Hoffman, an Associate Editor for the New York Sun, has noted that Mark Meadows, a former Trump White House Chief of Staff and one of the eighteen co-defendants indicted by Fulton County’s District Attorney Fani Willis, has raised “serious constitutional concerns” which could derail her racketeering case before it is set in motion.
That led Hoffman to speculate: “Could her prosecution be too big to function?”
He added: “In choosing to indict 19 defendants on 41 charges, Ms. Willis went big in prosecuting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the Peach Tree State. It is a scale to which she claims to be accustomed — a racketeering trial of public school teachers netted 35 defendants, 12 of whom were tried together. Now, though, court filings show Ms. Willis fretting over a “logistical quagmire” and, Cassandra-like, alerting the presiding state court judge, Scott McAfee, to the “unavoidable burdens on witnesses and victims” should he splinter her sprawling case. The government’s position is that, like Isaiah Berlin’s hedgehog, it can try one large case, but not many smaller ones.”
Meadows is attempting to have his case transferred to a federal court. Despite the fact that a U.S. district court judge rejected this request earlier this month, Meadows’ legal team has lodged an appeal, asserting that the accusations against him stem from activities he was engaged in during his tenure as a federal employee.
The former Chief of Staff and Congressman from North Carolina is striving to persuade the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that removal is proper because his “case involves the Chief of Staff to the President, not an oil or tobacco company or some other individual.” On Friday, Hoffman reported, the higher court will hear his arguments via Zoom.
His legal team also argued that Meadows did not go “down to Georgia in his private capacity and got in some kerfuffle.” Rather, he argues that Willis’ indictment is a criminal prosecution “based on actions taken in the White House while discharging his official duties.”
Meadows goes on to add that the district court’s rebuff of his case for removal was “completely wrong” and marred by “erroneous pronouncements.”
Willis, meanwhile, argued in a filing that “all the defendants shall be tried together” and that Georgia “is capable of trying large and complex cases.” She added that she “is ready to try all 19 defendants together” while warning that “breaking this case up into multiple lengthy trials would create an enormous strain on the judicial resources of the Fulton County Superior Court.”
The District Attorney is confronted with multiple issues, such as the potential for Meadows and four other defendants—including Trump—to move their cases to federal court.
In addition, Hoffman has commented on attempts to disrupt her trial agenda. Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell have already exercised their right to a speedy trial. Ms. Willis has informed Judge McAfee of the potential domino effect that could result from this, noting it may lead to further demands for swift trials.
Ray Smith III’s lawyer has argued that his client’s trial should be handled independently due to the complexity of Willis’ case involving numerous defendants, acts of prosecution, and witnesses.
“Trump has fastened on this complexity to push for a more distant trial horizon,” Hoffman wrote. “He argues to Judge McAfee that ‘requiring less than two months preparation time to defend a 98-page indictment, charging 19 defendants, with 41 various charges’ would violate his ‘federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law.’”
Trump appears to be in a strong position here, as Judge McAfee has already determined that Willis’ ambition to try all 19 defendants within the following month is not feasible. Hoffman further supported this assertion.