Friday’s ruling barring former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from taking his case to federal court has significant implications for him and his co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering prosecution, not least Donald Trump.

Meadow’s high-stakes gamble in taking the stand to support his motion did not pan out. That is likely to destroy his chances of claiming immunity from state prosecution under the

US

The supremacy clause of the Constitution, which I discussed, was the reason he took the risk of being tested.

Now Meadows returns to state court and faces serious charges. And if he ever considers working with Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis or federal special counsel Jack Smith, those prospects have also taken a nosedive.

Meadows likely burned his bridges with Willis when he gave false testimony by claiming he had no role in coordinating fake voters in Georgia, words he had to eat during cross-examination. Prosecutors don’t want to make deals with perjurers, and Willis probably doesn’t need Meadows testimony to make her case.

And even if the opportunity remains open for Meadows to cooperate with federal prosecutors, it would be of little use to him without protection from Fulton County charges.

Meadows immediately appealed U.S. District Judge Steve Jones’ ruling, but given the judge’s analysis, his prospects at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals are questionable at best. While the appeal could delay his reckoning, he has greatly reduced his chances of a conviction in Fulton County and a substantial prison sentence in a Georgia prison.

The gist of Jones’ methodical, fact-based ruling is that Meadows took on the core of the state’s suit on behalf of Trump’s reelection campaign, with the ultimate goal of influencing the elections in Georgia. That invalidates Meadow’s argument that his conduct fell within his duties as a federal official and therefore should be tried in federal court. The powers of the executive branch obviously do not extend to any form of supervision of state elections.

Jones’ decision has other important implications. Chief among them is that it dramatically reduces the chances of success for the other defendants who want to transfer the case to federal court, providing a more favorable jury pool and other benefits. Meadow’s argument that he acted within the normal duties of a chief of staff was the best of the bunch seeking removal.

The three accused fake voters’ argument for removal is simply stupid. They say they were federal officials because they were chosen as electors. Willis’ team succinctly debunked that argument by pointing out that this was the case

pretend

voters.

Former Assistant Atty. Gen. Jeffrey Clark, accused of falsely claiming to Georgia officials that the election results were tainted by fraud, faces the same problem as Meadows, without the benefit of having been a top Trump aide: Oversight of state elections did not part of his work description as middle

–

level bureaucrat of the Ministry of Justice. Even less, his official duties include using lies to prevent Georgia’s electoral votes from going to Joe Biden.

Which brings us to the former president himself. According to Jones’ analysis, Trump’s argument for removal to federal court is dead on arrival. The conduct for which he was charged is light years away from any reasonable articulation of a president’s duties. In fact, other courts have already ruled that Trump’s actions fell outside the bounds of those duties.

While the takedown claims are unlikely to succeed for these reasons, they will still play a role in the formidable task of breaking up the crowd of 19 defendants for trial purposes.

Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who presides over the trials in Fulton County, recently noted the troubling prospect that the 11th Circuit Court could reverse an expungement decision after a trial against the defendants is already underway.

The only way to guard against this is to prevent state trials of suspects seeking deportation from being scheduled until after their appeals have ended.

Depending on how long that takes, three separate trials may be needed: one for the defendants who have invoked their right to a speedy trial, one for the group seeking deportation to federal court, and one for the rest. And the number of trials could increase even more if, for example, another suspect later files a request for a speedy trial. The prospect of three or more months of trials against different groups of suspects, all repeating the same evidence, is daunting and extremely difficult.

Meadows, who filed the removal motion the day after he was charged, appealed Jones’ ruling within hours. Why so much haste? The best explanation seems to me to be that he is doing everything he can to avoid facing Trump, who can be expected to pursue his removal motion for as long as possible. A trial with Trump would be the worst possible sight for Meadows, who could cynically further the former president’s betrayal.

But Meadow’s hopes of separating from his former boss appear dim. Now that McAfee has been forced into two or three separate trials, he will likely be reluctant to break them down any further.

Just weeks ago, Meadows seemed the smartest and most successful of all former presidents, men and women. He had dodged a federal contempt prosecution for his refusal to cooperate with the Jan. 6 House committee and cooperated enough with the special counsel to keep himself out of charges against Trump’s federal election interference while he kept his head hunched over and kept his profile low. That’s all over now, as is most likely his hope of escaping incarceration.

Harry Litman is the host of the

Talking Feds Podcast

.

@harrylitman