• 2scoops@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Jordan Lund@lemmy.oneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

        • paper_clip@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Zippy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

        • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • deconstruct
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Jordan Lund@lemmy.oneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?“”

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe this is called “the prisoner’s delema”- and the beauty of it, is…. The judge doesn’t have to accept the plea bargain deal. They usually do… but they don’t.

  • mateomaui@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!

  • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Question, I think Ithe judge in Georgia for the 2 going for a speedy trial, said that anyone trying for a fed case could appeal. Is that true?

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Look, just ask man. You gotta ask. We can’t just…” (forgets the mic is open,) “wait, your saying we can just…. Overturn it? You mean we didn’t have to have somebody appeal it, like with Dobs…. How often can I do this ? I have a list. It’s a nice, long list. Starting with rejecting the first amendment- that’s clearly not constitutional….”

        -Thomas, probably.