I have to admit, I had given up trusting the usefulness (and teeth) of the Hatch Act. SO many presidential administrations have violated it and gotten away with it.
Trump’s administration acted like it didn’t even exist.
And that was BEFORE they all tried to overthrow the government.
Mark Meadows himself commented on his disregard for the law, and Fani seems to have remembered……….
“Nobody outside of the Beltway really cares….” — Mark Meadows, Aug. 2020
That’s what Mark Meadows said about the Hatch Act.
Fani does NOT concur. Fani found a way to give the act some much-needed (vampire) dentures, to bite-back at Mark Meadows’ attempt to dismiss the case AND to remove the case to federal court.
From DA Willis’s filing:
The defendant is the former Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, and his lack of care for the lawful scope of his official duties is a matter of record. Federal law prohibits employees of the executive branch from engaging in political activity in the course of their work.
The law in question, known as the Hatch Act, bars a federal employee from “us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” 5 U.S.C. §7323(a)(1).
On November 9, 2021, the Office of Special Counsel issued an investigative report finding that prior to Election Day, during Donald J. Trump’s campaign for the presidency in 2020, the defendant and at least a dozen other Trump administration officials “did precisely that”:
And while the specific facts of each case are different, they share this fundamental commonality—senior Trump administration officials chose to use their official authority not for the legitimate functions of the government, but to promote the reelection of President Trump in violation of the law.
The report concluded that, “[f]rom OSC’s perspective, the administration’s attitude toward Hatch Act compliance was succinctly captured by then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who said during an interview that ‘nobody outside the Beltway really cares’ about Trump administration officials violating the Hatch Act.”
Jay Kuo noticed that in chess, this is known as a “fork” move.
Willis lays a brilliant trap
When I read Fani Willis’s response last night, I whistled in admiration. As a one-time avid chess player myself, I recognize a “fork” trap when I see one. A fork move is when a single piece attacks more than one piece simultaneously, as when a knight threatens both a queen and a rook from its new position. When executed correctly, no matter what the opponent does next, it will lead to a body blow.
That is the trap Willis has laid out in her papers. She begins by arguing that, under the Hatch Act, federal officials within the Executive Branch are forbidden from engaging in political activity in the course of their work. That means no campaigning, for example, from the White House or by White House staff, including the chief of staff. It includes a specific prohibition on anyone “us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”
But isn’t that precisely what Meadows is accused of doing? Willis brings the hammer down hard on this point, noting that the Office of the Special Counsel found that Meadows and at least a dozen other Trump officials violated the Hatch Act.
[...]
Willis points out that the state charges against Meadows arise precisely from his disregard for the lawful scope of his duties. He can’t have been acting under color of federal law while blatantly violating the Hatch Act prohibition on interfering with the result of the election.
That’s already pretty devastating, but then here comes the fork. Meadows, Willis argues, has claimed outright in a different filing that “all of his relevant conduct was impermissible political activity” by asserting that his actions were “unquestionably political” in nature.
[...]
Meadows made this rather boneheaded move as part of his Motion to Dismiss the entire case, which he also filed last week. In that motion, as Willis points out, Meadows broadly declared that “[a]ll of the alleged conduct as to Mr. Meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of First Amendment” and “[a]ll the substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity and thus, if not covered by Supremacy Clause immunity, the charges would be barred by the First Amendment.”
Thanks for that admission, Mark. To make your First Amendment argument, you just set yourself up for a takedown on your removal request. In fact, Willis points out, Meadows has admitted he was running around doing “unquestionably political activity” in violation of his duties as a federal official under the Hatch Act.
Tiddlywinks
Meanwhile, Trumpy replaced his top Georgia lawyer for one who has “RICO experience.”
And “supporters” are beginning to show up at the Rice Street Jail to support their fascist dictator wannabe.
Well, at least one has shown up.
For those who want extra detail with their morning coffee: