Donald Trump speaks as then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows listens from the South Lawn of the White House in July 2020 (Alex Wong/Getty Images).
Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows failed to persuade a judge Monday that his Arizona fake electors prosecution should be moved to federal court, falling short for lateness and on the “merits” of his immunity-focused claims.
U.S. District Judge John Tuchi wrote that Meadows blew past a statutory deadline, 18 days late filed his notice of removal, and did not have “good cause” for doing so. The judge rejected the argument that Meadows’ waiting to file in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in Trump v. United States was a reason to delay.
“Mr. Meadows’s second reason for missing the unambiguous deadline set forth in § 1455(b)(1) fares no better. He asserts he waited to file his Notice of Removal because he anticipated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump could bear on his immunity defense, and upon its issuance, he argues, it does so bear. But again, that was no reason to miss the deadline to file his Notice of Removal,” the judge began. “Perhaps the Supreme Court’s holding in Trump does strengthen Mr. Meadow’s claim and perhaps it does not—that question will remain until it is taken up in the context of a possible motion to dismiss his case filed in the proper forum.”
“While Mr. Meadows might well want to delay filing any motion to dismiss until he has had the opportunity to evaluate Trump for its potential impact on his argument of the immunity defense, the filing of that motion is—even now—still well in the future, and there was no need or reason to delay filing the Notice itself,” the judge added.
From there, Tuchi turned to the merits of Meadows’ arguments. As he did in the context of his Georgia RICO case, Meadows has tried to remove a Arizona conspiracy, fraud, and forgery case to federal court on grounds the allegations “squarely relate[] to Mr. Meadows’s conduct as Chief of Staff to the President” and that “[n]othing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se.” Meadows has maintained that the Trump immunity decision made clear that “federal immunity fully protects former officers” and “protects against the use of official acts to try to hold a current or former federal officer liable for unofficial acts.”
For Meadows, he was merely receiving and sometimes answering text messages from individuals who were “trying to get ideas in front of President Trump or seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the President’s campaign” to overturn the 2020 election results and keep Trump in office.
“Serving as the filter for the President’s time and attention is well within the Chief of Staff’s role,” a Meadows filing previously said. “Indeed, it would be unusual if people did not reach out to the Chief of Staff on these matters or that a Chief of Staff would not be aware of these significant matters demanding the attention of the President.”
More Law&Crime coverage: Mark Meadows unmasked in Arizona fake electors indictment, faces multiple felony charges
Tuchi responded by saying Meadows is not alleged to have been a mere “gatekeeper” receiving texts messages while chief of staff, but rather a coordinator of and participant in an illegal “‘scheme’ to overturn the results of the 2020 election.”
“Although Mr. Meadows has adduced no evidence beyond his own say-so supporting his description of the Chief of Staff’s official authority, the State has not offered a competing construction. Therefore, the Court credits Mr. Meadows’s assertion regarding the Chief of Staff’s scope of office,” the judge wrote. “However, this conclusion is unavailing to Mr. Meadows because his vision of the Chief of Staff’s color of office does not correspond to the facts of this case.”
The judge went so far as to say Meadows had “rewritten” and “refram[ed]” the indictment to erroneously argue he is charged for receiving texts.
“Contrary to Mr. Meadows’s assertions, the State has not indicted Mr. Meadows for merely facilitating communication to and from the President or for simply staying abreast of campaign goings-on. Instead, the State has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly orchestrating and participating in an illegal electioneering scheme. Few, if any, of the State’s factual allegations even resemble the secretarial duties that Mr. Meadows maintains are the subject of the indictment. None of the factual allegations at issue here mention management of the President’s time or facilitation of communication to and from the President, much less that any such time management or communication facilitation constitutes the charged conduct in this case,” Tuchi said. “Similarly, contrary to Mr. Meadows’s reframing of the indictment, he is not being prosecuted for receiving text messages intended to simply keep him ‘apprised of what was happening’ with the Trump campaign.”
After concluding that there was no “causal nexus between Mr. Meadows’s official authority and the charged conduct,” the judge at the very end up the ruling said there was some more rewriting that caught his eye.
Paragraph from Trump indictment referenced in Meadows ruling.
Tuchi said Meadows twisted special counsel Jack Smith’s words about him in Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment and, through “artful alteration,” made a “not accurate” point:
Mr. Meadows asserts that Special Counsel Jack Smith alleged in a separate case that “Mr. Meadows participated because, as ‘Chief of Staff, . . . [he] sometimes handled private and Campaign-related logistics for [the President].”” (Reply at 5 (quoting Superseding Indictment at 13 ¶ 33, United States v. Trump, (No. 23-cr-257 ECF No. 226)).) That representation, made by way of artful alteration of the Special Counsel’s wording, is not accurate. The Special Counsel did not allege that Mr. Meadows handled private or campaign-related affairs as Chief of Staff. Instead, the Special Counsel simply noted that “the Defendant [President Trump], his Chief of Staff—who sometimes handled private and Campaign-related logistics for the Defendant—and private attorneys . . . called the Secretary of State.” In other words, the Special Counsel merely alleged that Mr. Meadows, who happened to occupy the office of Chief of Staff, undertook certain private actions. The Special Counsel did not insinuate that all actions taken by Mr. Meadows during his tenure as Chief of Staff are ipso facto official actions under color of office.
Meadows is reportedly going to mount an appeal at the Ninth Circuit.
Read the ruling here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
