Started By
Message

Federal judge rejects bids to halt Georgia prosecution of Trump aides over 2020 election

Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:30 am
Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
33696 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:30 am
quote:

A federal judge quickly shot down bids Wednesday by two former Trump administration officials — Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark — to derail the criminal proceedings against them in Fulton County, where they’re charged alongside Donald Trump with a sprawling racketeering conspiracy to subvert the results of the 2020 election.

In two six-page rulings by Atlanta-based U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones effectively ensures that Meadows and Clark will face arrest this week, a result both men attempted to prevent in a series of emergency filings.


quote:

Jones, an appointee of President Barack Obama, sided with Willis’ arguments that the law governing so-called removal of state criminal cases to federal court makes quite clear that those proceedings can continue while a federal judge considers whether it is appropriate to shift the case into the federal system.

“Until the federal court assumes jurisdiction over a state criminal case, the state court retains jurisdiction over the prosecution and the proceedings continue,” Jones wrote.

“The clear statutory language for removing a criminal prosecution … does not support an injunction or temporary stay prohibiting District Attorney Willis’s enforcement or execution of the arrest warrant against Meadows,” the judge added in his decision on Meadows’ motion.


https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/23/georgia-trump-racketeering-case-state-court-00112480
Posted by idlewatcher
Planet Arium
Member since Jan 2012
81730 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:33 am to
quote:

sided with Willis’ arguments that the law governing so-called removal of state criminal cases to federal court makes quite clear that those proceedings can continue while a federal judge considers whether it is appropriate to shift the case into the federal system.



This is all by design.

"I'll get around to deciding, but the case must go on until I do"
Posted by ezride25
Constitutional Republic
Member since Nov 2008
24865 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:35 am to
Blatant corruption.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
30417 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:36 am to
quote:

Blatant corruption.

Incredibly standard ruling
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
21451 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:37 am to
Surprise!

Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
33696 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:47 am to
Amazing how they have all their bases covered.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
81296 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:52 am to
quote:

The clear statutory language for removing a criminal prosecution … does not support an injunction or temporary stay prohibiting District Attorney Willis’s enforcement or execution of the arrest warrant against Meadows,” the judge added in his decision on Meadows’ motion.


Are we textualists or do we want activist judges reading things into laws that aren’t there?
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54755 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:00 am to
Removal of criminal matters from state to fed court is extremely limited...this isn't a civil case. But go ahead and conrspiracy yourselves to death.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:12 am to
As is the norm here, you are screeching about a judicial ruling interpreting a statute, without bothering to read the statute:
quote:

28 USC §1442(a)

A ... criminal prosecution ... commenced in a State court ... against ... any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States ...:

(1)The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

...

(3)Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties ....
The parties seeking removal are arguing that the state proceeding should be stayed, pending determination of that issue by the federal judge. So, let's take a look at the statute governing the procedures for removal:
quote:

28 USC §1455(b)(3)
The filing of a notice of removal ... shall not prevent the State court ... from proceeding further, except that a judgment of conviction shall not be entered unless the prosecution is first remanded.
How could the relevant statute be MORE clear on the issue of a stay?

BTW, here is the Order, which you also failed to include.
This post was edited on 8/24/23 at 11:17 am
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
81296 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:16 am to
I anticipate crickets from here on out
Posted by rhar61
Member since Nov 2022
5109 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:16 am to
an obama judge, so the ruling is meaningless
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
59565 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:16 am to
There was a piece on the radio this morning and they were saying how Trump has little chance of getting a fair shake because the counties where the trial will take place are so so pro Dem and anti-Trump.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:17 am to
quote:

I anticipate crickets from here on out
In a world populate by sane people, perhaps.

I anticipate that citing the relevant statute will probably draw a majority of downvotes.
This post was edited on 8/24/23 at 11:22 am
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
435758 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:18 am to
quote:

I anticipate crickets from here on out

You're about to get the "well they're not following the laws, so we shouldn't have to" responses.
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
72895 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:21 am to
quote:

You're about to get the "well they're not following the laws, so we shouldn't have to" responses.


Well this has never been done before. It is pure political persecution.



Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:26 am to
quote:

You're about to get the "well they're not following the laws, so we shouldn't have to" responses.
quote:

Well this has never been done before. It is pure political persecution.

You claim that 28 USC §1442 has never been used before? Whatever you say.
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
65323 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:49 am to
quote:

In a world populate by sane people, perhaps.

From the faction who gave us "trans women are women"? GTFOH. The left has zero credibility with respect to common sense when you don't even know which bathroom to use.
Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
33696 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:51 am to
quote:

As is the norm here, you are screeching about a judicial ruling interpreting a statute, without bothering to read the statute:


I posted and article and offered no opinion.
Posted by LSUvet72
Member since Sep 2013
12578 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:52 am to
Judge is an Obama suck off.
Posted by ksayetiger
Centenary Gents
Member since Jul 2007
68950 posts
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:53 am to
quote:

Are we textualists or do we want activist judges reading things into laws that aren’t there?




He cites the statute, I would like to read the statute he is referring to
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram