>> well, if he ultimately was charged in federal court and convicted in federal court, yes, i think it would any gate it because the state case would be presumably dismissed and then it would become a federal action, but i think clearly the importance of the state prosecutions, our investigation that took us to the supreme court twice to get the records from donald trump, my successor's case now d.a. willis, these are important backstops and i'll tell you why as an example, if i may. we started our investigation into the trump organization finances and the like and the u.s. attorney in new york, who is a wonderful person, asked their office asked me to stand down with our case. i felt i should, because i feel we need comity between the agencies and i did but to my surprise after michael cohen pleaded guilty the case dropped in the southern district so we lost a year and a half and it proves, i think, anderson that you need to approach these issues with the spirit of, yes, let's not argue about silly thing, let's try to work together but at the end of the day the state needs to look aft

do the cases stay in federal court?s, in fulton county at this courthouse behind me? and there is a question, what happens with donald trump? all the arguments around this are about these people being somehow connected or protected by the mission of the federal government. things that they were doing either in david shafer's case as an elector, mark meadows, as top officials are working on behalf of the president. but then there is donald trump himself. the president of the united states at that time, and all of them are trying to invoke this clause. this law that allows them to say we would like to take this over to federal court because that is where we can do this, because we were federal officials at the time regarding these allegations that the prosecutors are making here. so how that plays out and what the law is going to be here, we're really in uncharted waters with a case like this against the former president. >> we certainly are. thank you so much for that breaking news. kaitlyn poleants live for us from the

>> we'll, if he ultimately was charged in federal court, and convicted in federal court. s, i think it would negated, because the state case would be presumably dismiss. and, then it would become a federal action. but i think, clearly the importance of the state prosecutions, are investigation that took us to the supreme court twice, to get the records from donald trump, my cisa now d. a. willis. these are important backstops. and i'll tell you why is an example. we star on vesta geisha and into the trump investigation finances and the like. , and the u.s. attorney in new york, who is a wonderful person, their office asked me to stand out, with our case. i felt i should, because i feel we need -- between these agencies, and i did. but to my surprise, after my michael, cohen pleaded guilty, the case dropped in the southern district. so we lost a year and a half, and it proves, i think anderson, that you need to approach these issues with a spirit of yes, let's not argue about silly things, let's try to work together. but at the end of the day, the state needs to look of aft

can you get in the door to federal court, can you stay in federal court?really actually a pretty low bar in terms of standard to get into federal court. whether he succeeds in getting his cases dismissed, because of the supremacy clause, which gives him purported immunity for the actions he took, when he was chief of staff, it's left to be seen. >> one last quick note, though there is a second bucket of people that are trying to get a federal court, alex. those are the georgia fake electors that have been charged in this scheme. there's three of them. they have a very novel concept to get into federal court. they're saying, as a, quote, what is the word they used, contingent, presidential elector. >> okay. >> i was acting as a federal official. so, i got to go to federal court. that is a completely novel theory, it's gonna be left to be seen as to whether that is successful. >> what are you hearing, kenneth chesebro and now, i guess, sydney powell, feminine, though in a mask, and i don't know she didn't cross that he and art that i. having said, that does

in state court decisions. in federal election in the future he says the courts should and will distort -- distill that general principle into a more specific standard such as when advanced by chief justice rehnquist. what is he talking about their on this principle advanced by justice rehnquist? guest: back in 2000 and bush versus gore, it was a contentious decision out of the florida supreme court and the united states supreme court. a majority of the court and a 5-4 decision and there was no formal author but we know from recent papers that it was justice kennedy that took the lead in writing the opinion. that opinion relied on equal protection clauses of the constitution saying that votes were treated unequally. chief justice rehnquist wrote separately with scalia and thomas. he said we are worried about these circumstances where the state court goes too far. he said impermissibly distorted the legislatures scheme or transcends the appropriate limitations of statutory review which some of the justices even and dissent

so we should all file a motion in the federal court to remove the case from her and the georgia court, ask for a trial in the federal court. >> so there's a lot to unpack there. let me ask you to do it, carol, particularly that the presumption should be in favor of removal. >> well, the first thing i disagree with mr. giuliani on is that fani willis has not thought about this, i guarantee you, she has thought about this. she is aware of it, but she is probably not that familiar with it in the sense that she has not had to deal with this issue in the prior racketeering indictments that she's brought because those indictments were really based on georgia events, on atlanta events. so this is somewhat new to her in a criminal context. what it means is that if you were a federal government official and you are being charged with state crimes, you are allowed to bring a motion to have this case removed to federal court. you would still be tried on the state charges, but in federal court, and the whole idea behind this was that this was a law passed in the 1700s, and the idea was that you d

court. federally you have the 1st1th circuit, which is very conservative. if you're trump, you want that conservative court. you're going to have a jury pool if you're donald trump in federal court. if you get into federal court, you're into the northern district of georgia. he got 68% in cherokee county, one to the north, 65% in forsythe county to the northeast. so, you would much rather be there for your jury pool. also and most importantly, if you get into federal court, then you can ask for a dismissal. there's a little bit of extra legwork that you have to do. but if you can get that as donald trump, that is the golden ring. i think these are conversations that are happening inside trump's counsel room right now. >> the lawyers are probably telling him this, and this is why drew find lg is not on the case anymore. at the end of the day, you don't have cameras in the federal courthouse, right? and what does the former president want more than anything? he wants this to be on tv. he wants to be able to perform. he wants his lawyers to be able to perform.

in atlanta because he is asking the federal court to pluck this trial out of state court in georgiatead. why does he want that? well, all the 19 georgia codefendants including trump would probably prefer having their case go before a federal jury drawn from the whole northern district of georgia. they'd prefer that to going before a state jury that would be drawn just from blue fulton county. but how likely is it that meadows will get his wish here? how did he do in his five hours on the stand today? if he does succeed, if he does get his case moved out of state court and into federal court, would that mean that the whole georgia case, the whole rico case would all go to federal court or would it just be meadows? how might the back and forth in georgia over this affect what happens in d.c.? where trump just got a court date from march 4th of next year today. also, what gets decided next? how is this all going to go? joining us now is chuck rosenberg former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official. chuck, it is great to see you. thanks for being here tonight. >> my pleasure, rachel.

court? >> well, the norm at process is a federal case is tried in federal court or handled in federal court. state case goes forward in a state court. this is a special provision that's been around for almost a couple hundred years now that allows -- the purpose is to protect the functioning of the federal governmental roles by officers who were doing their jobs, to allow them to remove the case from state court to federal court. the question is, does it qualify? the supreme court has decided a number of case on the issue, and the basic rules are, the basic requirements are that, first of all, the official, the federal federal who wants to remove the indicate to federal court, has to have been performing his job. he has to have been acting within the scope of his official responsibilities, but the second requirement of that, whiched lead-in didn't really get into, but it's also a clear requirement that the defendant also has to be advancing a federal legal defense that is plausible to the state charges, so it's whether there's a reason for the material government to interrupt that and say, n

his case to federal court, and then followed that up with a motion for the federal court to just immediately dismiss the case, simply because mark meadows was a federal employee and therefore not indict-able. the federal judge considering mark meadows scheduled a hearing for monday, but the district attorney's deadline for all defendants to submit to arrest was 12 noon on friday. so i think this morning, mark meadows lawyer got a good morning a mile from just her attorney willis and 6:25 by and. it was her final reply to a series of emails from mark meadows, criminal defense lawyer, asking for an extension beyond monday for mark meadows a wrist deadline so that the federal court could decide on monday whether mark meadows should be arrested. district attorney willis's good morning email laws, as all of the defense lawyers of the case have truly noticed, uncompromising. good morning, mr. moran. i am not granting any extensions. i gave two weeks for people to surrender themselves to the court. your client is no different than any other criminal defendant investor addiction. the two weeks was a

in federal court in georgia, in federal court in d.c.. report, allen foyer, wrote a scene setting piece about the pro hearings today. from the new york times, for the morning paper this morning. reminding us of where this may be heading. he said towards the end of his article this morning, quote, the timetable from mr. trump's four trials have taken an outsized importance. not only because there were so many of, them but also because they were unfolding against trump's crowded cabinet are. as the candidate leading the field for the republican party's 2024 presidential nomination. trump has made no secret in private conversation with his aides. of his desire to solve his jumble of legal problems by winning the election. quote, if i'll there of the two federal charges that he's confronting are delayed on till the election, and he prevails in the election, he could seek to pardon himself after taking office. or have his attorney general dismissed the matters altogether. and i know that learning that trump has been saying that privately to hi

