Federal Judge Rejects Mark Meadows’ Motion To Remove Georgia Criminal Prosecution To Federal Court
“Meadows’s alleged association with post-election activities was not related to his role as White House Chief of Staff or his executive branch authority.” Appeal sure to follow.
We previously noted that Mark Meadows Files To Remove Georgia State Prosecution To Federal Court.
I thought it was a clear and easy winner. A federal judge disagrees, finding that the “heart” of the RICO charge against Meadows does not relate to his conduct as a federal officer, issuing an Order late today rejecting the motion:
As the foregoing analysis illustrates, the Court concludes that Meadows has not shown that the actions that triggered the State’s prosecution related to his federal office. The Constitution, federal statute and regulation of executive branch employees, and the purpose of Section 1442 support this conclusion. Meadows’s alleged association with post-election activities was not related to his role as White House Chief of Staff or his executive branch authority.
This is contrary to my understanding of the law on removal, and the judge carved out a novel approach.
Assuming jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution would frustrate the purpose of federal officer removal when the state charges allege—not state interference with constitutionally protected federal activities, but—federal interference with constitutionally protected state actions. This result cannot stand in the face of federalism, “a concept which retains vitality and importance in our modern constitutional scheme,” and the Constitution’s express delegation of election activities to States. United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218, 1248 (11th Cir. 2005) (Birch, J., dissenting). Thus, the purposes of federal officer removal are served, rather than thwarted, by the Court’s conclusion that it has no jurisdiction over the removal of Meadows’s criminal prosecution.
***
The Court acknowledges that federal officer’s “relating to” requirement is “broad.” Caver, 845 F.3d at 1144. The Court also acknowledges that “[f]ederal courts credit the removing party’s theory of the case for purposes of determining if a federal officer both acted ‘under color of office’ and raised ‘a colorable federal defense.’” Heinze, 637 F. Supp. 3d at 1322 (quoting Acker, 527 U.S. at 432). The Court does not take lightly these standards in rendering its conclusion that federal officer removal is not supported here. Rather, the Court concludes that if it were to agree with Meadows’s arguments regarding removal, the Court would have to turn a blind eye to express constitutional power granted to the States to determine their election procedures, as well as federal statutory and regulatory limitations on political activities of executive branch officials. The Court would be ignoring the evidence Meadows himself submitted of his post-election related activities and the purpose of the federal officer removal statute. It would be legally and factually erroneous for the Court to do so.
I expect it to be reversed on appeal.
MORE TO FOLLOW
…Meadows will now be able to appeal. Judge Jones admitted that this could prove a close question and indeed people of good faith can disagree on the merits. However, there is an ample basis to question the court's interpretation of the standard as applied to this case.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 8, 2023
———–
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Throwing my hands up.
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
–JAMES MADISON
And hard to fight an indictment that doesn’t allege a crime but makes abundant use of the word “unlawfully”
Exactly. You ask any of the Leftists or NeverTrumpers these people are alleged to have made and you’ll get nonsense such as “I think” or “I feel” or “The DA said.” What you won’t actually get are the crimes these people actually committed.
These people are pushing us close to civil war (look at what that idiot New Mexico governor did regarding the 2nd Amendment). But it is to save democracy so it must be okay.
.
James Madison wrote “laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood,” because he had firsthand knowledge of lawyers and legislators doing precisely the thing in which he objected to. And 250 years later we’re burdened by the same “voluminous incoherence.”
It’s wilful and purposeful behavior. And we, the peasants, best shut up and take the lash.
What was the Chief of Staff to the President if not a federal employee, performing for his boss?
He was performing election campaign activities not governmental duties. That’s the argument at least. IANAL but the argument isn’t obviously wrong.
No explanation necessary. That is set forth in the post. The question was rhetorical, and the argument is wrong, no buts necessary.
assuring a fair and legal election is arguably, a duty of a president
The argument is not only wrong, it is stupid. The Chief of Staff doesn’t stop being a government employee simply because his boss is running for reelection.
I don’t think so. He was calling to set up calls/meetings for the President which is his job. At least that is what I understand was going on. As a Federal Employee I don’t think States should have jurisdiction over them. If they do then we will see all Feds in some state court or other for all kinds of nonsense even though 90% probably deserve to be in court for something
Obtaining a telephone number for the President is not solely and necessarily an “election activity”. Not to mention that politics and elections can’t be severed completely from the Office of the President at any point during the President’s term of office.
At the trial court level, more often than not (and its only going to get worse) the judiciary is just as compromised as the DOJ. President Trump happened to get lucky in Florida. He needs to focus there. And defunding this political perversion of the law might help a little too,
The 11 Circuit leans heavily towards R nominated judges on both the active list and senior list.
The judge likely knows that chances of reversal are high given he admits how close the call is.
The thing is admitting it is a close decision means the case SHOULD be removed to Federal court. That’s the way the law is written. If you have ten points, and nine of them say don’t remove and one says remove, the decision is supposed to be remove, period.
In any prosecution where there is actual question, decisions must favor the accused rather than the government. What an archaic concept. Next people will probably be claiming that the accused is supposed to be innocent ’til proven guilty.
It seems like all of this lawfare against Trump and Trump supporters is headed to the Supreme Court.
The Democrats and establishment judges seem intent on railroading Trump and any opposition to their control.
At this point the show trials will be just a stage to demonstrate what they can to their political opponents and that means you too.
In the hearing by Judge MaCfee on Powel and Crehshaw (?) severance, the judge expressed concerns about trying all the defendants at once [1]. One of them was the possibility of a removal of Meadows case midtrial causing disruption. Seems like they are trying real hard to remove that concern.
[1] Trying all 19 defendants at once, not only seems to be a logistical nightmare with 20 legal teams. On top of which the legal teams might congregate and hold a ritual to summon the AntiChrist.
Summon the anti Christ? So they’re going to call Trump to the stand? 😉
(Just in case: It’s a joke. Lighten up.)
It would have funnier if you said Hillary.
I thought he was going to say James Carvell or Rahm Emanuel
There’s nothing funny about Hillary.
Certainly not in the “humorous” definition of the word.
The Mighty Casey’s got nothing on you.
You’re striking out with all of your posts during the past couple days.
“the judge carved out a novel approach” seems to be a polite way of saying the judge pulled something out of his (censored) and made up an excuse to rule exactly contrary to the law.
Article can be summarised as: Obama judge concocts novel argument for leaving persecution of White House Republican in hands of state Democrats.
This was an Obama judge, therefore no hope of anything like fairness or honesty.
As for that Soros DA Willis? The report that the grand jury wanted to indict people like that worthless rino Lindsey Graham pretty much shows it was a political joke.
Black Obama-appointed judge. Res ipsa loquitur.
The progressive judiciary is waging sectarian lawfare against half the country.
It’s better to simply have a rebuttable assumption that the system is “fixed” by leftists at every stage. This way there will hardly ever be any surprises; the system only occasionally proving not to be rotten.
What is “the “heart” of the RICO charge ” the judge is referring to?
“Court would have to turn a blind eye to express constitutional power granted to the States to determine their election procedures,”
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
15th Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I guess the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a dead letter? All the federal court decisions overturning state redistricting null and void.
One could make the argument that the federal prosecutor is acting as a Joe Biden campaign operative.
The legal Profession is lost and a danger to this society.