If Mr. Meadows were to succeed in changing venues, he would widen the pool of potential jurors, who could come from more conservative areas outside Atlanta, and he would avoid having his trial televised. He would also set a bad precedent, encouraging future presidents and their aides to interfere in the administration of local elections, with the expectation that they could later claim they were acting in their official capacities and secure more favorable circumstances at any trial.
The law requires defendants to establish three things to move a case to federal court: that they were an officer of the United States or acting under an officer; that they’re facing criminal charges “for or relating to any act under color of such office”; and that they have raised or will raise a “colorable federal defense.” Mr. Meadows has separately filed a motion in federal court to dismiss the charges against him under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, but this will be heard only if his arguments for removal prevail.
Accordingly, Mr. Meadows says that a “federal nexus” existed in everything he did after the 2020 vote to help Mr. Trump cling to power. Pressed during nearly four hours of testimony on Monday, Mr. Meadows indicated that the only thing he could think of that would have been outside the scope of his official duties was speaking at a campaign rally. George J. Terwilliger III, Mr. Meadows’s attorney, described his client as Mr. Trump’s “alter ego” and said the chief of staff’s official duties are even broader than the president’s: “He is federal operations.”
But the Jan. 2 phone call neither was “perfect,” as Mr. Trump claims, nor did it have anything to do with federal operations. Mr. Meadows’s defense defies the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using their official roles to influence elections. Even in the White House, where the lines sometimes get blurry, there’s an important distinction between the work someone does for their taxpayer-funded paycheck and outright electioneering. Mr. Meadows wasn’t just acting as a staffer for his boss; he was clearly advocating on behalf of the reelection campaign.
There are many valid reasons for protecting federal officers from harassment by state and local prosecutors, a reality underscored by the South’s dark history of resisting federal power. But Mr. Meadows’s effort to keep Mr. Trump in the White House isn’t comparable to U.S. marshals trying to enforce federal rights that Jim Crow states were violating. Mr. Meadows’s legally deficient motion for removal threatens states’ ability to enforce their laws and uphold the integrity of their elections.
Credit: Source link
