Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to recognize his 'just following orders defense. A right-wing justice wasn't buying

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Business Insider

Apr 28, 2024, 7:00 AM EDT


Before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in former President Donald Trump's immunity case, Mark Meadows tried to get his foot in the door. The high court had agreed to decide whether former presidents can enjoy legal immunity from criminal charges for actions taken during their presidency. Trump hoped that a decision would scuttle the indictment against him over his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election — a result that now seems unlikely, even though the trial will likely be delayed until after the 2024 presidential election.

Meadows, a former Republican member of Congress, served as Trump's chief of staff in the final year of his White House administration. He was criminally charged alongside Trump in a separate case, brought by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office in Atlanta, over a plot to erase now-President Joe Biden's electoral victory in Georgia. Judges have denied Meadows's attempts to move his criminal case to federal court, which could be more favorable legal territory. His lawyers have leaned on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which protects the federal government from the meddling of state-level officials.

Despite the lower-court losses, Meadows nonetheless asked the Supreme Court to recognize that the president's subordinates should have immunity from criminal prosecution — in both federal or state-level cases — because they were just doing their job by following the president's instructions. His lawyers said the court should recognize immunity for Meadows even if Trump himself doesn't have immunity.

"If the Court addresses or resolves the question whether a president may act in a non-official capacity while in office and thereby lose the protection of presidential immunity, the Court should make clear that its ruling does not reach the conduct of subordinate federal officials who, like Meadows, generally assisted the former President as part of their federal roles," his lawyers wrote in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-mark-meadows-trump-just-following-orders-immunity-defense-2024-4

---

Full headline: Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to recognize his 'just following orders' defense. A right-wing justice wasn't buying it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. Hmmm, just following orders?

Where have we heard that before?
Oh yeah, at the Nuremberg Trials where prominent Nazi's tried that defense.
How well did that work out for them?

[KS Toronado]

5. That was my first thought also.

[Wonder Why]

11. Well, some of them committed siucide to avoid hanging. How about that, Mark? Or just got long terms in prison.

[erronis]

2. The only reason the RW justices won't give Meadows relief is that trump doesn't care

to help his ex COS. Meadows is another "loser" who cannot in any fashion help trump into the dictatorship he wants and needs.

If Meadows had some very incriminating evidence and was willing to share it with the country, then trump might care - and might ask friends to rid him of that pesky man.

[Autumn]

3. Found it. Neil Gorsuch taking care of Trump and fucking over Trumps peon.

How delightful.

[Bucky]

4. I just hope he enters that plea in a German accent

"I vahz only followingk orders."

Will this man never get tired of a breaking Cassidy Hutchinson's heart?

[republianmushroom]

6. Remember the myth, "nobody is above the law".

[AZLD4Candidate]

10. you are, if you're wealthy, powerful, important, or have connections.

the rest. . .especially if you're poor and a minority. . .can GFT.

Why do you think our jails are filled with minorities and the poor? Over policing in those areas and draconian law enforcement. Wealthy neighbors get next to no policing, except if someone from "the others" shows up. . .then the entire department shows up.

[OldBaldy1701E]

13. Yup. (n/t)

[dutch777]

7. Has that defense ever worked for anyone? And hopefully not here too.

[PortTack]

8. Ignorance of the law is not a defense...he knows that

[Polybius]

9. Which right-wing justice wasn't buying it?

[LudwigPastorius]

12. Gorsuch: All of these actions to try to overthrow the government were not Trump's fault

His lackeys should have stopped him!



He'll definitely be voting for immunity for Trump.

[prodigitalson]

14. don't blame him for trying, you never know with these scumbags

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. "Just following orders" plays into "Presidents are immune, above the law". . . . . nt