- 09 Sep 2023 09:52
#15286123
Officials in a majority Democrat area in U.S. state misuse jurisdiction in witch-hunt
State officials in a majority Democrat area within the state of Georgia have issued criminal charges against Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
His crime? Pretty much just doing his normal job.
As chief of staff, Mark Meadows routinely arranged calls and meetings for the former President Trump.
Meadows is now officially being accused of "being part of a criminal conspiracy", because in some of those calls and meetings, Trump allegedly tried to sway the results of the election in Georgia for U.S. President. The results of the election was very close in Georgia, and supposedly Trump believed fraud was likely involved.
For meadows, this seems insane and is a huge huge stretch of legal logic.
It seems like part of a much wider hunt where Democrats have gone after anyone who was in Trump's inner circle, desperately looking for any possible legal excuse to criminally charge them.
One of the reasons they may be trying to go after Trump's former circle with criminal charges is to be able to put pressure on them to give testimony against Trump (whether that testimony is true or not). It's a common prosecutor's strategy.
The fact that Mark Meadows is being compelled to submit to jurisdiction from a state court, for alleged conduct he allegedly committed in the U.S. White House, as part of his normal duties to the President, is ridiculous. Meadows was not in the state of Georgia and is not in Georgia. Helping the President arrange phone calls and meetings with officials in the state of Georgia is a crime against Georgia, even though Meadows was not in Georgia?
This clearly stretches the bounds of how state jurisdiction is supposed to work.
A federal judge has now denied Meadow's request to move the case out of the state court to federal court.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, in Atlanta, Georgia, was the judge. Explaining the decision, the judge wrote a ruling that to me seems nonsensical. I do not know for sure if this judge actually believes what he wrote in his own opinion. It seems like a legal excuse.
One consideration, a legal reason the Trump-haters may want it to stay in state court is because then a conviction could not be pardoned by a future President, and it seems likely the next President could be from the Republican Party. Another consideration is that, in this case, a move to federal court would result in a jury pool that would include a broader area than just the overwhelmingly Democrat Fulton County.
Judge Jones wrote in his opinion that Meadow's alleged actions did not relate to his role as a federal official.
This seems totally asinine to me. So Meadows is expected to keep track of who he is arranging meetings for and what their position is, and it doesn't fall under his role working as a federal official if he chooses the wrong individuals and does not refuse to perform the task? While legally I suppose a myopic and hypothetical technical argument could be made for that, when it comes to common sense, this seems insane.
Judge denies Mark Meadows’ request to move his Georgia election subversion case to federal court | AP News, Kate Brumback, September 8, 2023
https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elec ... 2b218695b3
It can be pointed out that the state of Georgia is overall a Republican dominated state, but the county where the prosecutor and these judges is a Democrat area. As for why Republican leaders in the state are not shutting this down, it might be that they are afraid to do anything that could portrayed as corruption, since in recent years it seems Republicans are only staying in power by a narrow margin in the state. They have to appeal to the stupidity of voters, and not give the Democrats anything that could be used against them. I also suspect Republican leaders in Georgia are perfectly willing to throw Trump (and his circle of associates) under the bus. A lot of Republican leaders did not really like Trump, or think he could easily be replaced by someone else.
Maybe this is just my opinion but it really seems like the law is being misused, used very inappropriately. I think that is a fact and not just opinion.
This type of ruling is going to blur the line between what individual state jurisdiction is, and should be.
Judges are so rarely ever held to account for what decisions they make.
And it seems prosecutors know they can easily score guilty verdicts from juries if those juries are in overwhelmingly Democrat areas. This includes the country's capital, Washington D.C., Fulton County, and in the case of Trump, New York City. When a jury already wants to convict, all the prosecutor needs to do is give them an excuse. Among Democrats, there are a huge number that loathe Trump (as a result of a long ongoing media campaign) and would love to send him to prison. It's questionable whether someone connected to Trump would be able to get a fair unbiased trial from a jury in any of these Democrat areas.
For those who do not live in the U.S. or do not understand how the structure of federalism is supposed to work, state courts are not supposed to have jurisdiction over things that occurred outside their state. That could throw things into chaos, and not be fair for the people being accused either.
