The logic used by McAfee to shoot down the six indictments is ignored for the overriding Racketeering case.

The six indictments of solicitation of public officer was struck down because the state did not provide any real explanation as to why they were criminal.

So currently Donald Trump is charges in four separate cases. The closest thing to a straight forward case is the Federal case surrounding the classified documents. The other three are relying on the novel principle that you can charge someone with a crime for legal actions, if those actions were done for nefarious reasons. That concept seems especially true in the Georgia case.

However, McAfee apparently saw the folly in charging solicitation of a public officer over what can best be described as legal actions that the prosecutor did little more than suggest they were improper. A solicitation charge is generally a situation where someone is accused of bribing a public official. However, the allegations against Trump and the six others had nothing to do with the statute at all. It was simply that Willis didn't like the fact that Trump and his minions pushed public officials to look into allegations of fraud and this was the closest law they could charge them under.

In his argument, McAfee determined that the lack of any real allegations falling into the realm of the crimes associated with the statute, did not allow the defendants to actually defend themselves. How can you defend yourself against solicitation when the actions you are accused of have nothing to do with solicitation? McAfee knew full well that the prosecution would simply tell the jury about how improper these phone calls and requests for recounts and other pressure applied and that the jury would then simply infer that they must be guilty (because they were charged). But isn't that the problem with all of these cases?

Now the rest of the case that surrounds Trump are false statements, filing of false statements, impersonating a public officer (alternate electors), forgery, and a single count of perjury. The specific non-RICO charges against Trump are more in the realm of him being an accomplice to what others actually did and in some cases he is not specifically accused of the said crime. It could follow that he is not necessarily found guilty of any of the underlying crimes and still found guilty of RICO under the logic provided, although in a normal court situation he would only be charged with crimes he actually is accused of committing (Racketeering not being one of them).

Meanwhile the dropping of these charges leaves Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on the hook for Racketeering, without a single associated crime. Apparently if others are found guilty of a crime, then he could be found guilty of racketeering just by association. There is literally nothing he can do in this case to defend himself. How does McAfee defend that logic after demanding that these other charges are dropped due to lack of specificity. There is literally no crime at all (much less a non-specific one) that Meadows is being accused of.

What is going on right now specific to Trump and these prosecutors literally makes my head hurt when I think too much about it.