- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 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
10
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:33 am to loogaroo
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 on 8/24/23 at 10:35 am to loogaroo
Blatant corruption.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:36 am to ezride25
quote:
Blatant corruption.
Incredibly standard ruling
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:37 am to loogaroo
Surprise!
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:47 am to Auburn1968
Amazing how they have all their bases covered.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 10:52 am to loogaroo
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:00 am to loogaroo
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:12 am to loogaroo
As is the norm here, you are screeching about a judicial ruling interpreting a statute, without bothering to read the statute:
BTW, here is the Order, which you also failed to include.
quote: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:
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 ....
quote:How could the relevant statute be MORE clear on the issue of a stay?
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.
BTW, here is the Order, which you also failed to include.
This post was edited on 8/24/23 at 11:17 am
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:16 am to AggieHank86
I anticipate crickets from here on out 
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:16 am to loogaroo
an obama judge, so the ruling is meaningless
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:16 am to loogaroo
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:17 am to boosiebadazz
quote:In a world populate by sane people, perhaps.
I anticipate crickets from here on out
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:18 am to boosiebadazz
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:21 am to SlowFlowPro
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:26 am to dgnx6
quote:You claim that 28 USC §1442 has never been used before? Whatever you say.
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.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:49 am to AggieHank86
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:51 am to AggieHank86
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 on 8/24/23 at 11:52 am to Auburn1968
Judge is an Obama suck off.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:53 am to boosiebadazz
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
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News