politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Mark is also begging federal courts to dismiss the charges in GA.
~~Federal courts can't dismiss state charges.~~
Edit: After some thought, I may be wrong about the above. Removing to federal does mean that the charges remain state charges, but are tried in the federal court venue, with federal court rules. Does that include the ability to dismiss the charges? Maybe it does, but I would think the state of Georgia should have a say in that. Whether they actually do, I don't know.
Meadows is trying to have his case removed to federal court, and he probably has a good case for it: he was a federal employee being charged with crimes based on his acts as a federal employee.
Now, I don't think he was acting as a federal employee, but I can see how it's arguable enough to have his case removed to federal court, based only on the information in the indictment. They're still state charges, still adherent to Georgia pardon laws.
That’s a fantastic argument. Let’s say if federal courts do grant Mark permission to move his charges to federal court because he committed state crimes when he was federal employee - then what stops states like Texas, Florida, and any other states form goon squads of state employees with guaranteed pardons from governors to go to battleground states and “find 11,800 votes” for our beloved president?
“StATeS RiGHtS!!!!!” when it comes to forcing women to give births, “federal rights” when those state rights become too much of a trouble for me.
I think I'm a little confused, but let me try and work through it.
If someone from Florida (Florida Man) went to Wisconsin, and attempted to muddle in a Wisconsin election, that would be a crime in Wisconsin, and Florida Man would be charged in Wisconsin. A pardon for such a crime would need to come from the state of Wisconsin.
If Florida Man was a state of Florida employee, they would not have any grounds to have the Wisconsin case removed to federal court. If Florida Man was a federal employee in Florida, then whether they had grounds to have the case moved to federal court would depend on the actions they were charged with, and if those actions were in the course of their job as a federal employee. In either case, removed to federal court or not, the charges remain state charges, and any pardon or commutation would need to come from the state where the charges were filed.
Back to Meadows: Mark Meadows is still trying to play both sides, even now. He was certainly very careful about how far across the line he was dipping his toes when Trump was still in office. That's why he can claim that while he was a federal employee (White House Chief of Staff), the actions he is being charged with (arranging meetings, making phone calls, etc.), were his actions as WHCoS, and gain the grounds to have his case removed to federal court.
It's also important to remember that each defendant's request to removed to federal is handled separately. Because of that, I would also expect that each trial would be separate, as opposed to trying all federally removed cases together. Since we're talking about GA RICO charges, it becomes highly likely that if one defendant is convicted of GA RICO in federal court, others will go the same way.
Other defendants are not as lucky as Meadows. Guiliani is a perfect example. Even though he has previously made th overt claim that he was Trump's personal attorney, and his actions were taken in that context (going to Ukraine to try and get them to charge Hunter Biden with ... something?), now he's trying to say that he wants his case removed to federal. He is not on any federal payroll, and he wasn't when Trump was in office, either. Beyond that, the actions he is charged with wouldn't be ones taken in the course of a federal position even if he'd had one. They were taken for the benefit of Trump personally, attempting to overturn an election for Trump.
Trump himself shouldn't get his case removed to federal court, as the actions he is charged with are not ones which were taken in the course of his position as president. But we're in all sorts of uncharted territory, so who knows how that will play out.
My edit above was because I realized that if a case is removed to federal, the federal judge gains the power to rule on the case, and dismissing a case is ruling on it.