Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump's chief of staff, asked him to reconsider sending his Georgia election interference case to federal court, weeks after a federal appeals court denied the request. asks the appellate court. But now Meadows has hired former Attorney General Paul Clement to represent him. This is a significant development because Clement has unparalleled experience winning cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meadows is one of 18 co-defendants indicted along with Trump in the Fulton County, Georgia, election interference case, as part of an investigation into allegations of attempts to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results. . As Breitbart News reported, he was charged with two counts of “inciting an official to violate his oath of office” in conjunction with the RICO charge. He surrendered in Fulton County hours before Trump and pleaded not guilty.
The indictment itself was highly controversial, listing several routine activities as “public acts.”[s] To further the conspiracy. ” In one of the instances described in the indictment, Meadows sent a text message to a U.S. lawmaker simply asking for the number of the speaker and leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
In August, Meadows immediately filed a motion in federal court to dismiss the Georgia charges. “The allegations cite a federal law known as the Dismissal Act that allows 'officers of the United States' who are indicted in state court to have their proceedings transferred to federal court.” “'s actions fall under a government mandate,” Breitbart News detailed. A federal appeals court rejected it in December, which was surprising in many ways.
As an opinion written A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the law should The court ruled that it only applies to government employees.
This artist's sketch depicts Paul Clement standing during his speech at the Supreme Court in Washington on November 3, 2021. (Dana Verkouteren, via AP)
But the fight is not over, and Meadows, with the help of newly enlisted Paul Clement, is asking the Court of Appeal to reconsider. I have written It said the commission's decision was “grossly wrong, contrary to the text, precedent, and common sense, and has serious consequences.”
“Before the cavalry of Congress was called in to amend the statute, the en banc court replaced its error by holding that important procedural protections for removal of federal employees end long before substantive immunity expires.'' “We should consider whether there is an error in the novel judgment granted by the committee,” he wrote. ,continuation:
The committee's other opinion, that the White House chief of staff's actions in the West Wing were not even “related” to his official duties, similarly merits en banc review. Although an actual determination of the federal immunity defense on the merits may require an analysis of the chief of staff's role and consideration of the scope of his official duties, exactly the kind of questions that belong in federal courts, jurisdiction Rights research is far more complex in design. Frank. Federal expungement laws should be interpreted liberally, the expungement officer's account of events should be credited, and he only needs to have one expungable issue. Additionally, to lean even further in favor of deletion, Congress explicitly amended the law in 2011 to allow for the deletion of not only lawsuits “for” official acts, but also lawsuits “relating to” official acts. did. The panel's decision ignores all of this, dividing the circuit by requiring a close “causal connection” to public service and invalidating Congress' 2011 amendment.
There is nothing in the Federal Employee Removal Act that makes either of the panel's conclusions, let alone both, enforceable. In fact, the idea that a former White House chief of staff is not eligible to participate in a federal court to defend against criminal charges related to the work of the president of the United States is based on all that federal official removal law has long established. It is inconsistent with the matter. It is understood that it will be achieved. The court should grant a retrial in full court.
The case is Georgia vs. MeadowsNo. 23-12958 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
