When a new prosecutor assumed control of Georgias 2020 election case involving Donald Trump and several co-defendants, one possible outcome I mentioned was a complete withdrawal precisely what Trump wanted. Just before Thanksgiving, prosecutor Peter Skandalakis chose that option, officially ending the case.
Although the result was expected after the removal of the original prosecutor, Fani Willis, Skandalakis detailed reasoning deserves attention. In a 22-page memorandum, he explained that his review began with a basic truth: It is not illegal to question or challenge election results. While accurate, that point alone does not determine whether a criminal case should continue.
Skandalakis, who leads Georgias prosecution council, attempted to justify his decision. Some parts of his reasoning seem plausible, while others raise doubts. One example is the widely scrutinized phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, during which Trump urged officials to find 11,780 votes, the amount needed to overturn his loss to Joe Biden.
Skandalakis called the conversation concerning but insisted that reasonable minds could differ on its meaning. He wrote that one interpretation is that Trump was implicitly asking for fraudulent votes, while another is that Trump sincerely believed fraud had taken place and wanted Raffensperger to look for irregularities. Such a defense would likely have appeared at trial, though prosecutors often ask jurors to apply common sense and this situation seemed tailor-made for that argument.
More broadly, parts of the memo contain questionable logic. Skandalakis referenced special counsel Jack Smiths federal case against Trump regarding similar conduct a prosecution Smith moved to dismiss after Trump's victory in the 2024 election because Department of Justice policy bars charging a sitting president. Skandalakis claimed Smith ultimately concluded the case could not proceed due to the Supreme Courts presidential-immunity ruling and Trumps reelection. But Smith had been pushing to continue the case even after the Courts decision, arguing in a filing that the charged conduct was not protected by immunity.
Another striking element of Skandalakis explanation was his admission that his office lacked the capacity to pursue such a complex prosecution. He wrote that the agency is simply not equipped to carry out this case under its current or any realistically possible budget. His statement implies that even if he believed the charges should move forward, logistical limits would have halted the effort regardless.
In the end, leaving the decision at that might have been simpler. The case is closed but the rationale behind its dismissal is far more surprising than the outcome itself.