Former Attorney General Meese argues for Jeffrey Clark’s Fulton County case to be transferred to federal court.

Former Attorney ‍General Supports Assistant Attorney General’s Efforts to Remove Indictment

Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Jeffrey Clark was acting “squarely” within his‍ federal authority when⁢ he drafted and advocated for the Department‍ of⁢ Justice to send ‌a letter to ⁢the Georgia legislature concerning the 2020 election, according to ⁤former⁤ Attorney General Edwin Meese. Additionally, ⁤“the prosecution of ‍the President and an AAG” represents “a major affront to federal supremacy never before seen in the⁢ history of our country,” Meese further opined in⁢ the 19-page affidavit he filed in⁣ a‍ federal court on Saturday in support of Clark’s efforts to remove the Fulton County indictment to ‌federal court.

Meese’s affidavit⁤ adds gravitas ⁢to Clark’s already-strong argument for removal ⁣of the ⁤criminal case to a federal court, a question‍ federal Judge Steve Jones will consider during a hearing Monday morning.

A⁢ little⁤ over‍ a month ago, a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, returned a ⁤sprawling ⁤indictment against 19 defendants, including former President Donald Trump. That indictment charged the defendants‍ with various supposed crimes⁣ related to “alleged postelection interference with the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.”

Soon⁣ after Fulton County’s get-Trump‌ prosecutor Fani Willis announced⁣ the charges, Trump’s‍ former‍ Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Clark, and three alternate presidential electors ​for Trump sought to “remove” the criminal case from the ‍state court to a federal district‍ court.

While ​federal courts in nearly all circumstances lack ‍“jurisdiction”⁣ or‌ the ​power to⁢ hear a case involving the state’s prosecution of an alleged violation of the state’s criminal⁣ code, the “federal officer removal‍ statute” provides an exception to that ⁢rule. ​That ‍statute,⁣ which is codified at § 1442(a)(1), provides that a “criminal‌ prosecution that is commenced in a State court” against an “officer” ​of the United States or any federal agency may ⁣“remove” the case⁣ to a federal court⁤ if the prosecution is ⁢“for or relating to any act under color of such office…”

On Sept. 8, 2023, Judge Jones rejected Meadows’ attempt to ⁢remove⁣ the criminal case to federal court, remanding the case instead‌ to the Fulton County Superior Court. In remanding the case to state court, Jones reasoned that “Meadows’s alleged​ association with⁤ post-election activities,” detailed in the criminal indictment, “was not related to his role as White House⁢ Chief ​of Staff⁤ or⁣ his executive branch authority.” The federal judge stressed, however, “that its determination on Meadows’s notice of removal and its jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution does ⁢not,⁢ at this time, have any effect on ⁣the outcome of the other co-Defendants who have filed notices,” which, among others, ​includes Clark, who faces off against Willis’ legal team later Monday ⁤morning.

Whether Judge Jones​ erred in rejecting Meadows’ attempt to remove ‌the criminal case — ⁢a question the 11th​ Circuit Court of Appeals will decide ⁣soon on an expedited basis — removal by Clark presents an entirely different equation. The ‍criminal case against Clark ⁤rests on his supposed attempt “to make a false statement or writing by composing and attempting to send a letter falsely claiming ⁣the⁣ Department‌ of Justice⁤ had ‘identified⁢ significant concerns that may have impacted the ⁣outcome ⁣of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.’”

Clark drafted that letter, presented it to his bosses, and advocated for it to his bosses and ​to then-President‍ Trump while ‌serving as⁤ an acting assistant attorney ⁣general of the United States. Nonetheless, the Fulton County D.A. argues Clark ⁣was not acting “under color of office” because Clark’s ‌supervisors told Clark that⁤ sending the letter would‍ be outside⁣ the scope of authority of the ⁤DOJ and stated that​ Clark and his Civil Division had no role in election issues.

Meese’s affidavit eviscerated these arguments, citing the Department of Justice’s ⁢Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that‍ concluded assistant attorneys general are “not limited to any ‌one Division of the Department of Justice⁢ or any specific set of ‍duties,” but instead can ‍“be moved from ​heading most Divisions to instead heading most other Divisions at the discretion of ​the Attorney General.”

“And, of course,” Meese continued, ⁤“the Attorney General reports⁤ to⁤ the President,‌ which ‌means the President has discretion to assign duties to the ‌AAGs as the President sees‍ fit.”

Thus, as Meese concluded, Clark’s status as an acting​ assistant ‌attorney ⁢general in the Civil‍ Division did not prevent the president from assigning ⁢him other duties, including those related to⁤ election issues. In fact, “Clark directly ‌supervised 2020 election-related controversies in his capacity as Acting AAG of the Civil⁣ Division,” Meese ​noted.

“In short, taking positions on legal issues relating ‍to‌ the conduct⁣ of the 2020 ‌election and consideration of whether to pursue ⁤the policy option inherent in the alleged draft letter were not strictly off limits or out of bounds⁢ for Mr. Clark,” the affidavit concluded.

Not only was Clark acting within⁢ the “color​ of his office,” Clark’s conduct in drafting the ​letter and advocating⁣ for it to be ​sent‌ to the ‌Georgia legislature was​ protected by numerous privileges, including‍ the executive and‍ deliberate process privileges. Further, where “the opinion in question relates to whether, how, and to what‍ extent to exercise the President’s or the ​Department’s law enforcement‍ authorities under the President’s supervision,​ it is also subject to the law enforcement privilege,” Meese concluded.

These privileges provide ​Clark several defenses to potential criminal liability ​for the charges ‍alleged​ in⁣ the Fulton County indictment. And under the federal ‌removal statute, all a ⁣defendant needs to do — in addition to‍ establishing he acted “under color of such office” — is raise a colorable federal defense. Meese’s affidavit confirms Clark has done both and is ⁤thus entitled ⁣to remove the case to federal court.

Whether Judge Jones agrees remains ⁣to be seen, but Clark and the ‌country should know soon.

‌How will the outcome of this case⁢ impact future criminal prosecutions involving federal officials

Rlst__b89e9-paragraph-11″ id=”fdrlst__b89e9-b087d92ecfb32dc07c39c20b6ae8cb65″>

In‍ his affidavit,‌ Meese​ also emphasized the importance of upholding federal supremacy in this case. He stated that the prosecution of the President and an AAG represents​ an unprecedented affront to federal supremacy. He stressed that such a prosecution undermines​ the authority of the federal‌ government and sets a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching consequences⁢ for the ⁣functioning of our democratic system.

Meese’s support ⁣for Clark’s efforts to remove the indictment to federal court adds significant weight to the argument.‌ Clark has maintained that the case‌ should be heard in federal court due to the nature of the charges and the involvement of federal officials. He argues that as an AAG, he​ was acting in his official capacity and therefore falls under⁣ the federal ‍officer removal statute. Clark’s position is ​further strengthened by Meese’s affirmation that⁣ AAGs⁢ can be assigned duties by ⁤the President and are not limited to⁢ any specific division within the Department of Justice.

The outcome of this ⁢case will have​ important implications ⁣for future criminal prosecutions involving federal officials. It will determine whether state courts have the authority ⁤to prosecute federal officers or whether such cases ⁢should be heard in⁤ federal ⁣court. The decision will also shape the relationship between ‌state and federal governments and clarify the extent of ​federal supremacy in matters related to federal officers.

As Judge Jones considers Clark’s request to remove the indictment to federal court, he must carefully‌ weigh the arguments⁢ presented by both sides. The decision he reaches will ​have significant consequences and will set a precedent for similar cases‍ in the future.

Regardless of the outcome, the involvement of a former Attorney General in supporting Clark’s efforts to remove the indictment highlights the importance‌ of this case. It further underscores ⁣the need to carefully consider the balance of power ⁢between state and federal authorities and the potential impact on ⁢our⁤ democratic‍ system.

The hearing on Monday morning⁤ will be ‍closely watched by legal experts and observers alike. The decision reached by Judge Jones will shape the‍ course of this case and potentially⁤ impact the future prosecution of federal officers. It is⁣ a case⁣ that goes beyond the individual defendants and raises important questions about the division of authority between

" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments