Mark Meadows seeks to stop prosecution of fraudulent electors in Arizona
From left to right: Then-President Donald Trump speaks with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows outside the White House in 2020 (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File).
Mark Meadows is trying to remove a state criminal case from federal court on the grounds that he was then-President Donald Trump’s chief of staff at the time and was therefore entitled to an “immediate dismissal.” This time, however, he is challenging charges of conspiracy, fraud and forgery in his Arizona fraudulent electoral college case — and this time he is claiming the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity decision in Trump v. United States helps his case.
Meadows has repeatedly failed to take his Georgia RICO case to federal court, but he has since taken his case from the 11th Circuit to the Supreme Court. In July, he told the Supreme Court that Trump’s immunity decision made clear that “federal immunity fully protects former officials” and “protects against the use of official acts to hold a sitting or former federal official liable for unofficial acts.”
In a dismissal notice filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Meadows and his attorneys made a similar argument, saying that the charges against him arose from actions “directly related to Mr. Meadows’ conduct as Chief of Staff to the President” and that “nothing that Mr. Meadows is accused of in the indictment is criminal. pere.”
More law and crime coverage: ‘The Signing’ catches up with Arizona’s fake electors and some of Trump’s closest advisers, while indictment shows concerns about ‘legal jeopardy’ were laughed at
According to Meadows, he only received and responded to text messages from people who “attempted to convey ideas to President Trump or to update Mr. Meadows on the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the President’s campaign” to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election and keep Trump in office.
“Acting as a filter for the President’s time and attention is well within the Chief of Staff’s responsibilities,” Meadows’ documents say. “In fact, it would be unusual if people did not go to the Chief of Staff on these matters or if a Chief of Staff did not know about these important matters that require the President’s attention.”
Trump’s former chief of staff requested an evidentiary hearing, claiming that at best, justice “requires the immediate dismissal of the charges,” but at best, it “requires” the granting of a dismissal and an immediate “cease” of state prosecution “while the motion to dismiss is being decided.”
More coverage on law and crime: Mark Meadows exposed in Arizona for fraudulent electors, faces multiple capital crimes charges
“In fact, it is obvious that the text messages Mr Meadows received were sent to him Because “He was the President’s Chief of Staff,” the file states. “The senders wanted to convey their message to the President through Mr. Meadows, to persuade the President’s closest adviser, or simply to keep Mr. Meadows informed of events.”
“When these messages arrived on Mr. Meadows’ phone, none of them required him to give up his role as the President’s Chief of Staff,” his lawyers continued. “To the contrary, dealing with such messages from people seeking the President’s attention or seeking to influence his decisions is clearly the responsibility of the Chief of Staff.”
Meadows also argued that even if the news evidence suggested that the conduct alleged against the co-defendants violated state law, he would be helped.
“This is another reason why it would be appropriate for the Chief of Staff to be aware of this,” the statement said. “Only if the Chief of Staff were informed of such proposals could he ensure that the President receives sound advice to counteract any unsound advice he may receive.”
But the defendant also made the overarching argument – as he did in the Supreme Court brief mentioned above – that the immunity case against Trump not only demonstrated the “importance of strong immunity for the President of the United States” but also provided a way for him to avoid criminal prosecution by the state as a former top adviser.
“While this decision protects the immunity of a former president from federal Prosecution, their argument supports immunity from Condition prosecution for the President and his senior advisers,” the statement said. “It also underscores the importance of the Federal Officer Removal Statute, which Congress enacted to defend these Supremacy Clause interests.”
The court filing shows that U.S. District Judge John Tuchi has already scheduled an evidentiary hearing for the morning of September 5 and ordered Arizona to respond by August 26.
Law&Crime has contacted Meadows’ attorney in Arizona for comment.
Read the case file here.
Do you have a tip we should know? (email protected)
