Trump GA Indictment (3 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
    superchuck500 said:
    It’s federal officer removal under 28 USC 1442. It stems from federalism and supremacy clause origins but basically the idea is that where a state action (civil or criminal) against a federal “officer” arises from conduct taken “under the color of federal authority” and implicates a “colorable federal defense”, the case goes to federal court. The idea is that authorized federal conduct isn’t subject to state regulation - and a state cannot intervene or otherwise prosecute acts undertaken in the performance of federal duties.

    The first case on this idea was McCullough v. Maryland, which many people remember from civics class, but a more common application relates to law enforcement. For example, if am FBI agent shoots a suspect during the course of a federal investigation, and the state in which it happens tries to charge the agent with a crime, the agent can remove the case to federal court and have the federal judge decide whether the agent has a federal defense to the charges - namely that the agent’s federal authority immunizes the agent from state prosecution.

    It doesn’t matter that the charges arise under state law, what matters is whether the conduct at issue is under the authority of federal law and that authority gives the federal officer a defense.

    Meadows won’t be the only one who does this. And the question for the federal court will be whether these acts were undertaken under the color of federal office or whether they were purely in the interest of Trump’s re-election, which was not an exercise under their federal office.

    For some of the defendants, this is a closer call than for others. Georgia will challenge the removal with a motion for remand and the federal judge assigned to the case will have to decide. Note that even if the federal court “keeps” the case, the prosecution can still go forward to jury trial on the same charges - only that the jury will be drawn from the entire federal district and not only from Fulton County.
    Click to expand...
    Understood...but...
    It’s federal officer removal under 28 USC 1442. It stems from federalism and supremacy clause origins but basically the idea is that where a state action (civil or criminal) against a federal “officer” arises from conduct taken “under the color of federal authority"
    Click to expand...
    does that cover them if those actions are completely illegal i.e. a military subordinate following an illegal order? Meadows actions are not sanctioned by Federal Law and he hasn't been charged, yet, by the DoJ. My belief is that his actions cannot be defined as "under the color of federal authority" because they were coloring in a different book.
     
    1692175162730.png
     
    Leaving for most of the day here in a bit - will update tonight. I can’t wait to see the actual numbers, lol.

    1692192392230.png
     
    MT15 said:
    Leaving for most of the day here in a bit - will update tonight. I can’t wait to see the actual numbers, lol.

    1692192392230.png
    Click to expand...
    We need a prize pool for this.

    $20 buy-in?

    Make it a lotto for MAP lol.
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    Understood...but...

    does that cover them if those actions are completely illegal i.e. a military subordinate following an illegal order? Meadows actions are not sanctioned by Federal Law and he hasn't been charged, yet, by the DoJ. My belief is that his actions cannot be defined as "under the color of federal authority" because they were coloring in a different book.
    Click to expand...

    Yes, Supremacy Clause immunity (when it applies as a legal result) means that conduct that would be illegal under state law is immunized from state prosecution. The example of the federal law enforcement agent killing a suspect illustrates this point - it might be an unlawful homicide under state law, but the state can't prosecute the agent. The agent has immunity.

    So the questions are indeed whether the conduct was (1) performed by a qualified federal officer acting in the scope of that office, (2) the kind of conduct that falls generally within that officer's authority, and (3) raises a federal defense.

    I think that Clark, for example, can raise this defense because the indictment refers to him only in his actions as a DOJ official. The allegations in Count 22 are that he wrote some internal emails at DOJ and had some internal discussions at DOJ about the election. I think there's certainly room for the prosecution to argue that those activities were not within the scope of DOJ's authority regarding Georgia's election, but at least Clark can say that he's alleged to have been acting as DOJ. Trump and the private attorneys don't have that kind of set-up. Trump could argue that it was because he was president but I think that's pretty easy to defeat.

    Meadows is in an unusual situation because he's White House chief of staff. But if Trump's conduct regarding challenging the election came from Trump the candidate not Trump the president, it's hard to see how Meadows's conduct is somehow within the color of his federal authority as White House chief of staff.

    It's going to be interesting. And I imagine that these federal officer removal issues (and perhaps Supremacy Clause immunity defenses) are going to go the 11th Circuit and perhaps to the SCOTUS.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom