During a recent court hearing, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows testified extensively in an attempt to have the RICO charges against him in Georgia transferred to federal court. The presiding Judge, Steve Jones, requested additional briefing from the parties in what seems to be a complex issue for the defense. The key question raised was whether proving at least one of the overt actions attributed to Meadows happened under the hue of his professional role would be enough to qualify for federal removal of a criminal prosecution. This query can be found in its entirety here.
In response to this question, prosecutors first put forward an interesting argument: showing that all the overt acts were committed while Meadows was fulfilling his federal duties does not hold significance, because the conspiracy itself does not relate to any federal duty. Additionally, the defense proposed by Meadows might cover the requirements for the removal of his case to a federal court, but fail to provide a solid defense against the charges.
Meanwhile, Meadows presented a strong case citing precedent that favors his position on federal removal grounds. He provided multiple examples from cases in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit, where it was sufficient for some of the alleged behavior to occur while performing official duties to qualify for federal removal. However, Meadow’s defense falls short in addressing some of the conduct outside his professional scope, leaving a potential Supremacy Clause defense unattainable.
Lee Kovarsky, a law professor from the University of Texas, expressed on Twitter, that Meadow’s defense might not hold up as it fails to provide a plausible means to defeat the charges.
Further on, prosecutors in their response suggested that Meadows may have perjured himself during the evidentiary hearing, specifically highlighting his attempt to downplay the use of the word “we” in an email to a campaign official about assembling fraudulent electors.
Meadows, feeling the pressure, filed a notice to expedite the review process, fearing prejudice and potential burdens of state-court litigation if a prompt federal removal is not carried out.
While the legal ins and outs of this case continue to unfold, one question remains unanswered: whether the District Attorney could drop the overt actions qualifying for federal removal, thereby returning the case to Fulton County.
For more information, feel free to read the full account of this ongoing matter here.