2024
Judge McAfee pointed out that certain allegations aimed at Trump involved actions that belong in federal court, not a county court. It’s rather baffling how anyone in the prosecution could think they could use local laws to tackle what is fundamentally a federal issue. A clear message was sent: if the crimes were allegedly committed in the realm of federal jurisdiction, they could not be handled by local government. This decision naturally raises the question: if this logic holds in Georgia, why not apply it to Trump’s recent convictions in New York?
When it comes to charges in New York, particularly regarding fraudulent business filings, the judge suggests a splendidly ironic hypocrisy. It turns out that Judge Juan Merchan allowed the statute of limitations to be bypassed as if he was handing out “Get Out of Jail Free” cards to articulate a narrative against Trump. The prosecution’s bold move to drag federal campaign finance laws into a state court ruling is peculiar, especially since the Federal Elections Commission hasn’t raised any flags about Trump breaking the rules. If there is no federal enforcement, then the state’s interference starts looking a little unconstitutional.
One could argue that, by the same logic applicable to McAfee’s dismissal, Trump’s New York convictions should hold no water either. Suppose the federal courts exist to handle violations concerning federal laws and filings. In that case, attempting to impose state-level justice on those matters sounds suspiciously like overreaching—like an amateur pitcher trying to throw a curveball but missing the target completely.
In the end, the legal landscape keeps shifting under Trump’s feet, creating confusion that fuels the fire of speculation. With every court ruling, the warp and weft of justice appear to oscillate depending on the political tides. If the legal system continues to double down on its reach beyond jurisdiction, it may just end up needing a whistleblower to draw attention to its beleaguering practices.
