DA Willis dismisses Meadows’s attempt to obstruct arrest as ‘groundless’.
Georgia Prosecutor Opposes Emergency Motion to Prevent Arrest of Former Trump Chief of Staff
A Georgia prosecutor is pushing back against an emergency motion filed by Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff to former President Donald Trump. The motion seeks to prevent Meadows’ arrest in Georgia, where he, President Trump, and others are facing charges related to their attempts to contest the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, in a court filing on Aug. 23, strongly criticized the motion, calling it “baseless and in direct contravention with the requirements of the law.” She argued that the motion is essentially a plea to avoid arrest on the charges brought by the State of Georgia, despite being characterized as a “temporary pause.”
Related Stories
According to Willis, the request made by Meadows is improper. She also filed a similar response opposing a request for a pause made by defendant Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official. Willis is urging the judge to deny both requests.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones subsequently denied both emergency motions to pause the proceedings. While the order on Clark’s request was brief, the order on Meadows’ request spanned six pages and cited an upcoming hearing as the rationale. The court refrained from commenting on the removal itself, focusing solely on the defendants’ ability to avoid arrest while their notice of removals are pending.
Willis set a deadline of noon on Aug. 25 for the 19 defendants to surrender voluntarily or face arrest.
Emergency Motion
A day after the indictment on Aug. 14, Meadows filed a notice of removal, seeking to move the case to federal court based on his status as a federal officer. Other defendants followed suit with similar notices in the following week.
An evidentiary hearing between the prosecution, Willis, and Meadows’ attorneys was scheduled for Aug. 28. However, Meadows’ attorneys argue that, under his constitutional federal officer immunity, he is immune to arrest and other court actions in state jurisdiction.
They pushed for an earlier hearing or a ruling without a hearing, after multiple requests to meet with Willis’s office before the noon deadline on Aug. 25 went unanswered.
Willis declined, stating that “your client is no different than any other criminal defendant in this jurisdiction. Two weeks was a tremendous courtesy. At 12:30, I shall file warrants in the system.”
The court then gave Willis a deadline of 3 p.m. on Aug. 23 to respond to Meadows’ emergency motion.
The response from the State asks the court to dismiss or deny the emergency motion.
DA Response
Willis argued that Meadows’ contention that the case should be immediately removed on the papers is meritless. She pointed to Code 1445, which prevents conviction in a case being removed but does not prevent other proceedings. Meadows’ lawyers had argued that the supremacy clause prevents federal officers from being arrested and brought to trial in state court, citing a case from 1879.
Willis further argued that an evidentiary hearing is required, even if the notice of removal is pending in federal court.
She wrote, “The defendant’s request to immediately remove the case is a not so subtle request to invite the Court to improperly prevent the State from proceeding against the defendant pending the Court’s ruling on the notice of removal.” Willis asked the court to dismiss or deny the emergency motion.
She also emphasized that the possibility of Meadows needing to defend himself in both state and federal court does not constitute irreparable injury. Willis cited previous cases where federal courts have denied requests to interfere in state criminal prosecutions, particularly when the state cases are brought in good faith.
“Here, the defendant does not allege that his prosecution is taken in bad faith, that there is no hope of obtaining a valid conviction, or that it is being taken to harass the defendant. The defendant is simply requesting that this Court prevent him from being lawfully arrested as any criminal defendant would be after indictment on felony charges,” Willis argued.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...