Meadows’ Request to Move Ga. Election Case Denied
The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Monday upheld a lower court judge’s decision to prevent former Trump administration White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — charged as part of an alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia — fr...
Facts
- The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Monday upheld a lower court judge’s decision to prevent former Trump administration White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — charged as part of an alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia — from having his case moved to federal court.1
- Meadows’ lawyers argued his case should be moved to federal court as the actions he took, as described in the indictment, were part of his duties as a federal official.2
- According to the case brought by Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, Meadows arranged phone calls and meetings during which former Pres. Donald Trump allegedly pressured election officials, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, to change the vote count away from Democratic challenger and current Pres. Joe Biden.3
- Chief Judge William Pryor, writing for the appeals court, found that Meadows’ actions “were not related” to his official duties.4
- Meadows and 18 other individuals, including the former president, were indicted in August in Fulton County. Four defendants have pleaded guilty, while Meadows, Trump, and all others have pleaded not guilty.5
Sources: 1USA Today, 2Associated Press, 3Reuters.com, 4ABC News and 5CBS.
Narratives
- Anti-Trump narrative, as provided by Huffington Post. You can't be a more conservative judge than Pryor, yet even he agreed with his left-leaning colleagues that Meadows’ attempt to paint his participation in a failed coup as part of his official duties was off-base. Meadows has testified under oath that he recommended election officials take actions that have found him criminally liable, and is desperately attempting to escape justice.
- Pro-Trump narrative, as provided by Breitbart. It’s obvious that Meadows and Trump were fulfilling the duties of their office. Unfortunately, the law, as currently interpreted, didn't let the court rule in Meadows’ favor, despite obvious personal agreement from the judges. Meadows will get another chance to transfer this case when he appeals to the US Supreme Court.
