348
Excellent news. Of course they want want to move to Fed. Court, so they have the potential for presidential pardons. Fuck every one of these seditionist assholes.
State charges wouldn't be pardonable in Federal court, what it WOULD do is widen the jury pool outside Fulton County and block the TV cameras.
Getting jurors from outside Fulton county being the primary goal given how hard that county broke for Biden in 2020:
J. Biden Dem. - 73% - 380,212
D. Trump Rep. - 26% - 137,247
They wanted to move it to West Virginia to get a "more diverse jury pool" haha.
That's the Federal indictment brought by Jack Smith, not the State indictment brought by Fani Willis. Moving the Georgia case to Federal court would involve the Federal court district proximate to Fulton County, not relocation to a whole other state.
Ok I want to see justice served to all those involved as much as anyone but I don't think we can hold the high ground if we praise the use of biased jurors. It certainly is nothing to be smug about.
They (republicans fighting felony indictments) are trying to, in several instances, get a jury pool of conservative white men, which they're calling a "diverse jury pool". That's them doing exactly what you're saying of desiring to use biased jurors. I'm not praising it, I think it's absolutely ridiculous and why I called it out.
If felony indictments aren't something you desire, and you're upset that a jury of your peers might not be stacked with people aligned with your corrupt practices and brainwashed in your political cult, then maybe don't. Commit. Fucking. Crimes.
While practically impossible to get a certain jury pool that would be exactly in the middle, both extremes can be wrong. If you're laughing because of the absurdity of them not getting their way to stock it with Republicans, then I apologized for the misunderstanding.
If people are smug for it being stacked with Democrats, then they are not much better than those that trying to move it to a friendly venue.
Also saying it was within his duties and having the judge agree would dismiss the case.
I think this was the strategy. “I was just following orders” aka ”I was just doing my job “
The first step would be getting the judge to buy the basic argument - and then try to use it to get off scott free.
Meadows incriminated himself for five hours on the stand. Getting cross examined under oath. What a collosal risk.
If he's got half a brain, he's calling Fani Willis this weekend and making a deal.
“The Court finds that the color of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign, except for simply coordinating the President’s schedule, traveling with the President to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign,” Jones wrote. “Thus, consistent with his testimony and the federal statutes and regulations, engaging in political activities is exceeds the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.”
He also admits to violating the Hatch Act, under oath.
Re: Hatch Act violations:
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-news-2664771297/
"“Not only that, but Meadows is saying ‘he would have yelled at me if I didn't do it.’ That alone is also a violation of the Hatch Act. It's not just that President Trump was involved in the false electoral scheme, but he's getting his chief of staff to do it. And the chief of staff knows if I don't do this he's gonna yell at me. That is a Hatch Act violation. One of the one of the only provisions of the Hatch Act that actually do apply to the president. You're not allowed to, as president, tell an employee or intimidate an employee into engaging in political activity on behalf of a candidate. What else is that?“"
Like the time trump held a campaign rally in the Rose Garden of the White House.
Should have just let Trump yell at him.
edit:
"The DA's office countered that White House officials shouldn't be involved in political campaigns. “Federal law prohibits employees of the executive branch from engaging in political activity in the course of their work,” they noted, pointing to the Hatch Act, a law Meadows once told Politico “nobody outside of the Beltway really cares” about."
oof, I say oof, boy
For those wondering about the "I didn't want to get yelled at" defense, there's a good breakdown here:
What is the beltway?
It's the ring road that sounds Washington DC and it's inner suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. The designation is 495 of you are really curious about the road itself for some reason.
tehehe
He forgot to say “please”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A judge on Friday denied former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows' bid to move the Georgia criminal case against him to federal court, ruling that his alleged involvement in efforts to pressure state leaders to overturn the 2020 election results was not a part of his official duties as a government official.
State prosecutors, Jones said, had “put forth evidence that at various points during the time of the alleged conspiracy Meadows worked with the Trump campaign, which he admitted was outside of the role of the White House Chief of Staff."
The indictment in Fulton County alleges Trump, Meadows and the 17 others engaged in schemes aimed at subverting the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia, a battleground state that was won by Joe Biden.
The conduct giving rise to the charges in the indictment all occurred during his tenure and as part of his service as Chief of Staff,” Meadows’ lawyers wrote in a 14-page filing.
The law “bars a federal employee from ‘us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election’” — exactly the conduct Meadows is charged with, prosecutors noted.
In his ruling, Jones agreed that "engaging in political activities exceeds the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.” He also declined to consider Meadows' immunity claim, since he found he was acting outside the scope of his duties.
The original article contains 722 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
348 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2067 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS