President Donald Trump is filing a notice of removal to move the case against him and 18 co-defendants out of Fulton County and into federal court.
“President Trump hereby notifies the Court that he may seek removal of his prosecution to federal court under 28 U.S.C. S 1442 & 1445. His written waiver of arraignment was filed on August 31, 2013. To be timely, his notice of removal must be filed within 30-days of his arraignment,” wrote Steven Sadow, lead counsel for President Trump in the Georgia case, in a Sept. 7 filing.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had brought the case against the 19 defendants, claiming their challenge of the 2020 election results constituted a “criminal racketeering enterprise.” Four other defendants have already filed such notices.
The next step is that an evidentiary hearing will be held in federal court, where U.S. District Judge Steve Jones will decide how much of each case may be remanded, or moved, back to state court. The judge can also dismiss the removal entirely, sending the case back to state court without a hearing.
5 Notices
Four other defendants have already removed their cases: Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to the president; Jeffrey Clark, former Justice Department official under the Trump administration; and David Shafer and Shawn Still, both alternate electors who argue their roles, legitimized by Congress, can be considered federal office, but that at a minimum they were acting at the direction of federal officers.
The U.S. Constitution states that federal law precedes state law and courts, and in court rulings this has meant that federal officers are not subject to state law before acting and cannot be tried in state court.
There may be several reasons for removing the case, including having the case dismissed entirely, as some of the defendants’ lawyers have argued.
First Hearing
On Aug. 28, Judge Jones held a hearing on Mr. Meadows’s removal.
The prosecution had also subpoenaed several witnesses to testify at the hearing in arguing that the case should not be moved out of state jurisdiction, expanding the initial hearing into a mini-trial.
This was the first time legal arguments were made in court regarding the challenge of the 2020 elections, which President Trump has been indicted for in federal court in Washington as well.
Mr. Meadows argued that he was immune to these state charges, while the prosecution argued that his actions in the indictment were not that of a federal officer.
The all-day hearing ended without a ruling; Judge Jones asked both sides to submit additional arguments to clarify a few points. If only one of the actions Mr. Meadows is charged with was carried out as a federal officer, would that be enough to remove the case? Both parties filed their arguments by the end of Aug. 31, with the defense arguing that precedents have shown it is more than enough, and the prosecution arguing against it.
The judge has yet to rule on Mr. Meadows’s case, but has scheduled a second evidentiary hearing regarding Mr. Clark’s case removal for Sept. 18.
Ms. Willis’s office has until Sept. 8 to file a response to Mr. Clark’s case, after being given an extension from Sept. 5.
Mr. Clark’s case may prove to be more straightforward than Mr. Meadows’s; the indictment only references one act of Mr. Clark’s throughout the various acts and charges.
While in office, Mr. Clark issued a Department of Justice statement that said the agency has “identified signifiant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.” He had other DOJ officials sign the statement, and had it delivered to election officials in Georgia.
All defendants were charged with racketeering under the state’s RICO, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Mr. Clark was additionally charged with one count of criminal attempt to commit false statements and writings, referencing that statement. Mr. Meadows was additionally charged with solicitation of violation of oath by public officer, referencing his arranging a call between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
The indictment also cites several of Mr. Meadows’s actions such as arranging and attending meetings with or on behalf of the president. The federal court is now in the process of ruling these actions were taken by Mr. Meadows acting in his official capacity, and if this is so in only some but not all of the cases, whether some, none, or all of the case should be tried in federal court instead of state court.
Complications
These removals have complicated the case that Ms. Willis intended to try once, with all 19 defendants together. She initially proposed a six-month timeline, starting trial March 4, 2024. After a defendant’s request for a speedy trial, she proposed trying all 19 defendants together on Oct. 23, in less than two months’ time.
Because it is a RICO case, the prosecutors will need to present the whole case, including all the evidence and the estimated 150 witnesses, whether they are trying it against one, two, or 19 of the co-defendants.
“Evidence against one is evidence against all,” Nathan Wade, Georgia special prosecutor, said during the hearing Judge Scott McAfee held Sept. 7, regarding two defendants who’ve asked to sever their cases while demanding a speedy trial.
The judge raised the point that a ruling in state court may become moot should one or multiple of the defendants succeed in removing their cases to federal court.
He showed skepticism at the prosecution’s four-month timeline for the trials.
From The Epoch Times