WASHINGTON, D.C. – Mark Meadows' prosecution in Georgia will continue in state court after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Meadows' request for a new trial on Tuesday, but the justices will consider President-elect Donald Trump's prosecution in New York. It's the same issue that may be waiting for an opportunity to revisit.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis degenerates into an incompetent, conflict-of-interest cartoon character as she files a lawsuit against President Trump and his associates, prosecuting President Trump under absurd laws. She shamelessly insisted on awarding a lucrative contract to her unqualified boyfriend. In theory, her boyfriend, who spent part of that contract money on her for a vacation, is not in a conflict of interest, but in court she boasts that she likes to drink hard liquor. (Gray Goose Vodka) and claimed that her critics were racist or misogynistic.
A Georgia judge in President Trump's case said it was inappropriate for both Willis and her boyfriend's subordinates to remain on the case, citing evidence that she was weaponizing law enforcement resources against her political opponents. However, for some reason, he came up with a surprising verdict. The highly conflicted district attorney was fine with continuing the case as long as she broke up with her boyfriend. The neck-scratcher is currently on appeal in Georgia.
But in the midst of all this, Mark Meadows, the president's former chief of staff, filed a motion to have charges against him dismissed on the same facts from the Democratic-dominated Fulton County Courthouse to federal court, specifically the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. . .
When a federal officer is charged in state court with facts that intersect with the federal role, 28 USC § 1442 allows the officer to transfer the case to a federal trial court, where the county The prosecutor is still the opposing party, but a federal judge becomes the judge. Preside over cases applying federal rules and federal jury procedures.
Meadows tried to dismiss the lawsuit, but a federal judge appointed by President Obama refused and ordered the case sent back to state court in Fulton County. Mr. Meadows appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which followed precedent that says only current federal employees can request removal of Section 1442, despite the fact that Mr. Meadows cannot sue in federal court. The issue arose while Meadows worked in the White House under President Trump.
Former U.S. Attorney General Paul Clement petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue, arguing that numerous legal authorities show that the Eleventh Circuit's precedent is wrong. Surprisingly, although the court declined to accept the lawsuit, the order does not specify how many justices, if any, voted to accept the lawsuit. Therefore, Meadows' prosecution will continue in Georgia's court system.
The justices may be watching to see how the Section 1442 argument plays out in another case, District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump in Manhattan.
Mr. Bragg is promoting an absurd theory in what is widely seen as a politically motivated prosecution. He has been spared so far because the judge in the case, Judge Juan Melchán, has left many constitutional violations unaddressed.
Mr. Bragg's indictment alleges that President Trump falsified business records while committing a second crime, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, but does not specify what that crime is. Because he did not, the prosecution of President Trump was unconstitutional from the beginning. Marchand's donations to President Trump's political opponents is evidence of bias against the defendants, and Marchand's presiding over the case also violates the Constitution's Due Process Clause. Marchand's instructions to the jury said that this second crime could actually be one of several crimes, and that the jury did not have to agree on which crime it actually was, and that it was considered a felony. It said it violates the Sixth Amendment's requirement that jury verdicts be unanimous in prosecutions.
In addition to all of President Trump's rights violations, Mr. Bragg essentially said that the root of the crime is a violation of federal campaign finance law, because Mr. Bragg would be interpreting federal law differently than the federal government is interpreting it. argue that this constitutes a further violation of the Constitution. A federal law that violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
President Trump's lawyers in New York, Todd Blanche and Emile Bove, are seeking to transfer the president's case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting presidential immunity based on a recent Supreme Court decision. trump vs usa. The removal attempt is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and from there it could be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The national interest in prosecuting former (and future) presidents is that Meadows, like many others, was prosecuted solely for his association with President Trump in what many call a politically motivated witch hunt. is much larger than the national interest. This, combined with the apparent weaknesses in Willis' Georgia case and clear signs that her case is going off track, could explain why the Supreme Court will not accept Meadows' case at this time. There is sex.
The case is Meadows v. GeorgiaU.S. Supreme Court No. 24-97.
Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Kurkowski is a lawyer who has worked in the White House and the Department of Justice. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @kenklukowski.
