☕️ NULLIFIED ☙ Thursday, March 14, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Judge McAfee stirs controversy by dismissing six key counts from the Trump case; and another massive 2024 disclosure amounts to great news for kids.

Good morning, C&C family, it’s Thursday! The Childers family vacation is drawing to a close, with just today and tomorrow remaining before we cross the country back to our home on the East Coast. Soon C&C will return to normal a schedule and programming. Today’s roundup looks at the latest developments in the Real Housewives of Atlanta, starring Fani Wilis, and another amazing 2024 disclosure to add to the list of good news.

🗞💬 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 💬🗞

🔥 Yesterday, Politico ran a tantalizing story headlined, “Judge tosses 6 charges in Trump Georgia indictment.”

While the world waited on pins and needles for Judge McAfee to issue his ruling on the Trump Defendants’ motion to disqualify concupiscent Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, the mild-mannered judge decided instead to grant a series of Defendants’ earlier motions. Starting in September of last year, five defendants (including Trump) filed motions to dismiss six of the forty-three criminal counts, arguing that the State’s allegations of criminal conduct against them were too ambiguous.

Generally speaking, criminal indictments aren’t allowed to be ambiguous. The Constitution requires the State to tell defendants exactly what they are supposed to have done wrong. For example, some of the challenged counts generally alleged ‘the Defendants violated the United States’s and Georgia’s Constitutions,’ without specifying which parts.

That’s not super helpful. Those are two big Constitutions.

The Court agreed. Yesterday, in a nine-page order that seemed carefully written for public consumption, Judge McAfee granted the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the six ambiguous counts.

It seems like everyone has a different take on what this order really means. The six counts were spread over several Defendants. For example, the order dismissed three of President Trump’s thirteen counts, and half of the counts against some of the other defendants, like my friend attorney Ray Smith.

But, under technical provisions of Georgia law, the dismissal of those counts creates a problem for the State that isn’t easily fixed. In other words, by most accounts the order has somewhat gummed up the prosecutorial works. The Judge acknowledged this in an intriguing footnote that suggested the State might even need to start all over with a new grand jury:

This does not mean the entire indictment is dismissed. The State may also seek a reindictment supplementing these six counts (although §17-7-53.1 bars future prosecution after second quashal). Even if the statute of limitations has expired, the State receives a six-month extension from the date of this Order to resubmit the case to a grand jury. Nor is it inevitable, presuming the State presents the appropriate motion, that the identity of future grand jurors will be publicly accessible (the court has previously granted an ex parte motion to redact grand juror names).

This is an area of law where federal courts have achieved greater efficiency, and one might wish that future grand jurors could be spared this inconvenience for something so easily remedied through a bill of particulars. But Georgia law currently provides no such option.

Alternatively, the State may request a certificate of immediate appellate review, which the Court would likely grant due to the lack of precedential authority.

The State could cut its losses and just proceed without the six counts. It could incur even more delays in trying to save them through an appeal—which it might lose. Commenters disagreed whether the State’s case is weakened without the lost counts; maybe nobody knows. After all, it’s a unicorn case.

But it feels like there’s a deeper game afoot. The dismissal of these particular charges — all related to Trump’s phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger — undermines the already-weak RICO charge. The RICO charge is the one that has most excited liberals.

This dismissal order might signal McAfee won’t chuck Fani. Gleeful liberal commenters pointed out that, if the Judge were inclined to dismiss the entire case due to Fani Willis’ misdeeds, he’d wouldn’t waste time researching and drafting yesterday’s 9-page order. It’s also weird he took time to work on that order while he was also presumably working on the much more controversial and higher-profile order on the disqualification motion.

But wait. There’s more. Unrelated — and also intriguing — during a chance run-in between a CNN manager and Judge McAfee yesterday at the Atlanta courthouse, the Judge reportedly said he plans to stick to his schedule of issuing a ruling on disqualification tomorrow (Friday). So that means he does not intend to re-open the evidence.

So, going the exact opposite way, Judge McAfee’s CNN comment suggested he might chuck Fani after all. The best guess for why Judge McAfee would not reopen the evidence is that he already intends to disqualify Fani. In other words, he doesn’t need any more evidence. That would also be consistent with his quick turnaround (two weeks), and his having extra time to work on the dismissal order — since disqualification is an easy decision.

So it’s anybody’s guess. Or maybe McAfee is playing some kind of 4-D chess.

Trying to predict how judges will rule is every lawyer’s favorite pastime. We can’t help ourselves. Lawyers spend hours discussing pending decisions, scrutinizing every time a judge raised his eyebrows during argument, chewing over how many notes he took, and probing why he might like or dislike a particular attorney for things that happened in the case years ago.

One technique I’ve invented trying to predict how judges will rule is by imagining what words they might use while drafting competing orders for and against.

In this case, deciding to disqualify Fani lets the Judge use soaring rhetoric that would be hard to honestly quibble with. It must be tempting. For a quick example, I could imagine an order disqualifying Fani might start like this:

If the State wishes to make history by criminally prosecuting a former President (and a current presidential candidate) — something that has never happened before in 248 years of American history — then the proceeding must be completely free from even the slightest suggestion of bias, politics, and conflicts of interest. Anything less would assault Lady Justice herself.

