Appeals court rules 4 Trump co-defendants can't move Georgia election charges to federal court
Source: The Hill
10/24/24 2:25 PM ET
An appeals court ruled Thursday that four people charged alongside former President Trump in his Georgia election racketeering case cannot move their charges from state to federal court.
Known as removal, federal officials are entitled to move courts when they are being prosecuted under color of their office and they present a plausible federal defense.
Trump-era Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and three pro-Trump individuals who signed documents purporting to be presidential electors despite President Bidens 2020 victory in Georgia David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathy Latham attempted the gambit as part of an attempt to assert immunity. They all appealed after a district judge ruled against them.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday affirmed those decisions, ruling that removal is not available for former officials. The statute applies only to current officers, the courts unsigned opinion in Clarks case reads.
Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4951624-trump-co-defendants-georgia/
Grins
(7,940 posts)Another reason courts are failing us.
And this is the conservative 11th Circuit. Any bets if it will go to SCOYUS?
BumRushDaShow
(144,201 posts)Meanwhile, in between the above attempts, Meadows tried it for himswelf and got a denial in February 2024 for an "en banc" decision - Mark Meadows loses latest bid to move Georgia election case to federal court
And that was after getting a denial from the 3-judge panel in December 2023 - Appeals court rejects Mark Meadows attempt to move Georgia election subversion case to federal court and an earlier denial from the lower court in September 2023 - Judge denies Mark Meadows' request to move Georgia election case to federal court
In this case based on what the appellate court noted - that this option was only open for CURRENT employees (vs former) - that might a big reason for the SCOTUS to bat it away.
GB_RN
(3,217 posts)Hasnt gone well for him there, either. 😁
BumRushDaShow
(144,201 posts)But that appellate decision basically saying "only for current employees" was interesting and that would be instructive for future attempts if the SCOTUS upholds that reason.
GB_RN
(3,217 posts)Id say that Roberts, et al., wouldnt want to take this up. But, as with Cantaloupe Caligula the Corpulents immunity appeal, the conventional wisdom was that Roberts and co., didnt want to touch the case and would let the DC Circuit Court of Appeals do the heavy lifting, and either outright refuse to hear it, or issue an opinion that upheld the Appeals Court decision. And, we all know how that turned out.
Fucking asshole Roberts, making shit up to give Satans Spawn immunity. Jesus H Christ on a stick. /smdh 🤦🏻
BumRushDaShow
(144,201 posts)since it is a loon GOP "principle", is "states rights" and these cases (in GA, AZ, MI) are in state courts, based on state laws.
Some of them were considered "unindicted co-conspirators" for Jack Smith's federal case, but then Roberts told Smith to remove Jeffrey Clark from that case (which Smith did). So what is left for Clark is the state case.
GB_RN
(3,217 posts)So far.
After the last couple of years in general, and this past terms decisions in particular, I dont trust them any farther than I could throw Caligula.
thesquanderer
(12,394 posts)Diraven
(1,092 posts)As dictator he'd just tell the DOJ to drop the cases.
thesquanderer
(12,394 posts)Old Crank
(4,891 posts)To the federal court in Guantanamo.