Meadows' goose is cooked

[struggle4progress]

By IGOR DERYSH
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 8:56AM (EDT)

... "The circumstances of this case are easily distinguishable," prosecutors wrote. "The defendant conspired not for any purpose related to his duties as chief of staff, but to transform Mr. Trump from a losing political candidate into a winning one, no matter what the outcome of the election had actually been."

"Here's the crux of the argument from the Fulton County DA opposing Meadow's motion to remove to federal court," explained Georgia State University Law Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis. "Even if some of Meadows' acts fell within his duties, he's not being charged for them. He's being charged for joining in an unlawful enterprise to overturn the election."

Meadows' attorneys in a response argued that ... "Removal is also required, even if the State has charged some acts beyond Mr. Meadows's official duties, because what controls is Mr. Meadows's articulation of his federal defense, not the State's articulation of its state charges" ...

At least four other defendants — former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, former Georgia GOP Chair David Shafer, state Sen. Shawn Still, and former Coffee County GOP chair Cathy Latham — are also seeking to remove their charges to federal court ...

Kreis tweeted that ... "Mark Meadows' goose is cooked on federal removal— and so is every other defendant ..." ...

https://www.salon.com/2023/09/01/hes-in-big-trouble-experts-say-mark-meadows-goose-is-cooked-after-new-fani-willis-filing/

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Rich that

"what controls is Mr. Meadows's articulation of his federal defense, not the State's articulation of its state charges"

So everyone should listen to Meadows instead of the facts of the case.

That's sweet if you can get someone to believe it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. What is this theory? "what controls is articulation of his federal defense"

I understand that defendants get lots of opportunities for defense, but what is this "federal defense" theory that claims it 'trumps' state charges?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

5. I will take a stab at unravelling that..

1) The government claims I did a crime outside my official duties, but even if, I am claiming I did not!
2) My claim crushes the government claim, because…???

So my claim governs and the trial must be removed!

……….

Ok, so I failed… Can’t fill in the ??? part !!

Puzzler.

[onenote]

8. A well-established, codified into law, principle designed to keep state governments from going after

federal officials they don't like.

We should thank our lucky stars there is such a principle.

[rubbersole]

3. " please put a penny in the old man's hat..."

[Cherokee100]

4. Maybe

Maybe the whole gang, should ask to have the trials moved to Moscow. I'm sure they would get fair trails there.

[Scottie Mom]

6. Statement by University Law Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis IMO is right on. EOM

[James48]

7. It's a valid argument.

Federal preemption IS a valid argument to argue.

However, the actions taken are not duties if federal office. So there is that.

He may or may not get it moved to federal court.
The others who were NOT federal employees, don’t have a key to stand on, however.

We shall see how this pans out for Medows. Not likely, but possible it gets moved.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. A Thought On That

Since the issue was about the election between 2 CANDIDATES how could anything Meadows did in this regard not be a campaign duty? Those are, by definition, partisan political actions.
And, since the Hatch Act would forbid him from direct campaign duties, it seems nothing he did was part of his official duties as CoS.
I'm not understanding how they have a leg to stand on regarding "official duties".

[Bluethroughu]

9. AND let us NOT FORGET his good friend the SUPREME COURT JUSTICE'S

WIFE! on the phone begging to overthrow our Democracy!

Indict her!

[EndlessWire]

10. A very good point.

Maybe she is an unindicted co-conspirator.

She will be a big problem, and maybe we want to make sure we get all the rest first. I dunno. She certainly played a part, if all that is true. But, expect the SC to rally around Clarence if we get to that point. I don't think that we are not prosecuting her because we don't care about her pressuring people on the false electors. I think there's something else at play.

[republianmushroom]

12. Hopefully he and the other 18 will justice in the state court.

[Blue Owl]

13. K&R

[Captain Zero]

14. And he violated the Hatch Act in so doing.

Right.

Performing a campaign act.
The election was over.