Re-read the title 3 times already and still not sure if I’m not having a stroke.
Headline tactics: make the title so confusing that you have to click to actually figure out whet they’re saying
For those who didn’t bother to read past the title:
When I read Fani Willis’s response last night, I whistled in admiration. As a one-time avid chess player myself, I recognize a “fork” trap when I see one. A fork move is when a single piece attacks more than one piece simultaneously, as when a knight threatens both a queen and a rook from its new position. When executed correctly, no matter what the opponent does next, it will lead to a body blow.
That is the trap Willis has laid out in her papers. She begins by arguing that, under the Hatch Act, federal officials within the Executive Branch are forbidden from engaging in political activity in the course of their work. That means no campaigning, for example, from the White House or by White House staff, including the chief of staff. It includes a specific prohibition on anyone “us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”
But isn’t that precisely what Meadows is accused of doing? Willis brings the hammer down hard on this point, noting that the Office of the Special Counsel found that Meadows and at least a dozen other Trump officials violated the Hatch Act.
And then you left out the best part…
That’s already pretty devastating, but then here comes the fork. Meadows, Willis argues, has claimed outright in a different filing that “all of his relevant conduct was impermissible political activity” by asserting that his actions were “unquestionably political” in nature.
Meadows made this rather boneheaded move as part of his Motion to Dismiss the entire case, which he also filed last week. In that motion, as Willis points out, Meadows broadly declared that “[a]ll of the alleged conduct as to Mr. Meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of First Amendment” and “[a]ll the substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity and thus, if not covered by Supremacy Clause immunity, the charges would be barred by the First Amendment.”
Thanks for that admission, Mark. To make your First Amendment argument, you just set yourself up for a takedown on your removal request. In fact, Willis points out, Meadows has admitted he was running around doing “unquestionably political activity” in violation of his duties as a federal official under the Hatch Act.