PolitMaster.com is a comprehensive online platform providing insightful coverage of the political arena: International Relations, Domestic Policies, Economic Developments, Electoral Processes, and Legislative Updates. With expert analysis, live updates, and in-depth features, we bring you closer to the heart of politics. Exclusive interviews, up-to-date photos, and video content, alongside breaking news, keep you informed around the clock. Stay engaged with the world of politics 24/7.

Contacts

  • Owner: SNOWLAND s.r.o.
  • Registration certificate 06691200
  • 16200, Na okraji 381/41, Veleslavín, 162 00 Praha 6
  • Czech Republic

Mark Meadows takes fight to have Georgia election interference charges tossed to the Supreme Court

Donald Trump’s former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is asking the Supreme Court to intervene in his election interference case in Georgia, where he is criminally charged for his alleged attempts to reverse Trump’s election loss in the state in 2020.

Meadows — who was charged alongside Trump and more than a dozen other allies for an alleged plot to pressure state officials and election workers — is now invoking the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on presidential “immunity” to bail him out of charges for what he said were his official duties as Trump’s top White House aide.

Meadows, who has pleaded not guilty, had tried to move his state criminal case into federal court, arguing the actions at the center of the charges were under his official capacity as Trump’s most senior White House aide.

But a federal district court and appeals court judges rejected his argument, kicking off his appeal to the nation’s highest court.

“Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” his attorneys wrote in a petition dated on July 26.

“A White House Chief of Staff facing criminal charges based on actions relating to his work for the President of the United States should not be a close call,” they argued.

His attorneys said the appeals court ruling was “egregiously wrong” — pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision presidential “immunity” to make the case that “federal immunity fully protects former officers, often requires difficult and fact-intensive judgment calls at the margins, and provides not just a substantive immunity but a use immunity that

Read more on independent.co.uk