Former President Donald Trump has chosen not to seek the transfer of his Georgia election interference case to federal court, according to his attorneys. This decision comes after a judge previously denied a similar attempt made by Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
The case revolves around allegations of violating Georgia’s anti-racketeering law in an effort to overturn the 2020 election results. While Trump maintains his not-guilty plea, he continues to dispute that his federal position grants him immunity from state prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones rejected Meadows’ request to move the case to federal court, ruling that the indicted actions were not performed as part of Meadows’ role as a federal official. Meadows is currently appealing this decision. Trump, along with Meadows and 17 others, was indicted last month.
In a notice filed by Trump’s defense attorney in state court in Atlanta, it was stated that Trump would not be seeking to transfer his case to federal court. The notice expressed Trump’s confidence in Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to handle the trial fairly.
Although Trump has decided against transferring the case, his lawyer filed a motion in the state court asserting that he cannot be prosecuted due to his federal position. The motion also claims that Georgia’s prosecution goes against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, asserting that federal law takes precedence over state law.
If Trump succeeded in moving the case to federal court, he could have potentially sought dismissal of the charges based on immunity granted to federal officials for actions carried out in their official capacity. Additionally, a venue change would have expanded the jury pool beyond heavily Democratic Fulton County. However, a venue change would not have allowed Trump to allocate a pardon, as any conviction would still occur under state law.
While Trump continues to argue that his federal position grants him immunity from state prosecution, the case will proceed in state court. The outcome of this trial will be significant in determining the legal consequences surrounding the allegations of election interference.