case a few blocks down the road at the federal courthouse in the northern district of georgia in federal courtprocedural rules will largely apply. and a federal judge will preside over the case. the defendants who are able to remove will also have a federal jury pool. so, that is the difference. but it doesn't mean that the charges are any different, or that the prosecutorial team is any different. it won't be federal prosecutors. it will still be state prosecutors. and, importantly, if trump or any other future president will still not be able to pardon trump under a federal pardon because, again, these are still state charges if he is convicted or if others are convicted. >> right. that's really key point i just want to reiterate that. should meadows be convicted, even after a successful removal to federal court, it is still a georgia offense. it still can't be pardoned by whichever president would come later. anna bower, who has been doing fantastic we're covering this for lawfare, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> still ahead -- the republican front faces four different tr

once a federal court, and changing the registration deadlines under federal law, we are not dealing with these issues but some states like pennsylvania ready change the absentee ballot deadline, that court decision was put on hold by the united states of dream cords or none of those ballots are put into place. then you had other situations north carolina where there was a consent decree with a lawsuit in individual election administrator to save we will resolve this dispute and solve it going forward. it also happened in georgia with absentee ballots but these are in response to lawsuits. there are lawsuits challenging election laws. there is an agreement approved often by a federal court and their opportunities now after some change in states like north carolina to allow legislature for other parties to intervene in those lawsuits. in most of these states, the rule as understood now played out in ways consistent with the united states constitution. there are certainly challenges to that to say that in pennsylvania, these election administrators were given discretion to do things that th

we'd like our case to be heard in federal court. and the reason we have the ability to do that and the reason we want that to happen is because we were fake electors, that means we were acting at the direction of the president. now, that is going to be a legal argument about where this case lands, if it gets split up, if the defendants are in federal court or state court trying this. but it's also a little bit of a preview of what could happen at a trial. there's one of the big things we're watching for here is if defendants are splitting with different legal arguments from trump either cuddling up to him or distancing themselves from him. and with this argument that they're making, that could become something that they'll try to make later on as well, try to say, we were just doing what we were told. how could we be charged with a crime there? >> we're going to dig into that a little bit because that's really interesting. also today, late today, sidney powell requesting a speedy trial, as kenneth chesebro did. his trial date is oct

remember, the entire underpinning of this hearing today is meadows asking to move this to federal courthis alleged actions he was acting in his federal capacity as the white house chief of staff. a couple of other interesting points, we know that meadows and several others have asked to move their case to federal court. somebody who has not made that request is the former president himself. according to our producer, at least one member of trump's legal team was spotted inside that courtroom listening to those arguments. that lets you know they're watching this very closely and there could be a similar request from the former president to come. >> blayne alexander, thank you so much for that breaking news. christi, what do you make of meadows taking the stand and also the fact that one of trump's lawyers is watching this from the overflow room? >> well, it makes sense. in order for meadows to remove this case to federal court, he has to show that the conduct that is charged in the indictment that was being performed for the president was being done as an official duty in his role as chi

meadows in his filing, pointing to his hearing on monday on whether the state prosecution moves to federal courtct attorney fani willis says she intends to arrest med does before the hearing and has rejected out of hand a reasonable request to defer one business day until after this court's hearing. defense attorneys i have spoken to say normally when somebody shows up here when a bond to turn themselves in, they waive their first appearance, but have to go through the lengthy process of going through the system, which could take z74hou. these defendants are showing up and leaving in a matter of about an hour and 15 minutes. the sheriff here says that these defendants aren't going to been given preferential treatment, but that seems not to be vcç case. we'll see if the former president is given any preferential treatment when he shows upyj here on thursday. >> nick valencia, thank you for the report. >>> joining us now is elie honig. we have now 4 of the 19 who have turned themselves in. trump is scheduling his for tomorrow. as this is happening, as expected? >> this is how it goes. you negotiat

