For those somehow out of the loop, President Trump and 18 of his associates face a 41-count indictment in Georgia alleging his efforts to challenge the official results of the 2020 election amounted to a racketeering conspiracy.
The defendants had until Friday noon to surrender themselves in order to avoid arrest. All have been promptly released on bail, except for Harrison Floyd, a former U.S. Marine and former head of Black Voices for Trump, who has reportedly been held in custody without bail.
There was some speculation that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis brought the charges before she had the case ready. One of the defendants, lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, appeared to test that speculation, asking for a speedy trial. The DA then proposed to move her preferred trial date from March 4 to October 23. A number of lawyers have opined that even the March date was unrealistic given the case’s size and complexity. Some of those complexities will need to be resolved before the trial commences.
So What’s ‘Removal’?
Several of the defendants have filed requests to have the case moved to a federal court on the argument that they acted “under color” of federal office. That may be advantageous to President Trump since it would broaden the jury pool beyond the deep blue Fulton County.
In fact, when a removal request goes through, it usually leads to dismissal of the charges, a career defense attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon told The Epoch Times.
The issue is that federal officials enjoy immunity from prosecution in general as long as they acted on their official duties.
If a judge grants the removal, “that rolls right into” the argument that the federal immunity should apply as well, she explained.
Ms. Gordon noted that the Supreme Court has previously construed federal immunity rather expansively, especially as it applies to the president.
In the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case of 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that a former president is covered by “absolute immunity” for official actions taken during his term and that the immunity extends to the “outer perimeter” of his duties. The court didn’t specify how broad that perimeter is, but the case suggests it’s extremely broad, Ms. Gordon said.
“To find that his behavior is outside of that immunity, you would have to say the behavior is something that does not overlap in any way with his duties or responsibilities.”
The 1982 ruling only pertained to civil lawsuits, but she argued the court is likely to apply a similar framework to criminal charges.
If the charges get dismissed for the defendants eligible for removal, the rest of the case could then be sent back to the state court.
President Trump has yet to make his removal request.
The request of his former chief-of-staff, Mark Meadows, is scheduled for a court hearing on Monday.
