Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(142,264 posts)
Thu Oct 24, 2024, 01:43 PM Oct 24

Appeals court rules 4 Trump co-defendants can't move Georgia election charges to federal court

Source: The Hill

10/24/24 2:25 PM ET


An appeals court ruled Thursday that four people charged alongside former President Trump in his Georgia election racketeering case cannot move their charges from state to federal court.

Known as removal, federal officials are entitled to move courts when they are being prosecuted under “color” of their office and they present a plausible federal defense.

Trump-era Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and three pro-Trump individuals who signed documents purporting to be presidential electors despite President Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia — David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathy Latham — attempted the gambit as part of an attempt to assert immunity. They all appealed after a district judge ruled against them.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday affirmed those decisions, ruling that removal is not available for former officials. “The statute applies only to current officers,” the court’s unsigned opinion in Clark’s case reads.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4951624-trump-co-defendants-georgia/

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Appeals court rules 4 Trump co-defendants can't move Georgia election charges to federal court (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Oct 24 OP
It took them 14 MONTHS to decide? Grins Oct 24 #1
The lower court ruled against them September 2023 for reference BumRushDaShow Oct 24 #2
He Tried The Same Stunt In Arizona, Too. GB_RN Oct 24 #5
They'll try in any state where they were indicted BumRushDaShow Oct 24 #6
Normally... GB_RN Oct 24 #7
One line they have chosen to avoid broaching BumRushDaShow Oct 24 #8
One Line... GB_RN Oct 24 #9
In federal court, TFG could pardon them if he wins. In state court there's no such opening. n/t thesquanderer Oct 24 #3
Wouldn't even have to pardon Diraven Oct 24 #11
True. n/t thesquanderer Oct 24 #12
Move it and them Old Crank Oct 24 #4
Awesome news!!! iluvtennis Oct 24 #10

Grins

(7,884 posts)
1. It took them 14 MONTHS to decide?
Thu Oct 24, 2024, 02:39 PM
Oct 24

Another reason courts are failing us.

And this is the conservative 11th Circuit. Any bets if it will go to SCOYUS?

BumRushDaShow

(142,264 posts)
2. The lower court ruled against them September 2023 for reference
Thu Oct 24, 2024, 02:59 PM
Oct 24
Court denies bid by former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark to move 2020 election case to federal court

Meanwhile, in between the above attempts, Meadows tried it for himswelf and got a denial in February 2024 for an "en banc" decision - Mark Meadows loses latest bid to move Georgia election case to federal court

And that was after getting a denial from the 3-judge panel in December 2023 - Appeals court rejects Mark Meadows’ attempt to move Georgia election subversion case to federal court and an earlier denial from the lower court in September 2023 - Judge denies Mark Meadows' request to move Georgia election case to federal court

In this case based on what the appellate court noted - that this option was only open for CURRENT employees (vs former) - that might a big reason for the SCOTUS to bat it away.

BumRushDaShow

(142,264 posts)
6. They'll try in any state where they were indicted
Thu Oct 24, 2024, 03:54 PM
Oct 24

But that appellate decision basically saying "only for current employees" was interesting and that would be instructive for future attempts if the SCOTUS upholds that reason.

GB_RN

(3,156 posts)
7. Normally...
Thu Oct 24, 2024, 04:02 PM
Oct 24

I’d say that Roberts, et al., wouldn’t want to take this up. But, as with Cantaloupe Caligula the Corpulent’s immunity appeal, the conventional wisdom was that Roberts and co., didn’t want to touch the case and would let the DC Circuit Court of Appeals do the heavy lifting, and either outright refuse to hear it, or issue an opinion that upheld the Appeals Court decision. And, we all know how that turned out.

Fucking asshole Roberts, making shit up to give Satan’s Spawn immunity. Jesus H Christ on a stick. /smdh 🤦🏻

BumRushDaShow

(142,264 posts)
8. One line they have chosen to avoid broaching
Thu Oct 24, 2024, 04:08 PM
Oct 24

since it is a loon GOP "principle", is "states rights" and these cases (in GA, AZ, MI) are in state courts, based on state laws.

Some of them were considered "unindicted co-conspirators" for Jack Smith's federal case, but then Roberts told Smith to remove Jeffrey Clark from that case (which Smith did). So what is left for Clark is the state case.

GB_RN

(3,156 posts)
9. One Line...
Thu Oct 24, 2024, 04:16 PM
Oct 24

So far.

After the last couple of years in general, and this past term’s decisions in particular, I don’t trust them any farther than I could throw Caligula.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Appeals court rules 4 Tru...