." >>> it is a striking admission, but part of the defense is an offer to transfer it to federal court, but also raises by another former president. >> when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. by definition. >> exactly. ly. >> back in another item, codefendant harrison floyd making his first court appearance by video link from jail. he is the only one who failed to reach a bond agreement this week. the judge today refused to change that. meantime, the trump campaign, which is already selling merch with the mug shot audit threatened legal action against anyone else doing the same. the one catch, of course, that photo is part of the public record. it is an official photo. as for the making of it, listen to the president last night on another network. >> terrible experience. i came in. i was treated very nicely, but it is what it is. i took a mug shot, which i never heard the words mug shot. that wasn't in the school of finance. >> so keeping them honest, however that works with this, it's hard to imagine that someone who grew up in new york and counted rob lawyer mo

but david shaffer is also trying to get his case moved from state to federal court. they all say that because they were acting in some sort of bounds of the federal government, shaffer as an elector under the constitution at that time after the election, and then jeffrey clark, a justice department official, meadows in the white house as chief of staff for donald trump. but clark is taking an aggressive approach here. he's saying the entire case at the state level should be put on hold, and all 19 defendants should have their case moved to federal court. donald trump hasn't done something like this yet in this case, but we fully expect that he may try some sort of legal tactic that is similar to thrks -- this. a lot to watch here, and no finality on how the next couple of days are going to come out. >> you blink and the blizzard strikes up again. kaitlan, appreciate it. thank you. as kaitlan laid out, it's been a busy day, not a flurry, a blizzard of activity in fulton county, georgia, there is an expectation that a number of codefendants will be trying to negotiate t

so the people who have a -- a decent claim when it comes to removal to federal court are the individualsally federal employees. mark meadows, i think, probably has the strongest among the claims. that doesn't mean that i think he's necessarily going to be successful, but he's not bringing a frivolous action to try to get this removed. he was a federal officer. he was serving as chief of staff. so i think his is the strongest case. another individual, somebody like jeffrey clark who was a senior ranking justice department official also could make the argument and then they'll have to argue that what they were doing was in the scope of their response beibilities o related to their actual position and that's a hurdle they will have to jump over and individuals who were not inspected by federal government and who were not federal officers do not have a good argument to move it to federal court. >> elie, i think trump is expected to do the same thing and the way to undermine the rico charges brought against him and his co-defendants, and i suppose if mark meadows gets his way and he's plucked

a 2 of them are in federal court. 2 of them are in state court in federal court, in the united states that are new cameras allowed in the state court. it's up to the judge to decide whether or not he wants to let cameras in bought because of donald trump because of his position because of the charges against them. there is a growing movement to suggest that uh, just the chief justice of the united states should say, we are going to unload cameras into the federal court so that people can actually see at the trial of donald trump, or should i say the trials of donald trump, because of course it's important that not only is justice done, it's got to be seen to be done. and many people believe that if the soul of the case against donald trump lead out in pretty stop terms, as we've seen in the indictments and not everyone will read the indictments, then they might understand why the case is being brought against donald trump. though you could understand why the trump campaign is keen on that idea, but it may well be i to of their hands, particularly in the state courts. because again, it

if it is moved to federal court, it doesn't mean that it federal prosecutors and the united states justiceent who will run the prosecution. it doesn't mean that a future president could pardon. but it does change the rules like televised trials and the like. i think, stephanie, that these removal actions will fail. it is true that there is a law, pass after the civil war, that gives federal employees in certain circumstances the right to move a federal case to federal court. but it doesn't apply here. i think there are three reasons. one is you have to be performing a federal function. and donald trump, as president, or mark meadows, as his chief of staff, are not performing a federal function. the president, in our constitution, has huge sweeping powers. but the one place our founder said the president had no role is with the electoral college. and for the best of reasons. because, who is the person who has the most self interest in the electoral college, how it functions, how the votes are president counted? the president, the sitting president. -- they are the ones who, after all, are r

