Trump and 18 allies charged in Georgia election meddling

[wing2000]

"In Atlanta [at the evidentery hearing] , former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has been testifying for nearly three hours, providing his first significant accounting of his role in challenging the 2020 presidential election results."

Georgia Sec. of State Raffensperger is expected to tesify for the state later....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/28/trump-jan-6-trial-date/#link-YZQW454PSZCEPKLG2VJIVJJ56M

Why would Meadows agree to testify in an evidentery hearing? Reportedly, state prosecutors, including Willis, have been cross examining him today....

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why would Meadows agree to testify in an evidentery hearing? Reportedly, state prosecutors, including Willis, have been cross examining him today....

The evidentiary hearing is for his motion to remove the case (at least for him) from the Georgia courts into Federal court. It is a positive claim so he must provide evidence as to why his case should be removed. If he fails to provide evidence, then the federal judge will have no basis for removal. (In this case he is testifying to "the things I am accused of doing I did for the President therefore I was acting as a Federal official and the case should be considered in Federal court". )

If he succeeds, it seems most likely that he will be moving to dismiss the charges on the same basis.

(If this doesn't succeed, I'm going to put Mr. Meadows at the top of my "flipper" list as he will have basically admitted all of the elements of some of his charges.)

 

[Arcangl86]

The evidentiary hearing is for his motion to remove the case (at least for him) from the Georgia courts into Federal court. It is a positive claim so he must provide evidence as to why his case should be removed. If he fails to provide evidence, then the federal judge will have no basis for removal. (In this case he is testifying to "the things I am accused of doing I did for the President therefore I was acting as a Federal official and the case should be considered in Federal court". )

If he succeeds, it seems most likely that he will be moving to dismiss the charges on the same basis.

From my understanding, the courts have pretty much only upheld the removal statute if there is some sort of defense in federal court. So It's pretty obvious he's going to go with qualified immunity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If he succeeds, it seems most likely that he will be moving to dismiss the charges on the same basis.

If I were the prosecution (or the judge), my rebuttal (mind you, IANAL) would be that the crimes were committed against the state of GA and they'll be tried in GA.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If I were the prosecution (or the judge), my rebuttal (mind you, IANAL) would be that the crimes were committed against the state of GA and they'll be tried in GA.

That's part of it. The other part has to do with if Mr. Meadows' actions were within the scope of his duties.

The current hearing is under the removal statute which was created largely to keep local prosecutors from trying federal law enforcement officers doing their jobs. That is "Phase one". The second phase (it would seem most likely to be) to dismiss the case on similar grounds under the "supremacy clause". From the commentary I hear, the two are fairly tightly tied together as Meadows must make very similar arguments in both parts.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's part of it. The other part has to do with if Mr. Meadows' actions were within the scope of his duties.

The current hearing is under the removal statute which was created largely to keep local prosecutors from trying federal law enforcement officers doing their jobs. That is "Phase one". The second phase (it would seem most likely to be) to dismiss the case on similar grounds under the "supremacy clause". From the commentary I hear, the two are fairly tightly tied together as Meadows must make very similar arguments in both parts.

I get that. And again, IANAL. But breaking the law is not "doing your job". And Meadows isn't/wasn't (of course) a LEO. As a lay person, this is lame. But, perhaps there is significant precedent that confirms his contentions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's part of it. The other part has to do with if Mr. Meadows' actions were within the scope of his duties.

The current hearing is under the removal statute which was created largely to keep local prosecutors from trying federal law enforcement officers doing their jobs. That is "Phase one". The second phase (it would seem most likely to be) to dismiss the case on similar grounds under the "supremacy clause". From the commentary I hear, the two are fairly tightly tied together as Meadows must make very similar arguments in both parts.

I get that. And again, IANAL. But breaking the law is not "doing your job". And Meadows isn't/wasn't (of course) a LEO. As a lay person, this is lame. But, perhaps there is significant precedent that confirms his contentions.

