https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/politics/trump-federal-court-georgia/index.html
Former President Donald Trump on Thursday formally notified the judge overseeing the Georgia election subversion case that he “may” try to move his state case into federal court.
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is commonly known as "the supremacy clause." In the context of the GA RICO trial, States are not allowed to prosecute federal officers who are exercising their Constitutional federal duties.
Count 1 of the indictment is the RICO charge, which is based on:
Trump and the other Defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost [the Georgia election for President of the United States], and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlwafully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution spells out in no uncertain terms that the authority and responsibility for appointing Electors to the Electoral College, the votes of which determine who is elected to the office of President, lies solely with the States:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
It is, therefore, outside the Constitutional duty of any federal officer to insert themselves into a State election.
Judge Jones is currently considering, for Mark Meadows, whether all of his indicted actions need to be "under color of his office" to qualfiy for removal to federal court, or only one of his indicted actions, or a majority of his indicted actions, or some other fraction. I think it would also be fair to argue that only the indictments which are "under color of his office" should be moved to federal court, and the ones which are not should remain in State court - but there are surely other considerations to be made around judicial economy and inconvenience or trauma to victims and witnesses who would need to appear multiple times over several trials.
Judge McAfee (GA) has denied Meadows' and Powell's motions to sever from each other, and will make a ruling on severance of the other defendants in about ten days' time. From what I saw, there is still a possibility that all nineteen defendants will begin their trials together, on October 23, 2023, in his Georgia courtroom.
I thought the motion to sever was denied between Powell and Chesebro, was Meadows in there also?
I brought up Meadows because his request to have his case removed to federal court, if successful, will impact how many separate trials happen. If his case is removed, others will attempt to have their cases also removed, and some might succeed. Does that mean that all cases get tried together in federal court, even for those who have no grounds to have their cases so removed? Or do the cases get severed as a result of some of them going to federal and some of them staying in state? We don't know the answers to those questions yet.
My mentions of Meadows, Judge Jones, and Judge McAfee were in the context of the greater outstanding questions about "who is going to trial when, and where, and alongside whom?" from a bigger picture perspective.
The Georgia charges can't be pardoned until five years after any sentence is served. Nothing can change that, as pardons for State charges in Georgia are handled by the Georgia Pardon and Parole Board, and they have written rules to follow.
That board can consider a request to commute a sentence immediately.
remember he only needs to delay until the election. if he’s elected president again then all the consequences go out the window.
That's only true if he can pardon himself for the election interference. That's not going to happen unless they move the case to federal court.
Not if he goes the Hitler route and consolidates power. Which honestly, I think he and the GoP are planning to do
Will it work is another discussion, but I'm sure this is what he plans to do
Lots of the "brown shirts" have already been convicted and are sentenced after their actions on Jan 6th.
That happened in the Weimar Republic, too. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison, and plenty of people got arrested for things like the Beer Hall Putsch. Stay vigilant and organized, politically cooperate with anyone who opposes the Republicans, don't take it for granted that the courts will handle this neo fascist ideology for us, you know?
This is true, but what I have not seen discussed is that the Georgia Pardon and Parole board can consider a request to commute the sentence immediately, and can choose to reduce or eliminate any sentence handed down.
the Georgia Pardon and Parole board can consider a request to commute the sentence immediately, and can choose to reduce or eliminate any sentence handed down.
Thanks, (this is good information to know, but) I hate it.
Hmm. I was under the impression that the governor couldn't even pardon someone in GA unless they had served out 5 years of a sentence, thus guaranteeing jail time.
You're right. A pardon in Georgia cannot even be requested from the Pardon and Parole Board until five years after any sentence is served. Commutation of a sentence is a different thing altogether.
Pardon is "You don't receive any punishment for this crime." Commutation is "After consideration, the sentence you received is being reduced." And in commutation, the sentence can be reduced to zero.
The Georgia Pardon and Parole Board can consider a request for commutation immediately after sentencing, and can commute a sentence immediately, again, that's reducing a sentence, including a 100% reduction.
Pardoning himself from doing time, doesn't exclude other provisions against a convicted criminal holding office.
A pardon explicitly states you're guilty of the crime you're pardoned for.
How do you interpret the linked article? To me it read as an essay that argued that pardons neither firmly convey guilt nor innocence because there exists mixed precedence and reasoning for both.
That’s only true if he can pardon himself for the election interference. That’s not going to happen unless they move the case to federal court.
That wouldn't work either. The first step in a pardon is that the person convicted has to admit guilt to trying to steal the election. If he straight up admits guilt that's clearly a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
This is a common misconception. While a pardon does mean some things (like removing your ability to plead the 5th in relation to the related case), it remains very disputed whether it constitutes an admission of guilt:
And then maybe he will threaten to move it to the international court of justice in The Hague! Jk, this clown is providing giant comedic value for everyone. Except his cult of course. This is a real 4d chess move to them.
I don't find the justice system being made a mockery of very funny. Maybe that's just me.
I didn't understand that as making fun of the court as much as it's making fun of the orange kumquat's stupidity and utter depravity.
It’s only a mockery if the courts stop caring or like when some fuck-wit judge in Florida gives him a pass for no good reason.
I have no problem with a defendant trying whatever they can, it’s the results that matter. Hell trump could shit his pants and try the ted nugent defense. I do t care so long as a judge with half a brain calls him on it.
It would be amusing if there were very little chance his antics would work in his benefit. Personally I think it looks like the criminal justice system is hanging by a thread next to democracy. That's not as amusing.