Trump Co-Defendant Gets Absolutely Obliterated By Judge

Donald Trump's former lawyer and current co-defendant, Kenneth Chesebro, filed a motion in court in Georgia that was expertly dismantled on Friday by the judge overseeing the case. Chesebro's team had tried to argue that the special prosecutor assigned to his case didn't file his paperwork to be a special counsel in time, and the judge wasn't buying that BS argument for even a minute. The judge issued an absolutely scathing ruling shutting the motion down for good, clearing the path for Chesebro to head to trial. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

The John j overseeing some of the, uh, trials of course in Georgia with the co-defendants, including Kenneth Chesbro, was forced to issue a rather scathing ruling against Mr. Chesbro this past Friday after Ches Bro's legal team tried to file a motion to get the entire case against him, dismissed alleging that the prosecutor that's been assigned to that case, not Fannie Willis, but she picked another guy, a man by the name of Nathan Wade Cheez Rose's lawyers, argued in court that Mr. Wade actually committed a misdemeanor because he failed to turn in his paperwork to be the prosecutor on time. And they said that under Georgia law, this means the whole case gotta be thrown out, even though Mr. Wade not turning in his paperwork on time, which he did end up turning it in, um, has no bearing on the charges against Mr. Chesbro.

And for the record, that is actually one thing that the judge pointed out in the ruling where he basically smacked down Chesbro and his lawyers. But let me read you this, this is what the lawyers filed in court trying to get Mr. Wade, you know, his, his incompetence to get the case thrown out. Nathan Wade, who has and continues to serve as lead counsel in this case, including during the presentment of the case to the criminal grand jury. And at the time the underlying indictment was returned was not an authorized public officer by Georgia Law. It then accuses him of committing a misdemeanor by presenting the case to a grand jury and obtaining an indictment without first taking and filing the appropriate oaths. Accordingly, the indictment in this case must be dismissed.

So the judge first reminded Chesbro that, Hey, bud, if we're gonna be talking about people who didn't fill out their paperwork and turn it in on time, you know your team actually did that too. So if you're gonna say that I have to apply that law, the judge says, then, then I have to actually apply it to you guys. So if you're saying he did a misdemeanor, then guess what? So did you, you idiots. The judge went further. All right. Uh, the judge, judge McAfee said that the motion failed to establish that this code, the part of Georgia law section is even relevant to special a d a weighed the Georgia code states the requirements in question do not apply to those tasks to work on specific cases rather than being sworn in on general assignment. But McAfee wrote Ches Bro's. Motion noted this exception quote, then blithely moved on without adequately explaining why it should not apply. So the judge is like, okay, in your, in your motion, you point out that there are exceptions to this rule and clearly Wade fits with that exception. But then you didn't explain why that exception in this particular case shouldn't apply. So you mentioned that technically what you're saying is

Saying is not true and then you just left it. The court has not been provided nor located any authority to support this claim. And if this parrot of emotion is somehow not yet dead, the defendant has failed to establish how special a d a Wades actions result in prejudice i e. How his assignment single-handedly changed any specific actions taken during the investigation or resulted in the true bill of indictment. Nor has defendant established a constitutional violation or structural defect in the grand jury process sufficient to justify outright dismissal.