He is also raising the "federal officer removal" doctrine, which is no surprise given that he was a lawyer with the DOJ.
He is also furious!! He had no idea he was being investigated until he was indicted. He is calling it a political "hit job" and says the goal was to "cost him millions in legal fees, impair his work in the conservative legal community" and "tarnish his previously stellar reputation."
This is not the way to write a motion. The way to do it is to state the facts in a way that the facts speak for himself.
The fury and emotion of the lawyer should NOT be showing through.
Clark should have just stated his case for removal and left the ranting out of it. His case for removal isn't actually that bad, but you wouldn't know it from this motion.
I give this motion a D-. It's a confusing incoherent mess.
Now you know why I was so surprised to read Meadows' motion and say, "Hey, this is pretty good!"
Next he brings up the continent electors from Hawaii in the 1960 election.This is an argument that what he did was legal, which has nothing to do with the jurisdictional question.
Ha! Footnote 10 is great!
He opens by mentioning that the Supreme Court has said, in dicta, said, that electors are not federal officers. But then says they are because they are mentioned in statutes.
Former Georgia Republican Party Chair David Shafer, indicted in Georgia for his role in the fake elector scheme, said attorneys for Trump, his campaign and the local GOP were responsible for urging him to assemble a slate of false presidential electors that are now at the heart of a sprawling racketeering case.
None of us have seen all the evidence. In particular, we haven't seen the defenses or evidence the defendants have.
However, Fani Willis has seen it.
If someone wasn't charged there is one reason: There wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction at trial. Put another way: The person had a solid defense.
Remember: we have only seen part of the evidence.
Actually, a second possible reason: Willis screwed up, but there is no reason to believe that.
The Georgia RICO statute seems to work much like he federal conspiracy statute: People enter a conspiracy to commit an illegal act and take steps in furtherance.
I’ve described federal conspiracy as a way for prosecutors to cast a wide net. My former mentor Mark Reichel calls it “the darling of the prosecutor’s garden.”
(Similar: but conspiracy requires mutual understanding between co-conspirators)
The 6 I was expected and then some. (And then LOTS)
Basically: Trump lost the election. Then he and bunch of others entered a conspiracy that contained a common plan and purpose to commit 2 or more acts of racketeering activity.
In other words, RICO
You can click on the doc and see the list of people charged and the crimes alleged.
Georgia RICO is easier to prove than the federal version because Georgia law doesn’t require prosecutors to prove an underlying “criminal enterprise.” They only have to prove that the defendants committed some illegal acts in pursuit of a single criminal goal.
First we get a list of the "manner and methods used by the Defendants and other members and associates of the enterprise to further the goals of the enterprise and to achieve its purposes.