go to federal district court in _ which case it would go to federal district court in georgia. - whichcourt in georgia. so it. district court in georgia. so it would — district court in georgia. so it would leave _ district court in georgia. so it would leave the _ district court in georgia. so it would leave the state, - district court in georgia. so it would leave the state, but. district court in georgia. so it would leave the state, but iti district court in georgia. so it- would leave the state, but it would leave _ would leave the state, but it would leave the _ would leave the state, but it would leave the state's _ would leave the state, but it would leave the state's jurisdiction. - leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani wiiiis _ leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani wiiiis wouid — leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have _ leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have to _ leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have to decide - leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have to decide that l leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani . willis would ha

judge might be leaning eventually on the question of removing mark meadows' case, for example, to federal court>> what his order really gives me a sense of is that judge jones gets it. he knows this is an important prosecution, that the federal part of it doesn't need to delay the state part of it if there's no good reason for it and he's going to move forward with all haste. there's a hearing scheduled on monday. since it's in federal court it won't be televised. this is on just mr. meadows motion. i understand secretary of state brad raffensperger has been subpoenaed by the d.a.'s office to give testimony about the appropriate duties of the state in elections. so we have that to look forward to. it's hard to read the tea leaves with the judge. his order was forceful, to the point, and it was mighty fast. so we do have that. and he has a reputation of a judge that hears everyone out and hears them out thoroughly. >> and andrew weissmann, denying the emergency requests don't necessarily in any way tell us what the judge might do with the basic request of removing mark meadows' case to the feder

by saying we believe this could go in federal court for a number of reasons as federal officials. then if they got that, they could argue additionally they have first amendment protection and other protections of the constitution, immunity, even, as people working for trump. >> thank you so much for clarifying that. and thank you, everybody here. we have a lot more coming up on the latest out of georgia. but first, as one of the moderators said, he was the elephant not in the room. did any of the 2024 gop candidates do enough to cut into donald trump's commanding lead? we're going to talk about that, next. ( ♪ ♪ ) experience the sanctuary of handsfree highway driving with lincoln bluecruise. it's the final days of the lincoln summer invitation event. right now, get 3.9% apr and $1000 trade assist cash on a new 2023 lincoln. we, the moms who have lost our children to social media harms. we, we, we have had enough. our politicians have failed. working for lobbyists, not us. we need your voice to pass the kids online safety act this fall. join us. join us. join us. join us. ♪ let's l

as he seems to remove his charges to federal court. and what i expect there is to hear from witnesses that have been called. we've been watching the docket, that we could already see that the prosecution has called for witnesses. alex kaufman, francis watson, two of those folks are attorneys who are listening in on that famous brad raffensperger. call and francis watson is a former chief investigator for the georgia secretary of state office who trump called in december of 2020. and mark meadows allegedly set up that phone call. and, then finally, the fourth witness of the prosecution who was called was brad raffensperger himself. to the subject of trump's attempts to urge him to find votes in january of 2021 right before january 2026. that infamous phone call that setup fani willis's investigation. and so i expect that we will hear these witnesses under oath, testify fani willis will try to illicit testimony from. them they will be subject to cross-examination by mark meadows a kearney. and then the big question for me, katie, is whet

in federal court, that is not the practice. _ federal court, that is not the practice.make an exception for this case. so that would _ an exception for this case. so that would he — an exception for this case. so that would be one of the principal differences in terms of what goes on. it— differences in terms of what goes on. it wouldn't change the ability of the _ on. it wouldn't change the ability of the president of the united states— of the president of the united states in— of the president of the united states in terms of the point you've been _ states in terms of the point you've been making, which is even if it is in federal— been making, which is even if it is in federal court, the president of the united — in federal court, the president of the united states does not have the power _ the united states does not have the power to _ the united states does not have the power to pardon anybody for state crimes. _ power to pardon anybody for state crimes. and what is important about that is— crimes. and what is important about that is he _ crimes. and what is import

to federal court.quote, federal nexus, he called it, to everything that he did to help the president as the white house chief of staff, including sitting up phone calls and attending meetings with state officials. but he described a broad case with from what didn't compasses his official duties. nbc news reports asked what he thought would be crossing the line, meadows said, if he'd been asked to speak at a campaign rally, prosecutor and across then pressed him on whether solely advancing the interests of the campaign would be outside the scope of his responsibilities, i would not agree with that, mark meadows said. mark meadows testified that his main objective on the january 6th phone call to cite georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger was to bring two parties in the nation together to get it off the presidents concern list and move on to the transition of power. that certainly didn't sound like what was happening on that recorded phone call. when pressed about the prosecutors about the federa

