Mark Meadows' Federal Court Hearing: What It Really Means for the Trump Administration and Legal Proceedings – Flopping Aces

Re the Meadows’ removal motion in federal court in Atlanta yesterday:

Mark Meadows, former chief of staff under the Trump administration, testified for five hours before a court about his role in the 2020 election contests. Mr. Meadows was advancing the theory that he was a federal officer at the time acting under the color of that office and as such the case against him should be moved to federal court. This move by the defendant sparked controversy among the legal community that generally would advise their client to not testify if they do not have to, as it opens them up to cross-examination.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case against Meadows revolves around him setting up calls between the former president and state legislatures. Meadows’s attorneys argued that this was not a criminal act and that Meadows was simply doing his job as chief of staff by petitioning the government on the president’s behalf. “Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se… This is precisely the kind of state interference in a federal official’s duties that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits, and that the removal statute shields against,” noted George Terwilliger and Joseph Englert, Meadows’ attorneys.

Georgia’s prosecutors cross-examined the former chief of staff and argued that if he was truly acting in his official capacity then this would open him up to Hatch Act violations given that “[f]ederal law prohibits employees of the executive branch from engaging in political activity in the course of their work.” When they challenged Mr. Meadows on what situation would arise that he would consider to be outside his scope of official duties, Mr. Meadows only proffered one. He said that campaign events would fall outside such legitimate scope of his office.

The POTUS Chief of Staff has duties and responsibilities outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post.

That means he can engage in political activities when he is an employee paid by the Executive Office of the President, or a Senate confirmed political appointee.

The statue recognizes that being Chief of Staff is a 24/7 job and your responsibilities can still exist regardless of where you are.

In other words, you are not an employee with set work hours and a set work location.

Federal employees CAN engage in campaign activities — they just cannot do it at work.

Meadows fits into the exception referenced in this statute because of the nature of his job.

What everyone needs to keep in mind here is the standard that is applicable — the purpose of the hearing yesterday was not to prove or disprove the the factual issues that were the main point of contention.

Meadows only has to prove that he has a colorable defense he can raise at trial that his actions were part of his federal job duties. The only standard he must get past is that the claim is not frivolous.