A panel of three federal judges appointed by presidents George Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden peppered attorneys for former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and the Fulton County district attorney’s office with questions Friday during a hearing on Meadows’ ongoing effort to move the election interference charges against him in Georgia out of state court and into federal court.
Meadows was charged in Fulton County this summer, alongside former President Donald Trump and 17 others, with conspiring to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. He pleaded not guilty and has since unsuccessfully sought to remove the case to federal court based on a law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings when someone is charged for actions they allegedly took as a federal official acting “under color” of their office.
Meadows was not present in court as his attorney urged the judges on 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling and remove his case to federal court.
Meadows is charged for “acts taken in the West Wing of the White House by the highest appointed White House official,” argued Meadows’ attorney, George Terwilliger.
The judges appeared at times skeptical of Meadows’ attorneys’ arguments, pressing them on the limits of federal authority.
Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, pressed Terwilliger about what the boundaries of Meadows’ job were.
“According to [Meadows], it seems like everything was within his official duties, and that just cannot be right,” said Rosenbaum in reference to Meadows’ testimony in an earlier evidentiary hearing on the matter. She referred to it his conduct as “electioneering on behalf of a specific political candidate.”
Later, Terwilliger suggested during his arguments that the removal issue amounted to “interference” — which drew a quick and firm disagreement from the chief judge.
“I don’t see how this is any way interfering with the Biden administration,” Chief Judge William Pryor Jr., a Bush appointee, said, interrupting Terwilliger.
“It’s not interfering with the Biden administration, but it is interfering with the administration of federal law in federal courts, and that’s what the statute is designed to accomplish,” Terwilliger responded.
After Terwilliger’s arguments, Donald Wakeford of the Fulton County DA’s office urged the court to “affirm” the lower court’s decision to leave the case in state court, insetting that the law should not apply to former federal officials.
“Mr. Meadows was unable on the stand to provide a cogent explanation of what the scope of his office was,” Wakeford said. “Mr. Meadows consistently, in briefing and when he testified, provided no limits whatsoever.”
The judges pressed Wakeford as well — specifically on the a potential “chilling effect” that keeping the case in state court could have on on future federal civil servants.
Judge Pryor pressed Wakeford on how to “address the concern of a chilling effect” that could occur if federal officials in an administration “that might be unpopular in certain jurisdictions” could be immediately prosecuted after leaving office, with no way to present federal defenses in federal court.
“That puts us really in an untenable situation,” Judge Pryor said, with Rosenbaum asking, “Doesn’t that create a chilling effect in some way on people who might consider running for office, for people who are in office, and maybe they think twice about what they’re going to do because they are concerned about being indicted later and not being able to have a trial in a federal forum?”
Wakeford conceded it was a “concern,” but pushed back.
“I still don’t know that we can stand here in the court today and say that there are people out there who will refuse to pursue civic duties because of the interpretation [the…
This article was originally published by a abcnews.go.com . Read the Original article here. .