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

quote:

---

He cites the statute, I would like to read the statute he is referring to

---

Well, I quoted it for you ...

This thread is looks like a community college law school reunion.

quote:

---

“Federal courts have repeatedly denied requests to interfere in state criminal prosecutions,” Willis’ team noted in the 13-page response to the effort by Meadows, who served as White House chief of staff during the last nine months of Trump’s term. “Generally, only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions taken in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction is federal intervention against pending state prosecutions appropriate.”

quote:

---

Seems pretty obvious here....

---

---

That addresses the question of whether the case should ultimately be removed to federal court, which is NOT the issue addressed in the Order at issue. That Order addresses ONLY the question of whether state proceedings should be stayed pending a resolution of whether removal is appropriate.

quote:

---

you will overlook this because you want him persecuted

---

I am simply showing that the failure to stay the state proceedings was legally correct.

Thanks for a honest answer

quote:

---

They will hide behind the law because they have no morals.

---

This is the literal basis for judicial activism. Disregard the law because “feelings”.

That wasn’t what I was addressing staying temporarily till a determination really doesn’t sound harmful for Meadows other than a mugshot. Of course this is a case where political bias is the sole purpose but getting to federal level probably isn’t happening for same reason.

quote:

---

I am simply showing that the failure to stay the state proceedings was legally correct.

---

So the judge has no wiggle room if he feels the prosecutions are taken in bad faith?

Leftists judges wholeheartedly believe in judicial activism though

quote:

---

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.

---

Meadows appears to have a pretty cut and dried argument that his actions were within the scope of his duties - which is is what he needs to show to remove to federal court.

However the jury pool is Atlanta for the relevant fed district.

quote:

---

Meadows appears to have a pretty cut and dried argument that his actions were within the scope of his duties - which is is what he needs to show to remove to federal court.

---

But is 28 USC §1442 compulsory or discretionary?

The language of the statute is "may," not "shall."

Can the federal court decline to take the case, even if Meadows WAS in the "course and scope?" That would seem to be contrary to the apparent intent of allowing removal to prevent "hometowning," but the language is hard to ignore.