guest: an independent commission has had a more complex history as deemed by the federal courts. is an acceptable way of doing an alternative read just doing plan -- brand under the circumstances. the court looking at such a decision by a state that used an independent redistricting commission looks at the facts as to whether that commission is really independent, the local decision-makers or whether it's tied into the current political powers that be in such a way that creates the same problem that would have faced the courts had the decision been made by the legislature. independent redistricting commissions are away under the proper circumstances on how they are constructed by the state law. doing redressed taking dish doing redistricting in a way that can do away with lower court rejection. that's the path that states could follow if they are not trying to evade the requirements of federal case law. host: we will hear from mark in california, independent line. caller: good morning. first, is donald trump, no matter what happens to wind up setting some kind of supreme court pr

that their case should be removed to federal court? >> it would only apply to those who were federal officers at the time that these acts happened. and again, let's remember, i'm a former chief of staff and you have to think about what is the authority of the principle that you are serving. again, when we talk about election fraud or elections period, it's very clear that all of that administration belongs to the state. it does not belong to the office of the presidency. and so when you start from that premise, then it's very hard to be able to understand how a chief of staff to the president would be able to do things that are not with in the presidents own purview to do. each federal officer would have the opportunity to file his or her own motion. >> we're gonna squeeze in a quick break here. please all stay with us. when we come back i want to do a bit of a time clock calendar calculation about how much delay could be built into the georgia case on motions like removing the case to the federal court and other expected pretrial motio

he is confident that if the prosecution gets removed federal court he can get dismissed, he argues that he was protected under a law that protects certain federal officials from state level prosecutions, the dish rigatoni fani willis she waited and she fought back at that, she said look, that had nothing to do with your role as chief of staff, and you are doing. instead those political activity. a real focus on monday will be the infamous call the former president trump and the georgia secretary of state raffensperger. that appears to be what the district attorney really wants to focus on based on what cases the mic of, that gonna be the crux of her case trying to keep that in state court. it is not the only one who is try to make this argument, jeffrey clark has a hero schedule for this and others including trump and giuliani have said they will try this to. >> just game it out for us, let's imagine a judge on monday and the future, any other judges want this to be heard in federal court instead of on the state level, let's say the judge disagrees with them, does this get appealed all

this question of moving into federal court, rick requires him acting in his capacity as president. here the president ends and the man begins, the canada begins, in the presidents, is blurry. the court is gonna have to sort that out i don't think it's entirely cut and dry, given amount of evidence. >> jamie, i want to leave a moment here for you rudy giuliani, who's all over this indictment as well. he is being charged, in a rico statute, which he basically pioneered. then, on top of, that we hear today, that he's basically broke. his legal fees are piling up. what has happened to the man once known as america's mayor? >> he said today, he hasn't changed. he's still the same man. i interviewed rudy, as we called him, when he was mayor many times. if rudy has not changed, in all of these years, we didn't know him very well back then. i have several close friends who worked with him. he is a different person today. this is yuck -- he was a character, when he was mayor. he was a tough guy he liked to litigate. he was always dsean interesting person. i think this is tragic, actually. >>

wants to be able to perform, you want the lawyers to be able to perform, that won't happen in federal court even if that is the absolutes correct strategy in what any good lawyer with italian, i don't think this is all about the law when it comes to trump. >> the other two federal officials meadows in clark have made the motion to jump on the other side. >> if a judge determines they don't get to go to federal court, does that automatically mean -- that doesn't automatically mean that -- >> it doesn't preclude it but if you had to measure the strength i think meadows has the best argument, he was acting in his capacity as chief of staff. clark, to me saying i acted as a doj when he drafted basically a letter falsely claiming there was fraud, i don't know how he will get over that. trump will have enough people climb arguing that this was in the scope of his duties as president. it's worth noting that cords to concern this removal provision quite frankly. i think meadows has a 50/50 shot i think trump has something less than that. what happens with one is not gonna dictate what happens with

