Story Highlights AI Enabled

Georgia Prosecutor Explains Decision to Not Pursue Charges in Election Interference Case

A recent report details the reasoning behind the decision by Georgia prosecutor Pete Skandalakis not to pursue charges against several individuals involved in the investigation into alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.The decision centered on concerns about the strength of evidence and efficient use of state resources.

Skandalakis expressed concern that criminalizing unsworn testimony before the Legislature could discourage witnesses from appearing to provide information on meaningful issues. In the case of David Shafer, accused of making false statements to a prosecutor working with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Skandalakis found no evidence of false or misleading statements.

The investigation also examined the breach of election equipment in Coffee County,where two participants,including attorney Sidney Powell,had already pleaded guilty to misdemeanor counts.Powell had reportedly advised others that accessing the machines was legal for evidence gathering. Scott Hall,another participant who pleaded guilty,arrived by chartered plane to oversee the work,creating “the appearance of acting under the color of law,” according to Skandalakis. Though, he deemed further prosecution “inefficient” given the favorable resolutions already reached with these two individuals through negotiations with Willis.

A key focus of the investigation was former President Donald Trump’s phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Skandalakis acknowledged the call was “concerning,” but noted that reasonable interpretations existed. He stated that Trump could have been attempting to commit fraud,or he could have genuinely believed he was a victim seeking investigation. He applied the principle that, when multiple interpretations are plausible, the accused should receive the benefit of the doubt.

Skandalakis also cited the influence of events originating outside of Georgia, stating the alleged conduct “was conceived in Washington, D.C.” He pointed to the ongoing federal investigation led by Special Counsel Jack smith, who had already brought criminal charges against Trump related to overturning the 2020 election. Following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Smith moved to dismiss those charges.

Ultimately,Skandalakis concluded that if Smith,with the full resources of the federal government,deemed further prosecution “fruitless,” then pursuing the case in Georgia on similar federal grounds would also be “equally unproductive,” despite the available evidence.

This report is a product of a partnership with Capitol Beat news service, a project of the Georgia Press Association’s nonprofit Educational Foundation.