A judge on Friday rejected former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ attempt to move the criminal case against him in Georgia to federal court, ruling that his alleged involvement in attempts to pressure state leaders , to overturn the 2020 election results, did not include official duties as a government official.
U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones issued the ruling after holding a hearing on the matter last week in federal court in Atlanta that included five hours of testimony from Meadows, who appeared alongside former President Donald Trump in the district attorney’s office last month Fulton County’s Fani was charged with Willis’ broad election interference case.
“The court concludes that Meadows has not established that the actions that triggered the state’s prosecution were related to his federal office,” Jones wrote, adding: “Meadows’ alleged connection to post-election activities had nothing to do with his role as head of the White House staff or his executive authority.”
Prosecutors, Jones said, had presented “evidence that Meadows worked with the Trump campaign at various times during the period of the alleged conspiracy, which he admitted was outside the role of White House chief of staff.”
Mark Meadows at the White House on October 30, 2020.Patrick Semansky / AP File
“Given the State’s evidence that Meadows took actions on behalf of the campaign during the period of the alleged conspiracy, Meadows was required to provide competent evidence to support his factual assertion that his actions constituted a challenge to the results of the presidential election in Georgia.” “The Election results were within the scope of his role as chief of staff. His efforts are inadequate,” the judge wrote.
So far, five of the 19 defendants in the prosecution’s case have requested that their cases be heard in federal court. In a lawsuit filed this week, Trump said he might do the same. Under court deadlines, he has until the end of this month to decide, the filing says.
Jones said in Friday’s decision that his decision “has no impact at this time on the outcome of the other co-defendants who have filed deportation notices.”
The Fulton County indictment accuses Trump, Meadows and the 17 others of engaging in schemes aimed at undermining the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia, a battleground state won by Joe Biden in 2020.
Meadows is charged with violating Georgia’s anti-crime law and soliciting a public official’s violation of oath for his involvement in Trump’s January 2, 2021 call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which he asked him to provide the exact number of ” determine”. Votes needed to defeat Biden. He has pleaded not guilty.
Meadows’ lawyers argued that the charges all related to official actions he took while working for the president and that the case should therefore be tried in federal court, where he could raise additional defenses. including immunity from criminal charges.
“Mr. Meadows has the right to have this matter removed. “The conduct giving rise to the allegations in the indictment all occurred during his tenure and in the course of his duties as chief of staff,” Meadows’ attorneys wrote in a 14th filing -side file.
Recommended
The attorney general’s office responded that White House officials should not participate in political campaigns. “Federal law prohibits executive branch employees from engaging in political activity as part of their jobs,” they noted, pointing to the Hatch Act, a law that Meadows once told Politico “doesn’t really affect anyone outside the Beltway.” interested”.
The law “prohibits a federal employee from entering our premises.”[ing] “to use his official authority or influence to interfere with or influence the outcome of an election'” – the very conduct Meadows is accused of, prosecutors found.
In his ruling, Jones agreed that “engagement in political activity exceeds the outer limits of the office of White House Chief of Staff.” He also declined to consider Meadows’ claim of immunity, finding he was acting outside the scope of his duties.
The judge also noted that the purpose of impeachment is to prevent interference with federal functions and said that was not the case in this case.
“Assuming jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution would defeat the purpose of removing federal officials when the state charges allege that what is involved is not state interference in constitutionally protected federal activities, but rather federal interference in constitutionally protected ones governmental actions,” Jones wrote.
An attorney for Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