State officials in a majority Democrat area within the state of Georgia have issued criminal charges against Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
His crime? Pretty much just doing his normal job.
As chief of staff, Mark Meadows routinely arranged calls and meetings for the former President Trump.
Meadows is now officially being accused of "being part of a criminal conspiracy", because in some of those calls and meetings, Trump allegedly tried to sway the results of the election in Georgia for U.S. President. The results of the election was very close in Georgia, and supposedly Trump believed fraud was likely involved.
For meadows, this seems insane and is a huge huge stretch of legal logic.
It seems like part of a much wider hunt where Democrats have gone after anyone who was in Trump's inner circle, desperately looking for any possible legal excuse to criminally charge them.
One of the reasons they may be trying to go after Trump's former circle with criminal charges is to be able to put pressure on them to give testimony against Trump (whether that testimony is true or not). It's a common prosecutor's strategy.
The fact that Mark Meadows is being compelled to submit to jurisdiction from a state court, for alleged conduct he allegedly committed in the U.S. White House, as part of his normal duties to the President, is ridiculous. Meadows was not in the state of Georgia and is not in Georgia. Helping the President arrange phone calls and meetings with officials in the state of Georgia is a crime against Georgia, even though Meadows was not in Georgia?
This clearly stretches the bounds of how state jurisdiction is supposed to work.
A federal judge has now denied Meadow's request to move the case out of the state court to federal court.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, in Atlanta, Georgia, was the judge. Explaining the decision, the judge wrote a ruling that to me seems nonsensical. I do not know for sure if this judge actually believes what he wrote in his own opinion. It seems like a legal excuse.
One consideration, a legal reason the Trump-haters may want it to stay in state court is because then a conviction could not be pardoned by a future President, and it seems likely the next President could be from the Republican Party. Another consideration is that, in this case, a move to federal court would result in a jury pool that would include a broader area than just the overwhelmingly Democrat Fulton County.
Judge Jones wrote in his opinion that Meadow's alleged actions did not relate to his role as a federal official.
This seems totally asinine to me. So Meadows is expected to keep track of who he is arranging meetings for and what their position is, and it doesn't fall under his role working as a federal official if he chooses the wrong individuals and does not refuse to perform the task? While legally I suppose a myopic and hypothetical technical argument could be made for that, when it comes to common sense, this seems insane.
Judge denies Mark Meadows’ request to move his Georgia election subversion case to federal court | AP News, Kate Brumback, September 8, 2023
https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elec ... 2b218695b3
It can be pointed out that the state of Georgia is overall a Republican dominated state, but the county where the prosecutor and these judges is a Democrat area. As for why Republican leaders in the state are not shutting this down, it might be that they are afraid to do anything that could portrayed as corruption, since in recent years it seems Republicans are only staying in power by a narrow margin in the state. They have to appeal to the stupidity of voters, and not give the Democrats anything that could be used against them. I also suspect Republican leaders in Georgia are perfectly willing to throw Trump (and his circle of associates) under the bus. A lot of Republican leaders did not really like Trump, or think he could easily be replaced by someone else.
Maybe this is just my opinion but it really seems like the law is being misused, used very inappropriately. I think that is a fact and not just opinion.
This type of ruling is going to blur the line between what individual state jurisdiction is, and should be.
Judges are so rarely ever held to account for what decisions they make.
And it seems prosecutors know they can easily score guilty verdicts from juries if those juries are in overwhelmingly Democrat areas. This includes the country's capital, Washington D.C., Fulton County, and in the case of Trump, New York City. When a jury already wants to convict, all the prosecutor needs to do is give them an excuse. Among Democrats, there are a huge number that loathe Trump (as a result of a long ongoing media campaign) and would love to send him to prison. It's questionable whether someone connected to Trump would be able to get a fair unbiased trial from a jury in any of these Democrat areas.
For those who do not live in the U.S. or do not understand how the structure of federalism is supposed to work, state courts are not supposed to have jurisdiction over things that occurred outside their state. That could throw things into chaos, and not be fair for the people being accused either.
- By QatzelOk
- By Tainari88
- By Pants-of-dog