Mark Meadows 'Fatal' Concession Will Deal Him Legal Loss: Analysts

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows will be handed a legal loss by Judge Steve C. Jones on Monday after the "fatal" concession his legal team made amid attempts to move his case to federal court, legal analysts predicted on Sunday.

Meadows was indicted on felony charges alongside former President Donald Trump and 17 others in Georgia by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis earlier this month. Trump's former chief of staff is facing charges of violating the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws and solicitation of violation of oath by public officer in relation to his alleged role in a plot to illegally overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

Days after his indictment, Meadows' attorneys filed a request to remove the case from Fulton County to a federal court, arguing that he was performing his official duties at the time of his alleged crimes.

"Mr. Meadows has the right to remove this matter," the filing states. "The conduct giving rise to the charges in the indictment all occurred during his tenure and as part of his service as Chief of Staff. Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se. Mr. Meadows intends to file a motion to dismiss the indictment...as soon as is feasible."

Meanwhile, Meadows filed a motion to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Tuesday, asking the federal court to help him avoid arrest after Willis rejected his proposed deadline extension and threatened to arrest him if he failed to agree to the bond terms and voluntarily surrender. Jones ruled against Meadows on Wednesday.

In an article written in Just Security on Sunday, legal analysts Walter Shaub, Normal L. Eisen, and Joshua Kolb said on Meadow's attempt to remove his case, "Even though the legal hurdle is low and the law is favorable to federal officers, Meadows faces a seemingly insurmountable barrier."

The barrier being that Meadow's lawyers have "remarkably conceded that 'all the substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity.' In the context of these charges, that should be fatal to Meadows' claim for removal," the article states.

Shaub, Eisen and Kolb wrote that the Hatch Act, which prohibits executive branch employees from interfering in elections, shows that Meadows "will not be able to meet his burden of showing the alleged conduct was connected to his official duties."

The legal analysts added that the former chief of staff will have to show that his conduct was for or relating to any act under the "color of his office" in order to move his case to a federal court and that he has a "colorable federal defense" to the charges.

"The first prong of the removal test is generally considered to have a low threshold in the Eleventh Circuit, 'requir[ing] only a causal 'connection' or 'association' between the act in question and the federal office," Shaub, Eisen and Kolb wrote.

Jonathan Turley, legal analyst and law professor at George Washington University, told Newsweek on Sunday, "The Hatch Act is a legitimate objection to raise to the removal motion. It is certainly true that Meadows concedes in his brief that "all the substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity."

He continued: "However, the decision of Willis to include over 160 different acts, tweets, and statements in the indictment could come back to haunt the prosecution. Some of the acts do seem to fall into Meadows' role as chief of staff. There are good arguments on both sides. However, it could require an appellate process to fully sort out. It will require not only an interpretation of the scope and applicability of the Hatch Act as well as the scope of the duties of the Chief of Staff. Chiefs of Staff tend to be jacks of all trades. They deal with a range of legislative and political matters facing a president. To the extent that this matter is appealed, it is not clear if the court will enjoin further proceedings pending a final decision."

Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg also told Newsweek on Sunday, "I agree that the Hatch Act specifically barred Meadows' conduct and should prove fatal for his attempt to remove the case to federal court. His removal request made a crucial concession that all of the 'substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity.' That should be enough under the Hatch Act for Judge Jones to reject Meadows' Motion."

Meanwhile, former Department of Defense (DOD) official Ryan Goodman took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to comment about the article, praising the legal scholars' analysis.

"On Mark Meadows' fatal concession. Great analysis," he wrote. "They explain why 2 pages of Meadows' court brief should prove fatal to his attempt to get Georgia trial into federal court or dismissed."

Update 8/27/23, 1:03 p.m. ET: This article has been updated to include comment from Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg.