Former AG Meese: Georgia’s Prosecution of Trump an Unprecedented ‘Affront to Federal Supremacy’

Former Reagan-era Attorney General Edwin Meese argued that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump and his top officials is a “major affront to federal supremacy never before seen in the history of our country.”

Meese filed a 19-page affidavit over the weekend supporting former Trump-era Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Jeffrey Clark’s bid to remove his Georgia case to federal court.

Clark is being charged with violating the RICO statute and attempting to commit false statements and writings. The false statements charge stems from a letter Clark wrote that claimed the U.S. Department of Justice had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

Under federal law, a state case may be removed to federal court if the prosecution is “for or relating to any act under color of such office.”

Meese argued Clark’s actions fell solely within his authority as a “principal officer of the United States.”

Meese said it is “implicit and logically necessary that the President can also assign tasks to an AAG at his discretion.”

Meese fought back against claims the letter Clark wrote was a false statement.

“Read in light of the law and longstanding practice inside the DOJ, however, the draft letter was a proposed view of facts as brought out by Georgia Senator Ligon in hearings he conducted about the 2020 election,” Meese wrote, adding:

The letter then coupled that with a proposed recommendation by the Department that the conclusions Senator Ligon reached be investigated further by the Georgia Legislature, which the letter legally opined the Georgia Legislature could do consistent with the Electors Clause of the Constitution and related case law.

Meese said Georgia’s prosecution against Clark risks “destroying the supremacy of the federal government.”

Meese wrote:

Finally, the idea that proposing a change of position could be a criminal attempted false statement because it is not the same as the position it proposes be changed is a far-fetched legal non sequitur. The losing side of privileged and confidential internal DOJ factual and legal disagreements cannot be subject to state law criminal prosecution on the grounds of attempted false writings without destroying the supremacy of the federal government.

Meese relied on his decades’ worth of experience serving in the government to bolster Clark’s arguments.

“Disagreement on legal, factual, and policy matters in the halls of the Justice Department is commonplace, just as disagreements among lawyers in private practice, in state government, and in local government are common,” Meese wrote. “I should know. I have participated as a lawyer in a wide variety of levels of governments in each office where I took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.”

Meese cited the unprecedented nature of Willis’s case against Clark, Trump, and others from the former president’s administration.

He wrote:

I am not aware of any state criminal prosecution ever being brought against a President and a senior Justice Department official like Mr. Clark for their privileged and confidential discussions of whether and how to assert federal law enforcement authority other than this new State of Georgia v. Trump, et al. Indictment. The prosecution of the President and an AAG is a major affront to federal supremacy never before seen in the history of our country.

U.S. District Judge Steve Judge Jones had a hearing on Clark’s removal motion Monday but gave no timeline for a decision after the hearing.

The case is Georgia v. Clark, No 1:23-cv-3721, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Jordan Dixon-Hamilton is a reporter for Breitbart News. Write to him at jdixonhamilton@breitbart.com or follow him on Twitter.