Reagan’s ex-AG deems Trump’s prosecution a major challenge to federal authority.

Former‌ Attorney ⁤General Slams Prosecution of Trump and Clark in Georgia

In a historic⁤ “affront” to federal constitutional authority, former Attorney General Edwin Meese criticized the prosecution of former President Donald Trump and former Justice Department official ​Jeffrey Clark in Georgia. Meese, who led the DOJ under⁤ Ronald Reagan, strongly condemned ‌Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ unprecedented case against ‍Trump ⁣and Clark. U.S. ⁤District Judge Steve Jones has been overseeing the challenges to their prosecution for alleged crimes in Georgia after the 2020 election.

In a declarative filing to Judge Jones, Meese, now 91 years old, expressed his ​concerns. “I am not aware of any state​ criminal ⁢prosecution ever being brought‌ against a President and a senior ⁢Justice ‌Department official like Mr. Clark for their privileged and confidential discussions of whether and how to assert​ federal ⁣law enforcement ‌authority other than this new‍ State of Georgia v. ‍Trump, et al. Indictment,” Meese wrote‍ last week.

Meese continued, stating that the prosecution of the President and⁤ Clark is a‍ major affront to ‌federal supremacy, unprecedented in⁤ the history of the country. He⁣ warned that if this prosecution were accepted, state law ⁤enforcement officials could arrest local U.S.⁤ Attorneys and their Assistants while they were deliberating over whether and how to approach a possible prosecution of state or local officials. Meese referred to the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution, which states that the Constitution and subsequent laws passed under the authority of the U.S.⁣ “shall be‍ the supreme Law of‌ the Land.”

Meese also drew parallels to the‌ Civil Rights‍ era, highlighting the conflicts between state and federal authorities ​over civil rights legislation. ‌He argued that under Fulton County’s interpretation,⁣ state or local authorities could ⁢even enter ​the Oval⁤ Office and arrest the President and his Attorney General during their deliberations over federal ‍law enforcement powers ⁤against state or local officials. “Not even‍ George Wallace or Orval Faubus, during the heights⁢ of the heated civil rights-era disputes, were willing to go⁣ that far against⁢ President Kennedy and his Attorney General Robert F.​ Kennedy,”⁤ Meese wrote.

CLICK HERE ‌TO GET THE ⁣DAILY WIRE APP

Jeffrey Clark,⁤ who was⁣ charged with violating Georgia’s RICO⁣ Act ⁤and​ attempting to commit false statements and writings, was ⁢at the​ center of ‌the controversy. Clark, ‍while at the DOJ, drafted a‍ document expressing concerns about the ​outcome of ⁣the election in‌ multiple states, including Georgia. ‌He argued that ⁣he was⁣ acting within ⁢his official duties, but has been accused of promoting false statements. Meese supported Clark, asserting‍ that he was ⁤acting within his official prerogatives.

What are Meese’s concerns regarding‌ the potential impact of the prosecution on future presidents and officials engaging in candid policy discussions?

Meese argued that the prosecution of ​Trump​ and ⁣Clark in Georgia sets a dangerous precedent, undermining the balance of power​ between state and federal authorities. He ‍emphasized the need to protect the‍ confidential discussions and decision-making processes ⁢within‌ the executive ​branch, which are essential for effective governance.

The ⁢former Attorney General pointed out that⁢ such discussions between⁣ a ⁤president and senior Justice Department officials have historically⁤ been shielded from criminal prosecution. He cited the importance⁤ of preserving the executive privilege,⁢ which enables ⁣open and frank deliberations among government officials without fear of legal ​repercussions.

Meese questioned the legal basis‌ for the charges brought against Trump and Clark, arguing that they were exercising their lawful authority ⁢and engaging in routine policy discussions. He ⁤expressed ‌concerns that the prosecution ⁣could⁢ deter future presidents and officials from engaging in candid conversations, ultimately hindering effective decision-making⁤ and undermining the functioning‍ of​ the executive​ branch.

The former ⁤Attorney General also criticized the‌ timing ​of the prosecution, suggesting that it is politically motivated and potentially aimed at tarnishing‍ the reputation of ⁣Trump and Clark. He noted​ the absence of any evidence indicating criminal⁤ conduct, further raising⁣ doubts about the ‌validity of the charges.

Meese’s intervention‍ in ​the case highlights the ⁢broader concern among​ legal experts and scholars about the far-reaching implications of the prosecution.‍ Many fear​ that allowing state authorities to criminally prosecute federal ⁣officials involved in policy discussions would disrupt the delicate balance​ between the federal and​ state governments and blur the boundaries ‍of executive privilege.

While the ultimate outcome ‍of ⁣the case remains uncertain,‍ the involvement of Meese adds weight ‌to the arguments against the prosecution and underscores the ⁤significance of protecting the institutional arrangements and ⁣principles that underpin the effective functioning of the government.

As the ​legal battle continues, it is crucial⁣ to carefully consider the⁤ implications of prosecuting Trump and Clark. The​ case has far-reaching constitutional ​implications that extend beyond the individuals involved, raising questions ‌about the jurisdiction of state authorities over federal officials and the protection of ‌executive ‍privilege.

The outcome of this case‍ will not only impact the legacy of Trump and Clark⁣ but ‍could also shape ‌the‌ future ⁣of executive power and the functioning of the American government. It serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between the⁤ branches of government and the need to protect⁤ the ⁣integrity of the executive branch’s decision-making processes.