Posted on 09/04/2023 11:47:41 AM PDT by libstripper
Ajudge is set to rule soon on the first Georgia 2020 election co-defendant’s attempt to move their charges to federal court, a decision that could prove decisive for the future of Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) criminal case.
Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows wants U.S. District Judge Steve Jones to allow him to switch courts to attempt to get his charges thrown out on immunity grounds. It would also widen the jury pool to less Democrat-heavy areas and likely prevent a televised trial allowed by state law.
If Meadows succeeds, legal experts say it would make it easier for former President Trump, who on Thursday pleaded not guilty to the Georgia charges, to follow in his footsteps.
“If Jones does permit Meadows to remove, it won’t be on the strength of Meadows’s legal argumentation. It will be because of the atmospherics of the case,” said Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas.
“And because it will be because of the atmospherics of the case, it seems likely that he would also permit Trump to remove, notwithstanding the specifics of the legal argument,” Kovarsky added.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Best Attorney’s vs a political box checker.... hmmmm... Will the law prevail, and can the federal legal system allow it’s role to be usurped by state politicians. John Roberts, how will yu go down in history?
Obama judge. Won’t happen.
It is irritating that The Hill implies - with zero evidence - that Meadows does not want the trial televised.
I would be thrilled if that idiot District Attorney had to prosecute my case on live TV!
POTUS is unaffected by Lawfare. So is Mark Meadows.
The legal train can not roll in these blue states, anywhere. If any single charge is under duty for a federal office, the entire case is required to be defended in federal court, not state.
Big Fani knows all this. Political gains among Marxists includes bold idiocy. 😄
Do they teach atmospherics at law school?
Are there any that are not ‘0’ judges?
If it has federal charges, it MUST be moved.
Probably not with that charge, but 12 of the 21 judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals were appointed by Republican presidents, the largest group within that group having been appointed by Pres. Trump. Guaranteed result on this appeal is a split decision, followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“If Jones does permit Meadows to remove, it won’t be on the strength of Meadows’s legal argumentation. It will be because of the atmospherics of the case,” said Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas”
No, it should be exactly on the strength of legal arguments, and would be if the defendant was a Democrat.
I do believe an emphasis on climate change has been added to the required curriculum.
Off topic, but relevant...
I still believe the strongest argument for the Defense is that the Prosecution cannot prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Donald Trump LOST the election.
No matter what evidence is presented, nor how many election experts testify, the Prosecution has no answer to two decisive facts...
How many ineligible voters cast a ballot in Georgia?
Unknown.
How many Georgia ballots have no verifiable chain of custody?
Unknown.
If they cannot prove Trump lost the election, their foundational argument collapses.
The Georgia case is itself legally suspect. It is a novel case, and were the case go forward, we can easily imagine the consequence. Every Democratic federal official will be tried in Wyoming or some other rock-ribbed Republican state for racketeering; and, every Republican federal official will be tried in a solidly Democrat jurisdiction. There will be no end to it, until either the U.S. Supreme Court speaks to the matter, or the Congress in a shocking moment of non-partisanship sends a Constitutional Amendment to the states for ratification.
The D.C. is similar. Both the Ga. and the D.C. cases are bogus.
The other two cases are more mundane.
The New York case (involving filing a false statement concerning hush payments to Trump’s paramour) rests on whether the statute of limitations had expired.
The Florida case (involving documents) concerns whether Trump sufficiently cooperated with authorities in the return of federal property.
If I were the Democrats, I’d proceed with the documents case first, get a conviction via a plea deal for a slap on the wrist. Then, proceed to the false statements case, with the same object (a conviction via a plea deal). Then, I would magnanimously drop the other two cases, saying that the point has been made: Trump is a liar and a criminal.
As it is, the Democrats are choosing Trump to be our nominee by making him into a victim; and, with the sympathy he’s getting, Trump looks like he could win the election.
I wonder if any of them were on Epstein’s “list”.
That statute of limitations issue, however, is based on a federal question, whether the payoff to Stormy Daniels could in any way legitimately be deemed a violation of federal election law because the extension of the statute of limitations was based on the concept that Trump had a logical fear of the payoff being deemed a violation of federal election law. In fact just about all of the authorities who spoken on it have concluded that a payoff like that does not violate federal election law. Thus, there's a good chance that the federal election law part of the suit against of the criminal proceedings against Trump could be deemed preempted by federal election law and therefore have to be tried in federal court. Can't say for sure, but the rules on preemption in the area of federal labor law are just about absolute, with three Supreme Court cases supporting the concept being that state courts should not be able to develop conflicting opinions in the exclusive federal area of collective bargaining law. If you don't believe it look up what may be the most recent of those cases, Allis Chalmers Corporation versus Lueck.
the leftists in government would never overplay their hand...
/s
It's a part of the "emanations from penumbras" curriculum.
-PJ
The legal train can not roll in blue states, anywhere. If any single charge is under duty
for a federal office, the entire case is required to be defended in federal court, not state.
Big Fani knows all this. Political gains among Marxists includes bold idiocy.
Heh ......Fani a bold idiot......love that.
Who isn’t? lol
Meadows and his 18 co-defendants are charged under RICO which enabled DA Fani
Willis to invent an alleged “months-long conspiracy” to overturn 2020 election results,
The DA outlined 161 acts as part of the so-called “conspiracy,” including
<><>meetings with state legislators,
<><>Meadows’s actions to set up phone calls between state election officials and Trump.
<><>Meadows soliciting a public officer to violate their oath.
<><>Democrats “just know” it is “obviously illegal” to question when Democrats win elections
<><>but it becomes “an urgent defense of democracy” to question when a Republican wins.
<><>for example, Ga DA Fani Willis did not yet know the outcome of the 2020 election,
<><>ergo, it was ‘legal’ to question it, because she was worried a Republican might win,
<><>but once Democrat Biden (cough) “won,’ it now became “retroactively illegal” to question it,
<><>when a Repub questions Ga election results, they are naturally subject to harsh prosecutions.
Clearly, the monopoly on election results conversations is held by Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.