Former President Donald Trump could follow the co-defendants in his case who have sought to remove their Georgia charges to federal court, a move that legal experts explained would create some distance from Fulton County politics.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Justice Department official Jeff Clark and former Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer, all indicted in District Attorney Fani Willis’ probe into Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election in Georgia, are among the defendants who have filed motions to remove their cases to federal court.

Trump may soon seek to make a similar move, which would provide access to a different judge and jury, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The federal judge might be a judge named to be the bench by President Trump, or at least by another Republican President,” Emory University School of Law Professor Jonathan Nash told the DCNF. “Trump and his lawyer might think that would be beneficial, and that surely wouldn’t be the case in state court.”

“More importantly, a federal court would feature a different, larger jury pool: The state court jury would be drawn entirely from Fulton County, whereas the jury for a federal court trial would be drawn from ten counties in the Atlanta Division of the Northern District of Georgia,” he explained, noting that this would include jurors from counties with vote totals that were more favorable to the former president during the past two elections.

Cornell Law School Professor William A. Jacobson similarly noted the move would “add some distance from Fulton county politics.”


Meadows’ lawyers argue in his filing that the charges he was indicted for all “occurred during his tenure and as part of his service as Chief of Staff.” They cite a law that allows criminal prosecutions commenced in state court against a federal official operating “under color of [his] office” to be removed to a federal district court.

“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,” Meadows’ lawyers wrote in an Aug. 15 court filing. “One would expect a Chief of Staff to the President of the United States to do these sorts of things. And they have far less to do with the interests of state law than, for example, murder charges that have been successfully removed.”

In a Friday filing, Meadows’ lawyers countered the prosecutors’ claim that his actions were outside the scope of his official duties, writing that he “did not stop assisting the President just because the President was doing something personal or political.”

Trump could assert similar immunity from state prosecution on the grounds that the actions were taken while in federal office, Jacobson said, adding that he anticipates such an effort would likely be successful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *