Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to the president, surrendered on Aug. 24 at the Fulton County jail and was released on $100,000 bond, according to jail records.
Mr. Meadows’s attorneys had made attempts to prevent the arrest: a day after the Aug. 14 indictment naming Mr. Meadows alongside former President Donald Trump and 17 other defendants, they filed a notice of removal to move the case from state to federal court. An Aug. 28 hearing was ordered the day after.
The Georgia case had been brought by Fulton County District Attorney against the 19 defendants for violating the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act when they acted to challenge the 2020 election results in what Ms. Willis called a “criminal racketeering enterprise.” The indictment alleges the defendants knowingly committed false and fraudulent deeds while believing President Trump had actually lost reelection.
She gave the defendants until noon on Aug. 25 to surrender voluntarily or face arrest.
Mr. Meadows was charged with two counts; in addition to racketeering, he was accused of “unlawfully soliciting, requesting, and importuning” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to violate his oath of office during a phone call where President Trump asked about the state’s votes and asked Mr. Raffensperger to investigate election fraud.
Mr. Meadows argues that all of his actions were taken as a federal official and that the actions listed in the indictment were things one “would expect a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States to do.” The removal to federal court would have also dismissed the case against him, under the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.
On Aug. 18, Mr. Meadows’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss all charges against him based on supremacy clause immunity. Federal law precedes state laws and courts, and precedents have ruled that federal officers conducting official duties do not have to consider state law and that cases against federal officers should be tried in federal court.
Meanwhile, Mr. Meadows’s lawyers sent several rounds of communications to Ms. Willis’s office, which they later submitted to court. The attorneys had requested to meet earlier than Monday, Aug. 28 to discuss the case removal, and Ms. Willis’s office said that would not be possible. Then, they requested the arrest deadline be delayed for their client until after the Aug. 28 hearing on his case removal, with the expectation that no arrest would be necessary once the case had been removed.
Ms. Willis refused, responding that Mr. Meadows would be treated like any other criminal defendant.
“We both know that is simply not true,” attorney John Moran wrote in response.
They then filed an emergency motion in court, requesting an immediate resolution. Ms. Willis was given an Aug. 23 deadline to respond, in which she called Mr. Meadows’s motion “baseless” and “meritless.”
Witnesses Subpoenaed to Testify
Only one notice of removal is required to move the entire case to federal court, Mr. Meadows’s lawyers noted. The issue of removal was raised by observers since the unusual indictment was handed up on Aug. 14. Because it is a state criminal case, not a federal one, a conviction could not be pardoned by a president.Besides Mr. Meadows, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and alternate elector David Shafer have also filed notices of removal.
“Because the defendant faces charges that do not arise from conduct under the color of his office, and because he can offer no plausible federal defense, the State of Georgia respectfully requests that this Court remand the case to the Superior Court of Fulton County,” it reads.
It accuses Mr. Meadows of acting outside the lawful scope of his official duties. “Federal law prohibits employees of the executive branch from engaging in political activity in the course of their work,” it reads, citing the Hatch Act. She argued that Mr. Meadows was not acting as a federal official, but instead disregarding his duties as a federal official.
Ms. Willis also cites the report produced by a special grand jury after hearing testimony from 75 witnesses, which alleged that officials acted to “promote the reelection of President Trump in violation of the law.”
Mr. Meadows’s motion to dismiss charges gave additional defenses, including the First Amendment protections for political activity. Ms. Willis argued this was an admission that Mr. Meadows engaged in political activity, which meant his case could not be removed to federal court. She did not address the First Amendment protection.
