Like the good little Nazi that he is, Mark Meadows is preparing an “I was only following orders” defense and is seeking to have the trial being prepared for him in the state of Georgia moved into federal court, desiring, presumedly, a more favorable jury pool and judges and a smoother path for an appeal to SCOTUS which “the boss” had packed prior to getting the boot from the voters.

And, of course Trump will most likely follow suit when the time comes.

Federal charges would be much preferred by both of the scumbags because, of course, if Trump or some other Republican terrified of Trump and the Republican base triumphs over Biden in 2024, then either could pardon the whole seditious lot of them, or, if the trials have not wrapped up by then, federal charges could be squashed by Attorney General Matt Gaetz or Sean Hannity.

Vanity Fair writes:

“Mark Meadows, who as Donald Trump’s chief of staff aided in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, is attempting to get his Georgia charges moved to federal court and dismissed—a preview of the strategy his former boss is expected to employ after being indicted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis Monday on 13 counts, including racketeering.

In a motion Tuesday, Meadows’ attorneys argued that the allegations “giving rise to the charges in the indictment all occurred during his tenure and as part of his service as Chief of Staff,” rendering the case beyond the jurisdiction of the state under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The charges, his team argued, should also be dismissed. “Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se: arranging Oval Office meetings, contacting state officials on the President’s behalf, visiting a state government building, and setting up a phone call for the President,” wrote Meadows’ lawyers, George Terwilliger and Joseph Englert. “One would expect a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States to do these sorts of things.”

The trouble with that argument is that Meadow’s involvement to change the result of the Georgia vote went beyond making telephone appointments and arranging meetings and coffee in the Oval Office.

As MSNBC reports Meadows traveled to Georgia to attempt to shoulder his way into a signature matching standard procedure, a procedure that he as a federal officer had no business attending, and which was rebuffed by Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs.

And Meadows personally tried to pressure Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger into cooperating with Trump’s schemes:

“Two days later, on Dec. 29, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger released a statement saying a hand recount and machine recount of the votes requested by the Trump campaign confirmed Trump had lost the presidential race in Georgia. Raffensperger, a Republican, also said the signature match audit found no fraudulent absentee ballots.

Despite the results Raffensperger announced, Meadows and Trump allegedly committed the felony of solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer by “unlawfully soliciting, requesting and importuning Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony of adjusting, and otherwise unlawfully influencing the certified returns for the presidential electors for the November 3 presidential election in Georgia.”

In a recording of the hour-long conference call obtained by ABC News, Trump told Raffensperger that he wanted to “find 11,780 votes” that would declare him the winner in Georgia. During the call, Meadows told Raffensperger, “There are allegations where we believe that not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted and that’s at odds with the representation from the secretary of state’s office,” according to the recording.“

As the Vanity Fair article notes:

“It’s a dubious argument—that the effort to subvert the democratic process was undertaken as part of his “official duties”—but it’s one that Trump himself is expected to use, as well, ABC News reports. Essentially, it’s a play for a more favorable jury pool and judge, as Politico noted Tuesday. Trump’s attempt to do this in Manhattan, where he’s facing felony charges stemming an alleged hush-money scheme, was batted down by a federal judge. And, as a Brookings Institution analysis last year concluded, charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss are also not subject to removal to federal court—even if he used his government office to further his alleged plot.

“Neither the Constitution nor applicable federal statutes vest the president with any authority or responsibility to interfere with the administration of the Georgia election,” the Brookings panel wrote.“

Mark Meadow should know, as does every recruit in The U.S. Military, that one is not obligated to follow an illegal order, no matter the rank of the person issuing that order.

States are charge by law to administer their own elections free from Federal interference and states are allowed to prosecute those who attempt to subvert with that process.

Your “Just following orders” defense just ain’t gonna fly, Meadows.

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. “As MSNBC reports Meadows traveled to Georgia to attempt to shoulder his way into a signature matching standard procedure, an attempt that he as a federal officer had no business attending, and which was rebuffed by Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs.”


    It’s in the indictment. Don’t really need the “breathless MSNBC reports…” part. 🙂

    More seriously, in reading the comments sections in other MSM, it repeatedly strikes me that altogether too many folks are relying more on the articles they read rather than bothering to READ THE INDICTMENT. It’s ALL in there. Really. Lawrence O’Donnell was one of the few who got it right in his opening block. Read it. It’s a great mystery story with a convincing ending! 🙂

  2. I find it interesting that it’s Meadows that is trying this instead of Trump himself, even though as you say Trump is expected to also give this a shot. My understanding is that there is actually a credible argument that can be made in court on this. Not necessarily a winning one but credible enough to get actual consideration. However my point remains – why Meadows instead of Trump leading this gambit? I say Meadows is still following orders from Trump and going first as a “test case.” As in it won’t get laughed out of court but will likely fail, AND that Trump (or rather his lawyers) will want to parse the decision (if Meadows is denied) for whether a better argument can be crafted that might ultimately prevail.

    Basically, Trump sees a path through a minefield but isn’t sure there isn’t a mine or two in the path itself so he’s ordered Meadows to walk if first.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here