do we move it to federal court or let it stay in the state court? if this is not a case that merits transfer i don't know there could be one. >> and he's already facing charges at the federal level on similar conduct. >> let me ask you a question, andy mccabe. you were acting deputy director, you were acting fbi director. you dealt with donald trump when you were a law enforcement official. look at the image on your screen right now. did it ever occur to you that mug shot of donald trump? >> of course not. my interactions with donald trump, my personal interactions were early on in the administration. certainly didn't see into the future where we would end up. but i think the point that you make on the consideration of removal, there's no question that could be a very effective legal strategy. it is an obvious and momentous thing for any of these similarly situated defendants to do, but i still think it's going to be very hard here. and i totally respect your tallying of the counts, but ultimately to make the case these acts were committed within the

s case moved to federal court. it failed. could he get this one moved to federal court? ut i think there's three problems with it. it's true there's a federal statute passed after the civil war that allowed some state cases to be moved to federal court and i have no doubt that trump is going to want that if for no other reason than federal courts generally don't have cameras absent from the judicial conference and i think trump is frankly scared of having this case before the american people for everyone to see. so i think he will do that. i think it will fail because of three things. one, that in order for there to be a moved trial, there has to be some federal function that the president was acting as, president trump was acting as president but here, counting the electoral college, the structure of the constitution very much cuts the president out of that process for the best of reasons. of course, the president has a most interest in how the electoral college counts votes and so on so our founders wisely said hey, that's self dealing. you can't have a role here. that'

what they are hoping is that once it gets moved to federal court, it will then be dismissed by the federals is just the beginning, regardless of how these cases are decided by the federal judge, i suspect that she will see some of these cases appealed down the line. >> thank you so much for your time and analysis. up next, the significance of senator bernie sanders throwing his support behind president biden's reelection bid. biden's reelection bid i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ frustrated by skin tags? dr. scholl's has the breakthrough you've been waiting for. the first fda-cleared at-home skin tag remover clinically proven to remove skin tags safely in as little as one treatment. (fan #1) there ya go! that's what i'm talkin' about! clinically proven to remove skin tags (josh allen) is this your plan to watch the game today? (hero fa

try to move criminal charges to the federal level, mark meadows argued this should be moved to federal court then they want to dismiss it, they are arguing that everything he was doing was done in his capacity as a white house chief of staff, there is a federal statute that seeks to protect federal officials from state prosecutions. it is unclear if you will be successful. or dismissed, he's not the only one that will try. he too is going to try to get his case removed to federal court, we expect former president trump will try this as well. it is possible, they could get their cases removed to federal court but not dismissed. that would mean this becomes a quasi-federal case because on the one hand, it would be federal court but the prosecutors, it could be sworn in as u.s. attorneys, still dealing with state law, one of the biggest advantages for the former president and his associates is they can get this moved to federal court, would be the jury pool, because fulton county is a heavily democratic jury pool. it includes a more diverse array of jurors, the big downside i would argue is tha

if he gets in federal court, he gets a way better jury pool. can ask for immunity. as a federal officer, next step, throw it out and i'm done. that's potentially dispositive here. >> there is overlap between this case and jack smith on the election interference. the question of whether he could pardon himself if elected back in the white house is a big one. now anything in state court, be that new york or georgia, there is nothing he can do about it per se. the federal jurisdiction, then that question becomes a big one and suggest we are talking about through the campaign season again. >> this is like law school hypothetical. what if he wins the election, gets rid of the federal cases, can he be tried in state court? probably no, not while president. it's all in play. >> love the hypotheticals. >> i want to ask you. you made an interesting point, intentional or unintentional. you said this is the opposite of what a president should have been doing, which was quite literally the point ruby freeman made when she was testifying to the january 6th c

