Former President Donald Trump on Thursday formally notified the judge overseeing the Georgia election subversion case that he “may” try to move his state case into federal court.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is commonly known as “the supremacy clause.” In the context of the GA RICO trial, States are not allowed to prosecute federal officers who are exercising their Constitutional federal duties.
Count 1 of the indictment is the RICO charge, which is based on:
Trump and the other Defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost [the Georgia election for President of the United States], and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlwafully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution spells out in no uncertain terms that the authority and responsibility for appointing Electors to the Electoral College, the votes of which determine who is elected to the office of President, lies solely with the States:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
It is, therefore, outside the Constitutional duty of any federal officer to insert themselves into a State election.
Judge Jones is currently considering, for Mark Meadows, whether all of his indicted actions need to be “under color of his office” to qualfiy for removal to federal court, or only one of his indicted actions, or a majority of his indicted actions, or some other fraction. I think it would also be fair to argue that only the indictments which are “under color of his office” should be moved to federal court, and the ones which are not should remain in State court - but there are surely other considerations to be made around judicial economy and inconvenience or trauma to victims and witnesses who would need to appear multiple times over several trials.
Judge McAfee (GA) has denied Meadows’ and Powell’s motions to sever from each other, and will make a ruling on severance of the other defendants in about ten days’ time. From what I saw, there is still a possibility that all nineteen defendants will begin their trials together, on October 23, 2023, in his Georgia courtroom.
The Georgia charges can’t be pardoned until five years after any sentence is served. Nothing can change that, as pardons for State charges in Georgia are handled by the Georgia Pardon and Parole Board, and they have written rules to follow.
That board can consider a request to commute a sentence immediately.
I brought up Meadows because his request to have his case removed to federal court, if successful, will impact how many separate trials happen. If his case is removed, others will attempt to have their cases also removed, and some might succeed. Does that mean that all cases get tried together in federal court, even for those who have no grounds to have their cases so removed? Or do the cases get severed as a result of some of them going to federal and some of them staying in state? We don’t know the answers to those questions yet.
My mentions of Meadows, Judge Jones, and Judge McAfee were in the context of the greater outstanding questions about “who is going to trial when, and where, and alongside whom?” from a bigger picture perspective.
Article VI, Clause 2:
This is commonly known as “the supremacy clause.” In the context of the GA RICO trial, States are not allowed to prosecute federal officers who are exercising their Constitutional federal duties.
Count 1 of the indictment is the RICO charge, which is based on:
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution spells out in no uncertain terms that the authority and responsibility for appointing Electors to the Electoral College, the votes of which determine who is elected to the office of President, lies solely with the States:
It is, therefore, outside the Constitutional duty of any federal officer to insert themselves into a State election.
Judge Jones is currently considering, for Mark Meadows, whether all of his indicted actions need to be “under color of his office” to qualfiy for removal to federal court, or only one of his indicted actions, or a majority of his indicted actions, or some other fraction. I think it would also be fair to argue that only the indictments which are “under color of his office” should be moved to federal court, and the ones which are not should remain in State court - but there are surely other considerations to be made around judicial economy and inconvenience or trauma to victims and witnesses who would need to appear multiple times over several trials.
Judge McAfee (GA) has denied Meadows’ and Powell’s motions to sever from each other, and will make a ruling on severance of the other defendants in about ten days’ time. From what I saw, there is still a possibility that all nineteen defendants will begin their trials together, on October 23, 2023, in his Georgia courtroom.
You can tell who have pocket pardons in a lot of this maneuvering.
The Georgia charges can’t be pardoned until five years after any sentence is served. Nothing can change that, as pardons for State charges in Georgia are handled by the Georgia Pardon and Parole Board, and they have written rules to follow.
That board can consider a request to commute a sentence immediately.
I thought the motion to sever was denied between Powell and Chesebro, was Meadows in there also?
I brought up Meadows because his request to have his case removed to federal court, if successful, will impact how many separate trials happen. If his case is removed, others will attempt to have their cases also removed, and some might succeed. Does that mean that all cases get tried together in federal court, even for those who have no grounds to have their cases so removed? Or do the cases get severed as a result of some of them going to federal and some of them staying in state? We don’t know the answers to those questions yet.
My mentions of Meadows, Judge Jones, and Judge McAfee were in the context of the greater outstanding questions about “who is going to trial when, and where, and alongside whom?” from a bigger picture perspective.