126

Judge denies Jeffrey Clark’s attempt to move Georgia case to federal court (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A judge denied former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark’s attempt to move his Georgia charges to federal court Friday, dealing another significant blow to the early defense strategy being pursued by several charged individuals in former President Trump’s Georgia case.

Like the others, Clark argued he was acting in his capacity as a federal official, an assertion that, if accepted, could provide a pathway for him to assert immunity.

But U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, an Obama appointee, in a 31-page ruling rejected Clark’s argument Friday, the second such time Jones has done so for a defendant.

“The Court concludes that Clark has not submitted evidence to meet his burden to show that his actions were causally related to his federal office,” Jones wrote in his decision.

He previously rejected an attempt mounted by Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, though Meadows is appealing. Jones has not yet ruled on the requests to move courts filed by the three “fake electors” charged in the indictment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

💀

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023

126 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19077 readers

3282 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News