Meadows 'removal' judge poses question for both parties to be answered by Thursday 5pm

[bigtree]

Kaelan Deese @KaelanDC
NEW: U.S. District Judge Steve Jones is asking for an additional briefing from parties over Meadows' bid to remove his Fulton County RICO indictment to federal court.

"Would a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadows's office, be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(l)? The Parties shall file supplemental briefing by 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 31, 2023."

Link to tweet

[bucolic_frolic]

1. By raising the question it's pretty clear where the judge is going, isn't it?

[gab13by13]

2. Not betting anything,

I thought the decision would be a no brainer.

Giving too much credence to Meadow's argument.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

7. IMO it is - I've always thought Meadows would get away with it.

[Beachnutt]

3. Turn it around

Would a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadows's office, be sufficient for State Prosecution ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. That's not how it works. Nt

[intrepidity]

4. Why is the judge asking them this?

That sounds like the sort of question for a judge to answer, no?

[former9thward]

10. He will answer it.

But judges solicit briefs (legal opinions) from the affected parties all the time. They often solicit briefs from third parties who have nothing directly to do with the case. Nothing wrong with getting advice.

[Ocelot II]

13. See #9. He's probably anticipating an appeal and wants to know

what the legal basis of the parties' argument will be. He's not a TFG judge, but it's an important case and he's considering possible outcomes and results.

[localroger]

28. This makes sense to me. /nt

[Ms. Toad]

30. One of the major premises of our legal system is having two strong advocates with opposing opinions

debate the merits of each position. Each attorney is motivated to make the best, legally sound, argument on behalf of their client - which (at least theoretically) provides the judge with the most comprehensive view of the issue - so that the judge doesn't miss something, or let their own bias impair their reading of the law and cases supporting it.

It used to be called zealous advocacy, but that phrase was removed years ago.

The principle is also one of the reason our current political echo chambers are really bad for reaching sound opinions. Each side only hears its own side of the argument, and is often blind to any variant thinking - even when both sides have validity.

[intrepidity]

33. Gotcha, thanks

[LiberalFighter]

5. If he was doing the duties of a Chief of Staff yes.

But if he was interfering in a state election which does not fall under the duties of the President. No.

And if Meadows was being political that would be a violation of the Hatch Act.

[former9thward]

14. The Hatch Act has no criminal penalities.

So even if there were a violation I doubt would be a factor in this decision. As far as your first sentence you are assuming the truth of the prosecution allegation. A judge can't assume that in a procedural decision.

[Recycle_Guru]

21. nut by virtue of violating Hatch Act he cannot legitimately claim official duties

[Pantagruel]

6. The next obvious question

is can any overt act deemed under federal cover be excised from the indictment to preserve the GA jurisdiction?

[Timewas]

8. Maybe

Maybe they should separate the charges,one charge for the acts that fall under "federal duties" and the others under crimes at the state level.

[Ocelot II]

9. It's a reasonable legal question.

But this judge is an Obama appointee, so he's not in the tank for Trump et al. Chances are he's considering the possibility of an appeal, since it appears that remand orders under § 1442 are appealable. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1189_p86b.pdf

[gab13by13]

12. If Meadows wins this ruling

he will most likely get off.

[Ocelot II]

15. How do you figure? The same GA charges will be brought against him

and would be prosecuted by the same GA prosecutors. Even the larger jury pool isn't necessarily a win (remember that a federal grand jury in South Florida indicted TFG in the documents case). His only arguable advantage would be that the trial wouldn't be televised.

[getagrip_already]

20. His next step would be to move to dismiss the charges based on supremecy...

He would essentially claim he can only be brought up on federal charges since he was acting as a federal officer and he is being tried in federal court. And since he probably has imunity from Smith, he won't be charged.

It's a higher bar than for removal, but he will try it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. He will be able to be pardoned

If Republicans win the election, if he is in Federal Court, he will able to be pardoned.

[FakeNoose]

24. Bingo! It's the pardonable aspect that's driving all of this

Meadows' lawyer is George Terwilliger, a former U.S. Attorney. He has contacts in the federal courts up the wazoo. I'm guessing he has zero (or very limited) contacts in the Georgia courts. Also Mr. Terwilliger is tight with the Federalist Society.

[Ocelot II]

25. No, he won't, because he would be convicted on state charges.

And the GA governor doesn’t have pardon power.

[bigtree]

26. true, moreover

Last edited Tue Aug 29, 2023, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

...he'll never get past the Ga. board which grants pardons, without contrition and remorse.

Meaning he'll never get a state pardon, either.

[Ocelot II]

27. And you have to serve at least five years of your sentence

before you can apply for a pardon.

[Recycle_Guru]

23. not true-it will go to Federal Court for trial

[Ninga]

11. The prosecution is one of the "parties". I trust the prosecution will present a solid argument. Nt

[MustBeTheBooz]

16. So... I'm probably reading all of these 'state to federal' moves wrong, but...

I’m getting the idea that if I’m a federal employee, I can commit criminal activity then simply claim it was part of my official duty as an officer of a federal branch of government. Is that what Meadows and others are claiming? Above the law because I work for the federal government? I could walk into a store, bank, car dealership, whatever… take what I want and say, “I’m a federal employee! Back off!” Then any charges will be heard by a federal court where my charges will be different because…reasons?

Here’s the obligatory, “Asking for a friend.”

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. That's what Meadows is claiming, but that's not what removal affirms.

Meadows is hoping for immunity/dismissal because he was “just doing his job”, but is also petitioning for removal to federal jurisdiction as a last ditch hope of acquittal.

[jcgoldie]

19. the charges won't be different

Neither will the prosecution. The difference is the jury pool and the judge.

[lindysalsagal]

29. I'm no lawyer, but IMHO that's backwards. Illegal is illegal.

"Your honor, I know I robbed the bank, but I did it because potus asked me to." Isn't a get our of jail free card.

[Torchlight]

31. So Friday morning

as I walk into the office past the break rooms, I'll overhear a brand new series of "this spells calamity!!!!" events to replace this one after it breaks in 48 hours.

[bluestarone]

32. My biggest concerns here are, IF Meadows wins, and his case goes to Federal court, does

TFG's case ALSO get to ask the judge the same treatment (DELAY DELAY DELAY))? Also can (will) the prosecutor Appeal if the judge rules for Meadows?