Former Reagan Attorney General Breaks His Silence Over The Trump Case

Edwin Meese III, a prominent figure in American politics and law, served as the Attorney General of the United States during the Reagan administration. Born on December 2, 1931, in Oakland, California, Meese was a staunch conservative who played a pivotal role in shaping legal policy and upholding the principles of the Reagan era.

Throughout his career, he became known for his unwavering dedication to conservative values, constitutional interpretation, and the rule of law. As Ronald Reagan’s trusted legal advisor and confidant, Meese left a lasting impact on the U.S. legal landscape and remains an influential figure in the realm of conservative thought and jurisprudence.

The former Attorney General who served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration, recently stepped into the spotlight by filing a court document where he critiques Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ legal interpretation in her 2020 election case against a former official from the Trump Department of Justice.

In a compelling statement, Meese contended that Willis’ position amounted to a direct challenge to the principle of “federal supremacy.” Edwin Meese III’s extensive and diverse career has encompassed a range of roles, spanning from the private sector to academia, always marked by a steadfast commitment to matters of public policy and constitutional law.

Perhaps most notably, he wielded significant influence as Chief of Staff during Ronald Reagan’s pivotal 1980 presidential campaign and later assumed the role of Counselor to the President, holding cabinet rank.

Meese wrote, “The prosecution of the President and an AAG is a major affront to federal supremacy never before seen in the history of our country,”

Meese Continued, “If the premise of this prosecution were to be accepted, then state law enforcement officials could arrest local U.S. Attorneys and their Assistants while they were deliberating over whether and/or how to approach a possible prosecution of state or local officials.”

“Similarly, under Fulton County’s interpretation of federal supremacy, state or local officials could enter the Oval Office and arrest the President and his Attorney General during their deliberations over whether and to what extent to assert federal law enforcement powers against state or local officials. Not even George Wallace or Orval Faubus, during the heights of the heated civil rights-era disputes, were willing to go that far against President Kennedy and his Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.”

He forwarded the letter to his superiors within the Department of Justice, requesting their consent. Nevertheless, Meese underscores that disparities in legal, factual, and policy perspectives are routine occurrences within the Justice Department. He stresses that such contrasting viewpoints should not be misconstrued as fraudulent documents, let alone criminal ones.