Trump says he 'may' seek to remove Georgia RICO case to federal court

The Washington Examiner ^ | 09/07/2023 | Kaelan Deese

[thegagline]

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday told the judge overseeing the Fulton County, Georgia, election subversion case that he “may” try to move his state case to federal court.

Attorneys for Trump had previously indicated an interest in trying to remove the case from state to federal court, which could help him fight the 13 charges he faces by invoking immunity protections for federal officials and produce a more favorable jury pool. “President Trump hereby notifies the Court that he may seek removal of his prosecution to federal court,” his lawyer Steven Sadow wrote in a court filing. “To be timely, his notice of removal must be filed within 30-days of his arraignment.”

Trump's 30-day countdown to remove his case began on Aug. 31, when he waived his right to an arraignment hearing and pleaded not guilty.

At least five other defendants in the 19-defendant case have sought to have their case taken out of state court, which could come with benefits if they are granted, such as gaining a more conservative jury pool. A trial in federal court, however, would avoid TV camera footage of the testimony.

Trump could be provided more avenues to see his charges dropped if he can convince a judge that the alleged actions in the indictment were tied to his formal duties as president. His former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, is awaiting a decision by U.S. District Judge Steve Jones over his bid to have his case moved to federal court.

[thegagline]

Hopefully, moves to remove this case to federal court. The Mesa test will be utilized in determining whether the case can be removed. It is a three part test:

1. Trump were an “officer, or any person acting under that officer, of the United States”

2. Trump is facing criminal charges “for or relating to any act under color of such office”; and

3. Trump has raised or will raise a “colorable federal defense.” [think Supremacy Clause Immunity in this case]

There are many advantages to removal. First and foremost, almost any judge is better than the current judge in the state court action. Also, if the case is removed, the federal rules of procedure and evidence will apply. Federal judges are more likely to strictly enforce those rules compared to the far left state cout judge who would liberally construing state rules. Thirdly, the jury poll would be vastly widened, drawing from many counties that voted for Trump.

Here’s hoping Trump’s lawyer files and prevails in a removal. Time will tell. Trump has 30 days from August 31 to file.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trump says he 'may' seek to remove Georgia RICO case to federal court

Trump is going to knock this particular bogus prosecution out of the park. As soon as this gets to Federal court, it will absolutely be dismissed based on the Supreme court ruling in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald.

Trump should just time this for when he wants a win to give him momentum.

[arthurus]

Doctor Jill getting WuFlu was useful for the new vaxx push but that usefulness is over now so she can be “well” again.

[3RIVRS]

If he is saying “may” his lawyers suck.

[thegagline]

Right you are. Yrump should hang his hat on Nixon V Fitzgerald
“In defining the scope of an official's absolute privilege, this Court has recognized that the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity's justifying purposes. Frequently our decisions have held that an official's absolute immunity should extend only to acts in performance of particular functions of his office. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. at 438 U. S. 508-517; cf. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 430-431. But the Court also has refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support. See, e.g., Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. at 161 U. S. 498 (privilege extends to all matters "committed by law to [an official's] control or supervision"); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564, 360 U. S. 575 (1959) (fact "that the action here taken was within the outer perimeter of petitioner's line of duty is enough to render the privilege applicable . . ."); Page 457 U. S. 756 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 435 U. S. 363, and n. 12 (judicial privilege applies even to acts occurring outside "the normal attributes of a judicial proceeding"). In view of the special nature of the President's constitutional office and functions, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the "outer perimeter" of his official responsibility.