what is he asking for from federal court? r: well, it's important to remember that each of these defendants is taking a different tact in how they approach this process to become criminal defendants and get their court cases on path towards a trial or potentially even guilty pleas if they choose to do that. what's happening with mark meadows and with another former trump administration official, jeffrey meadows, chief of staff to trump, clark was in the justice department, both men are right now not negotiating their bond terms and they are not ready to be arrested here by the deadline that the d.a., fani willis, set for noon on friday. what mark meadows is doing is he and clark both have separately gone to a federal judge in federal court. so a different system. they said we were federal officials at the time working on behalf of the president for everything we are accused of doing, thus, we have the right to put this case in federal court right now. that means we don't have to be arrested in the way that the d.a. is saying w

he's filing to move the case to a federal court. cnn's sara murray is here.sara, is this about delay? is this about setting himself up perhaps for a presidential pardon which doesn't normally apply -- which would not apply to a state case? what's behind this? >> i think it's a lot of things. when they put this motion into the federal court, one, they're asking to move the case. but two, they're just asking the federal court to toss the charges altogether. so if mark meadows were successful, obviously, that would be the ideal outcome as far as he's concerned, you just do away with it. i do want to read a part of the argument that his attorneys are making in this filing. they say nothing mr. meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se. arranging oval office meetings, contacting state officials on the president's behalf, visiting a state government building and setting up a phone call for the president, one would expect a chief of staff to the president of the united states to do these sorts of things. he's of course facing two charges.

where i think he's overreaching is in asking the federal court to come in and block him from ever having to surrender by the deadline in the state court. i think that's premature and i think he's asking the federal court to go too far. he has the right to make this motion. to ask the federal court to eventually take his case but that's got to play out. that will take a few weeks to play out and i don't think he has much of a chance for this emergency motion he's about to file. >> interesting. paula, back to you. just hours after his bond agreement in which he was ordered not to intimidate witnesses, trump slammed the fulton county d.a. once again on social media. is this a violation of the order? >> reporter: it's an open question. he's barred from threatening defendants, witnesses, co-defendants and the community generally but it doesn't specifically prohibit him from saying anything about the district attorney. and this, in some ways, is a free speech issue. he can criticize here. he's not directly threatening her but there could be ramifications and other people who see him criticizin

that may not be possible, she of course even if it gets transferred to federal court, will be the -- state prosecutors will still have the case, but he believes dealing with federal law and trying to argue that these charges are interference in his official duties is his best course at the moment. >> laura, quickly, if you will, if meadows succeeds in getting his case moved to federal court, would you expect the rest of the co-defendants' cases to follow. >> that we have to wait and see. we're going to have to see a little bit more of how this plays out. you already see other people including one of the alleged fake electors. he's saying because i was ordered by the president of the united states to break the law, i should have my case removed to federal court. we've already seen that today. watch to see how this plays out with several defendants making that strategy. on the other hand you have chesebro who wants to have a speedy trial in georgia. so again, it just shows you how sprawling and complex this is, when you have some people who want to go fast in georgia and some people try

that plays out as ex-white house chief of staff mark meadows tries to get his state case moved to federal courtand at the same time in d.c., a judge will weigh arguments from the presidential prosecutor and trump's defense team about the timing of the federal version of this trial. jack smith's office wants to start right after the new year while the ex-president is pushing way after the election. he wants an april 2026 date. we're covering developments in both cases and begin with cnn's katelyn polantz outside the federal courthouse in atlanta. can you walk us through the arguments meadow is going to make in front of a judge. >> reporter: of course, sara, this morning we are going to be seeing this hearing convene. it could take quite a bit of time because there will be witnesses, legal arguments and the question at play here today is was mark meadows as white house chief of staff whenever he was facilitating calls from donald trump outreach to state legislatures in different battleground states and also that call to brad raffensperger in georgia, was he doing that as a federal official that w

government to use its powers and authority to uphold federal courts. the president's responsibility is inescapable. in accordance with that response. i have today issued an executive order directing the use of troops under federal authority to aid in the execution of federal law at little rock, arkansas. this became necessary when my proclamation of yesterday was not observed. and the obstruction of justice still continues. it is important that the reasons for my action be understood by all our citizens. as you know, the supreme court of the united states has decided that separate, separate public educational facilities for the races are inherent and unequal and therefore compulsory schools segregation laws are unconstitutional. our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement. the responsibility and the authority of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. our very clear local, federal courts were instructed by the supreme court to issue such orders and decrees as might be necessary to achieve admission to