Or words to that effect. But, if he went the other way, the Judge would probably start the order using the rhetoric of minimization, like this:

Various Defendants sought to prove the District Attorney and one of the special prosecutors employed by the County have an inappropriate relationship outside the office that created an appearance of bias, and that she tainted the potential jury pool with certain public comments made solely in her personal capacity. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the Defendants presented some admittedly troubling evidence but failed to meet their enhanced burden of proof. Therefore, the motions are DENIED.

Whichever way he decides, Judge McAfee’s decision will be microscoped, picked-apart, and criticized till the GMO cows come home. But between my two options, the first one seems much more judicially satisfying, and much less open to criticism. Granted, I’m biased. We will just have to wait one more day to find out how Judge McAfee will thread his political needle.

🔥 As we’ve previously noted, 2024 is shaping up to be the year of disclosure. This week brought another; and it’s a big one. Let’s start with the end: Forbes ran a story Tuesday headlined, “UK Bans Puberty Blockers For Minors.” Which, according to trans reasoning, the UK just erased trans people. It’s sort of literally true this time.

Following a four-year study, while gender dysphoria diagnoses multiplied like crazed rabbits by over ten times, the UK’s National Health Service finally issued new rules Tuesday. Trans activists were shocked and appalled that the NHS completely prohibited prescriptions for puberty blockers for kids under 18 (apart from in approved clinical trials). On top of that, British lawmakers introduced a bill law week that would even ban the private sale of puberty drugs.

A week earlier on March 4th, Twitter-files journalist Michael Shellenberger published a new 242-page report he called the ‘WPATH Files.’  WPATH — the World Professional Association for Transgender Health — is the ‘premier’ global, pro-trans nonprofit. It publishes an influential ‘transgender standard of care’ that has been adopted by most Western governments and key licensing boards like the American Academy of Pediatrics.

WPATH’s oleaginous president Marci Bowers

The WPATH Files disclosed hundred of pages of confidential internal discussions among WPATH members about things like: real-life de-transitioner regret, appalling side effects of hormones and surgeries, shocking failures to obtain real informed consent, and outright failure to reduce dysphoric kids’ suicidal ideation.

For example, one Canadian endocrinologist wrote, “It’s always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old, but I know I’m talking to a blank wall.” In another post, WPATH president Dr. Marci Bowers commented on the downstream effects of early puberty blocking. “To date,” she wrote, “I’m unaware of any individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner 2.”

Tanner stage 2 is the beginning of puberty. It can be as young as nine for girls.

WPATH member surgeons cheerfully discussed Frankensteinian techniques on kids to create freakish and unnatural results, like keeping both sets of genitals (the “phallus-preserving vaginoplasty”), gruesome nipple-erasing mastectomies, and worst of all, a grotesque “nullification” surgery, leaving no genitals at all, neither real nor fake ones, just smooth skin.

(*results may vary.)

My humble suggestion is these surgeons should be forced to undergo every single one of these procedures they’ve performed on a child. Let’s ‘nullify’ them.

If, when he published his WPATH Files, Shellenberger wanted eyes and to start a loud conversation, it worked. The WPATH Files became immediately controversial and a thousand times as many pages of commentary compared to the original document quickly emerged.

Then five days ago — three days before the NHS issued its new guidance banning puberty blockers — the UK Guardian ran this commentary:

Then, three days after the Guardian’s article, the NHS banned puberty blockers. Here’s Sky News’ report this week (0:47):

The game-changing significance of the UK ban might not be completely obvious at first. Surgeries are nearly always reserved for older children, and usually require kids to have been taking hormone for months or years before the invasive medical procedures. And if kids aren’t taking early puberty blockers, normal development can occur, which often resolves the gender confusion. Stopping early puberty blockers shuts down the railroad to surgery.

It is likely that without puberty blockers, only a fraction of kids in Britain will ever “identify” as trans as would have otherwise.

The UK’s new puberty policy puts prodigious pressure on American transgender activists and puts jet fuel into conservative pushback against so-called “gender-affirming” care. It does feel like things are finally starting to shift. From men in women’s prisons, to men in women’s sports, and to men in women’s bathrooms — all this misguided policies are blowing up on the launch pad. And providing a sign of where things are headed, Shellenberger’s most recent post was optimistically titled, “The End Of The Transgender Craze Is Near.”

It’s impossible to say for certain how much Shellenberger’s WPATH Files influenced the final NHS decision. But it couldn’t have helped. The WPATH Files — emerging from the very heart of the transgender community’s “scientific” elite class — exposed the movement’s quasi-religious foundation and its dark, sadistic, Satanic underbelly.

To paraphrase Pink Floyd: Hey, groomers! Leave those kids alone!

Have a terrific Thursday! And come on back tomorrow for another satisfying slice of Coffee & Covid.

We can’t do it without you. Consider joining with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds.  I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can:  ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid
Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com