(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
On Tuesday, August 15, less than 24 hours after he was indicted in Georgia for his part in conspiring to steal the state’s 16 presidential electoral colleges in 2020, Mark Meadows filed in federal court to have his criminal charges dismissed for the state and argued that he was merely performing his duty as White House Chief of Staff. Later in the week, Meadows subsequently filed a motion to dismiss under the supremacy clause, telling the court that he did not agree to a third-party motion to delay the Aug. 28 hearing on his impeachment petition.
The notice referred to “the attorney for another defendant named in the Georgia state indictment who emailed the court notifying him that he intends to file for deportation shortly.” Since in 2020 and 2021 only two more While the defendants were federal employees, we at ATL speculated that the unnamed defendant had to be former DOJ attorney Jeff Clark — presumably Meadows would honor a request from Trump himself, and Clark seems like the right kind of maverick who emailed a federal judge requesting the continuation of someone else’s case.
In fact, it was even weirder! That’s because David Shafer, the former Georgia GOP chairman who co-ordinated the sham election program with the Trump campaign, filed his own impeachment order, claiming federal jurisdiction “on legal grounds.”
The state indictment (the “Indictment”), attached as Exhibit A, alleges conduct by Mr. Shafer that is directly attributable to his serving as a presidential candidate under the authority of the Constitution and the Electoral Counts Act (“ECA”) . 2 3 USC § 1 et seq. and as directed by the President and other federal officials. Mr. Shafer enjoys numerous federal defenses, including administrative immunity, federal pre-emption, preemption immunity, due process clause defenses, and First Amendment defenses.
Admittedly, that hadn’t crossed our minds! However, if we were to argue, we would find that Shafer was not in fact an elector under the Electoral Counts Act. Also, he was not acting on the President’s orders, but in line with the Trump campaign.
In the meantime, Jeff Clark did indeed file his dismissal notice along with an “urgent motion confirming applicability of an automatic stay under 28 USC §1446(D) or triggering of the stay under 28 USC §1455(B).” 5) or both – or alternatively an administrative delay.” And as you can imagine, this movement is also… creative!
Clark has a fairly strong case for impeachment since the conduct alleged against him was committed in his capacity as a Justice Department official. However, criminal deportation is subject to Section 1445(b)(3), which expressly does not stop the state process during the review of the deportation application. Therefore, Clark instead argues that “the dismissed case is a mixed civil-criminal action” and therefore merits the automatic stay of civil proceedings under section 1446(d).
How could a criminal charge be civil?
So! The Special Grand Jury investigating the election interference was not legally permitted to bring criminal charges. Instead, it prepared a report that was then submitted to the regular grand jury, which then returned an indictment under Georgia law. And although the presiding judge said the SPGJ was definitely a criminal organization, Clark says it was both a civil and criminal organization Ultra ViresSo ipso facto He may refer a criminal case under the Civil Removal Act to federal court.
It really makes perfect sense. And if not, please note that Clark has also argued that his Washington DC disqualification process is a “hybrid civil-criminal process” worthy of a state overturn.
Clark points out that the surrender deadline is this Friday, August 25, and points out that Mark Meadows’ request for deportation will still result in criminal charges against him.
“Since Mr. Clark’s impeachment is filed six days after Mr. Meadows’ impeachment, Mr. Clark’s timetable is even tighter,” he writes, requiring the court to hear “at or before 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 22.” August, enacts a TRO or administrative stay.” , 2023,” so that he “does not have to face the choice of rushing travel arrangements to fly to Atlanta or instead risking being labeled a fugitive.”
(Which kinda sounds like a you problem.)
So far, Judge Steven Jones, who has jurisdiction over all three cases, has refused to come to Clark’s aid. Instead, he directed the Fulton County Attorney to respond by 3 p.m. tomorrow, Aug. 23, noting that no response was allowed.
Not to be outdone, Meadows has now asked the court to allow his case to be dismissed immediately because he had asked prosecutor Willis to postpone his surrender date and she refused, writing:
I do not grant renewals. I gave people two weeks to face the court. Your client is no different from any other defendant in this area of law. The two weeks were a tremendous courtesy. At 12:30 on Friday I will be filing warrants into the system. My team has the opportunity to meet on Wednesday and Thursday to discuss appropriate guarantees of approval.
Therefore, Meadows wants Judge Jones to forego the hearing altogether and allow the case to be dismissed immediately.
“The Court should grant prompt remedies to prevent Mr. Meadows from irreparably losing his right under federal law to be free from state detention and to protect the ability of this Court to consider Mr. Meadows’ deportation notice,” he writes, adding that he would also accept an order from Judge Jones ordering state authorities to arrest him prior to the federal deportation hearing.
Well, it’s an argument. And since Clark and Shafer have already taken the most insane positions, Meadows’ proposal looks practically reasonable in comparison.
State of Georgia v. Meadows (Court Listener File)
State of Georgia v. Clark (Court Listener File)
State of Georgia v. Shafer (Court Listener File)
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore, where she writes about law and politics and appears on the podcast Opening Arguments.
