Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Completely agreeYes, 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.
Agreed, Clark would have stronger standing in getting his charges moved from the state.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.
He lost similar claims in NY with the Daniels and Carrol cases.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 claim is weak at best because he went to GA and made specific actions that were outside of his duties as Chief of Staff.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.
Count 1 (RICCO) is a very bold charge, especially for those that were in Federal positions, and I agree that particular charge has the stronger chance of being challenged. The RICCO charge will completely fall apart if trump is removed that count.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.
6'1.5" 285 lb.. I think that's the equivalent of going a dollar higher than the other person on Price is Right LOL.6'-1", 285 lbs
Looks like he may have lost a little weight since he was in office from recent pictures.
But does it actually apply to Clark? What he was attempting to do was a duty assigned to the Attorney General, who would not send the letter. It wasn't in the scope of his position, which is why there was the short-lived plot to oust Donoghue as acting AG.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.
But does it actually apply to Clark? What he was attempting to do was a duty assigned to the Attorney General, who would not send the letter. It wasn't in the scope of his position, which is why there was the short-lived plot to oust Donoghue as acting AG.
8 feet tall (or 63 axe handles), 300 lbs and a 7 foot stride