OK. I spoke with my spouse who both has more background and follows this stuff more closely. It's not LEO so much as it is any federal employee. So Meadows might have a case, but several pundits point out that (much like the freedom-of-speech thing) you don't get to plot a robbery and have it tried in federal court just because you and your boss were/are both federal employees.

So, as for me, it'll be "wait and see" and see if Legal Eagle (YT) will explain it to me.

 

[SimplyMe]

I get that. And again, IANAL. But breaking the law is not "doing your job". And Meadows isn't/wasn't (of course) a LEO. As a lay person, this is lame. But, perhaps there is significant precedent that confirms his contentions.

More to the point, the federal Executive Branch, which Meadows was part of as Chief of Staff, has no role in the election of a new President. You can argue that the President ran a campaign to be re-elected and that Meadows was part of that, but that would be in a role as campaign staff and has zero to do with his duties as Chief of Staff to the President.

I also think most of us can agree that the President doesn't have a role in running elections in the US is a good thing, since those being elected should not have a responsibility in running the election. The closest you can argue is that the DoJ has a responsibility in helping to prevent election fraud -- though the DoJ, while technically a part of the Executive Branch, is supposed to be run independently -- and nothing about the DoJ's investigations should be part of the Chief of Staff to the President's duties. As such, I don't see why a judge should accept the claim that Meadows was operating in his duties as a federal official. And that largely is on top of the fact that any crimes he may have committed are also not a part of his job.

 

[SimplyMe]

OK. I spoke with my spouse who both has more background and follows this stuff more closely. It's not LEO so much as it is any federal employee. So Meadows might have a case, but several pundits point out that (much like the freedom-of-speech thing) you don't get to plot a robbery and have it tried in federal court just because you and your boss were/are both federal employees.

So, as for me, it'll be "wait and see" and see if Legal Eagle (YT) will explain it to me.

While not Legal Eagle, this is a video by a former Federal Prosecutor who explains why, in his legal opinion, Meadows suit should fail to move his case to Federal Court:

 

[Tinker Grey]

While not Legal Eagle, this is a video by a former Federal Prosecutor who explains why, in his legal opinion, Meadows suit should fail to move his case to Federal Court:

Queued up

 

[Bradskii]

In case people are losing track, this is the calender as we stand:

January 15 – E. Jean Carroll civil defamation trial begins.

March 4 – Federal trial on 2020 election criminal charges begins.

March 25 – Trump’s criminal trial in New York related to hush-money payments in 2016 begins.

May 20 – Criminal trial in classified documents case begins.

October 2 - $250 million civil  fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James against Trump, his oldest children and his companies.

See here for more details: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/28/politics/trump-trials-primaries-calendar/index.html

 

[wing2000]

More to the point, the federal Executive Branch, which Meadows was part of as Chief of Staff, has no role in the election of a new President. You can argue that the President ran a campaign to be re-elected and that Meadows was part of that, but that would be in a role as campaign staff and has zero to do with his duties as Chief of Staff to the President.

Meadows argued he was on the post election calls and meetings because as Chief of Staff, everyone came through him to get to the POTUS. However, the content of his conversations with the GA Sec of State suggest a more active role:


Anna Cross led the questioning for the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. She sought to show that Meadows was doing far more than managing Trump’s time, particularly on the Raffensperger call, when the former chief of staff told Georgia’s top elections official: “There are allegations where we believe that not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted.”

Meadows explained on the stand that he has a habit of using the word “we” expansively, and said in this instance he was referring to the campaign and not the White House. He also said his goal on the call was to resolve a dispute — the Trump campaign was suing Raffensperger at the time. One witness described the call as a “settlement negotiation,” since three lawyers working with the campaign were on the call.
Jones, the judge, appeared skeptical of that argument. When Raffensperger later took the stand, Jones interrupted questioning to ask one himself: Was there any discussion of a settlement negotiation?
No, Raffensperger replied, adding that he viewed the call as inappropriate because of the pending litigation.

“I’ve seen candidates lose and have a recount, but outreach to this extent was extraordinary,” Raffensperger said.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[Arcangl86]

Meadows argued he was on the post election calls and meetings because as Chief of Staff, everyone came through him to get to the POTUS. However, the content of his conversations with the GA Sec of State suggest a more active role:


Anna Cross led the questioning for the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. She sought to show that Meadows was doing far more than managing Trump’s time, particularly on the Raffensperger call, when the former chief of staff told Georgia’s top elections official: “There are allegations where we believe that not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted.”

Meadows explained on the stand that he has a habit of using the word “we” expansively, and said in this instance he was referring to the campaign and not the White House. He also said his goal on the call was to resolve a dispute — the Trump campaign was suing Raffensperger at the time. One witness described the call as a “settlement negotiation,” since three lawyers working with the campaign were on the call.
Jones, the judge, appeared skeptical of that argument. When Raffensperger later took the stand, Jones interrupted questioning to ask one himself: Was there any discussion of a settlement negotiation?
No, Raffensperger replied, adding that he viewed the call as inappropriate because of the pending litigation.

“I’ve seen candidates lose and have a recount, but outreach to this extent was extraordinary,” Raffensperger said.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

And if Meadows was using we in the sense of the campaign, then he was acting as a private citizen, not Chief of Staff.

 

[Hank77]

And if Meadows was using we in the sense of the campaign, then he was acting as a private citizen, not Chief of Staff.

And then there is the Hatch Act. Elections are political activity.

What is the Hatch Act 2023?

In addition, the Hatch Act prohibits employees from using their official authority or influence to affect an election, 2 which includes engaging in political activity while acting in one's official capacity. Jun 7, 2023

https://osc.gov/Documents/Hatch Act... the Use of Presidential Campaign Slogans.pdf

 

[wing2000]

Georgia State Repulicans passed a bill earlier this year giving them the power (via an appointed commission) to remove a prosecutor. The Governor weighed in today:

Separately Thursday, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) told reporters at a news conference that he would not call a special session of the General Assembly to seek to remove Willis from office, as several conservative lawmakers have requested. Kemp said his concerns about “highly charged indictments” during an election cycle “have been well-documented,” but his intervention would be improper and possibly even unconstitutional.
“We have a law in the state of Georgia that clearly outlines the legal steps that can be taken if constituents believe their local prosecutors are violating their oath by engaging in unethical or illegal behavior,” he said. “Up to this point I have not seen any evidence at that D.A. Willis’s actions or lack thereof warrant action by the Prosecuting Attorney Oversight Commission. But that will ultimately be a decision that the commission will make.”

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

Buy popcorn or buy popcorn stock?

Fulton County judge gives green light for Trump Georgia 2020 election case to be televised​

In a court hearing Thursday, Superior Court of Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee, who was assigned the case, said he would make all hearings and possible trials available to be broadcast on the Fulton County Court YouTube channel.

McAfee also said that he will allow broadcast news media to have “pool” cameras, where groups of news organizations combine their resources and share camera access, in the courtroom.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Buy popcorn or buy popcorn stock?

Fulton County judge gives green light for Trump Georgia 2020 election case to be televised​

In a court hearing Thursday, Superior Court of Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee, who was assigned the case, said he would make all hearings and possible trials available to be broadcast on the Fulton County Court YouTube channel.

McAfee also said that he will allow broadcast news media to have “pool” cameras, where groups of news organizations combine their resources and share camera access, in the courtroom.

I would pay a lot of money to see the jury foreman read the verdict as "You're Fired."

 

[The Lone Ranger]

He is in my prayers

 

[Pommer]

He is in my prayers

Who he? (My mind reading skills waneth)

 

[The Lone Ranger]

Who he? (My mind reading skills waneth)

God knows my heart, and my prayers. That's all that matters to me for the most part.