He can appeal, but I don’t think it will be a lengthy process if he does. His appeal in this case would be heard by the Eleventh. They’ve already shown they can move quickly when they feel they’re being gamed.
Meadows’ whole basis for this motion is that he was acting at all times in his role as a public servant. But he wasn’t. Trying to aid in an election fraud isn’t part of your public duties. In fact, using public time to further campaign tasks (legal or otherwise) are a violation of the Hatch Act.
Speculation is that if Meadows is unsuccessful in his bid to remove this action to federal court, he will probably fully flip in exchange for a favorable deal.
Well, “trying to aid in an election fraud,” is part of your duties, if you’re a member of the Trump White House.
More seriously, it seems to me that what is at issue boils down to, “Did Mr. Meadows violate the Hatch Act?”
Mr. Meadows: “I acted as I did, because I was acting in my role as a federal public servant. Therefore, this matter should be moved to a federal court.”
State of Georgia: “The Hatch Act is very clear: only the President and Vice-President may engage in political activity while in office. Public servants, like Mr. Meadows, may not. Since Mr. Meadows used his position to engage in political activity in the state of Georgia, then according to the Hatch Act, the matter should remain in the state of Georgia.”
“Public servants, including the president and the vice-president, may not engage in political activity while in office, nor may they engage in anything other than public business while in office.”
The Hatch Act violation is of concern, but Meadows (or Trump for that matter) should not have been doing anything other than engaging in public business while in office. Getting reelected is not public business.
Trump blurred those lines like no president before him. Or hopefully again.
The way I see it is that Meadows is arguing that insuring fair and honest elections is a legitimate duty for a public servant in the Executive Branch. All he was doing was facilitating Trump in this endeavor.
The counter viewpoint is that what Trump was trying to accomplish was to have the election thrown to the House of Representatives so they could elect Trump as President. These could not possibly have been part of Meadows’ official duties since those duties cannot involve helping Trump get elected (per the Hatch Act).
Therefore the matter should remain in the State Courts as there is no justification for removal.
I think this is right. The burden of proof to show that he had a basis to believe the elections were not fair and honest falls on Meadows. That’s going to be quite a threshold to clear, given more than 60 judicial determinations that there was no election fraud, as well as 3 recounts done in Georgia, including 1 hand recount.
Some of these people justified working for Trump as a way to keep his worst behavior in check and thus serve the country. If true, that would require them at least to refuse to do the illegal stuff.
Judge has scheduled Individual-ONE’s trial to start on March 4th of next year. Interesting date, that. It seems to evoke a vague memory that I cannot quite put a finger on.
It’s a legitimate duty for a public servant at the state level because that’s where elections are handled. I don’t see how a White House official has any kind of duty in the conduct of an election in which the feds have no procedural role. To me the argument fails on its face. He can be concerned, sure, but he has no official responsibility or function at all.
In fact, I’d actually go further. A federal official without a specifically constituted authority — say, someone at the FEC investigating campaign finance, or the DOJ suing under the VRA — who does anything more than go on television or give a quote to a print reporter to say they hope the election is conducted fairly according to law is, in my view, interfering with the proper functioning of the election. I don’t know if there’s formal regulation or caselaw precedent backing this view, but it seems self-evident to me it should be this way. If Meadows wants to say he had an official duty here, then he must show the law that gives him that duty. Otherwise he can shut his piehole and suck it up in state court.
(Other than the Hatch Act, obviously. My point is that if he says he had an official duty he should be able to articulate what legal mechanism gave him such authority.)
In the months leading up to President Elect Trump taking office, I remember many talking heads assuring us there would be “adults in the room” who would keep him in check. How many of those adults did Trump chase out of his administration just in the first year? I don’t want to hijack the tread, so that’s a rhetorical question. That kind of justification is weak. It’s morally bankrupt. It’d be more honest to say they were just following orders.
