Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Ocelot II

(130,647 posts)

9. It's a reasonable legal question.

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Aug 29, 2023, 02:32 PM

Aug 2023

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Meadows 'removal' judge poses question for both parties to be answered by Thursday 5pm [View all] bigtree Aug 2023 OP

By raising the question it's pretty clear where the judge is going, isn't it? bucolic_frolic Aug 2023 #1

Not betting anything, gab13by13 Aug 2023 #2

IMO it is - I've always thought Meadows would get away with it. 50 Shades Of Blue Aug 2023 #7

Turn it around Beachnutt Aug 2023 #3

That's not how it works. Nt Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #17

Why is the judge asking them this? intrepidity Aug 2023 #4

He will answer it. former9thward Aug 2023 #10

See #9. He's probably anticipating an appeal and wants to know Ocelot II Aug 2023 #13

This makes sense to me. /nt localroger Aug 2023 #28

One of the major premises of our legal system is having two strong advocates with opposing opinions Ms. Toad Aug 2023 #30

Gotcha, thanks intrepidity Aug 2023 #33

If he was doing the duties of a Chief of Staff yes. LiberalFighter Aug 2023 #5

The Hatch Act has no criminal penalities. former9thward Aug 2023 #14

nut by virtue of violating Hatch Act he cannot legitimately claim official duties Recycle_Guru Aug 2023 #21

The next obvious question Pantagruel Aug 2023 #6

Maybe Timewas Aug 2023 #8

It's a reasonable legal question. Ocelot II Aug 2023 #9

If Meadows wins this ruling gab13by13 Aug 2023 #12

How do you figure? The same GA charges will be brought against him Ocelot II Aug 2023 #15

His next step would be to move to dismiss the charges based on supremecy... getagrip_already Aug 2023 #20

He will be able to be pardoned Evergreen Emerald Aug 2023 #22

Bingo! It's the pardonable aspect that's driving all of this FakeNoose Aug 2023 #24

No, he won't, because he would be convicted on state charges. Ocelot II Aug 2023 #25

true, moreover bigtree Aug 2023 #26

And you have to serve at least five years of your sentence Ocelot II Aug 2023 #27

not true-it will go to Federal Court for trial Recycle_Guru Aug 2023 #23

The prosecution is one of the "parties". I trust the prosecution will present a solid argument. Nt Ninga Aug 2023 #11

So... I'm probably reading all of these 'state to federal' moves wrong, but... MustBeTheBooz Aug 2023 #16

That's what Meadows is claiming, but that's not what removal affirms. Fiendish Thingy Aug 2023 #18

the charges won't be different jcgoldie Aug 2023 #19

I'm no lawyer, but IMHO that's backwards. Illegal is illegal. lindysalsagal Aug 2023 #29

So Friday morning Torchlight Aug 2023 #31

My biggest concerns here are, IF Meadows wins, and his case goes to Federal court, does bluestarone Aug 2023 #32