While Mark Meadows appeals his removal rejection in Georgia, three “fake electors” who are also trying to move their state charges to federal court should likewise be denied. After the three co-defendants’ federal court hearing Wednesday, it may only be a matter of time before the same judge who ruled against Meadows rules against them as well.
Recall that Meadows, the former White House chief of staff for Donald Trump, arguably has the strongest removal argument out of the 19 defendants charged in the state racketeering indictment in Fulton County. To get a state criminal case moved to federal court, a defendant needs to show that the charged conduct related to the defendant’s federal role. Though Meadows testified that was the case, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones disagreed, finding that Meadows’ alleged actions were on behalf of the Trump campaign to try and affect the 2020 election.
So what’s the three fake electors’ removal argument? The indictment alleges, among other things, that David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathy Latham unlawfully held themselves out as the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from Georgia in the 2020 election.
At the hearing Wednesday, their lawyers said the three had “believed they were legally preserving Mr. Trump’s rights in case a lawsuit challenging the election at the time ended up in his favor,” The New York Times reported. One of the lawyers said they had been “contingent” electors rather than fake ones, with a lawyer for the state countering that not only were they not federal officials, they weren’t electors at all, the Times reported.
Against that backdrop, it’s difficult to see the three succeeding in showing that they acted under federal authority. But Jones still has to rule for us to find that out officially. We’re also still waiting for a ruling on co-defendant Jeffrey Clark’s removal effort, following the former Justice Department lawyer’s apparently bad day in court earlier this week.
For any of these removal attempts, it’s important to remember that even successful ones wouldn’t turn a state case into a federal case that a president could pardon.
For any of these removal attempts, it’s important to remember that even successful ones wouldn’t turn a state case into a federal case that a president could pardon. A defendant may get a slightly broader jury pool in federal court than in Fulton County state court, but in the end, it’s unclear how much of a win would be provided by removal.
Yet, at this point, it’s unclear whether any of the defendants in the Georgia case will get to find that out for themselves.
