that's why mark meadows took the stand.edibility of that testimony. that was a very shrewd thing for him to do. one, because it protects him on appeal. it is much more difficult for a -- to say this district court judge made the wrong judgment when he was assessing the credibility about his testimony. but it is also a smart thing to do because it shows that he is going to take each of these applications one by one, and pay careful attention to the application of law to fact. >> which we are going to have to want to see. right? as citizens of the united states who believe in justice. we'll want to see that happen all the way through this case. both of you please stay here for a moment. i have to pay the bills, we'll be right back after this quick break on velshi. break on velshi. an improve your business however you see fit. rosie used part of her refund to build an outdoor patio. stop waiting. go to innovationrefunds.com clink! struggling with the highs and lows of bipolar 1? ask about vraylar. because you are greater than

so, meadows himself said it.nd then he was acting as a campaign appendage, essentially, on behalf of the president. >> michael moore, give us your insight into how things will unfold from here as a result of this. >> well, remember that the president and the vice president are, according to the special counsel, exempt from the hatch act. so, that argument will not be an obstacle to him to try to move -- to have this case removed. i think you all are right that this was, sort of, a dry run. he got to watch the judge, listen to the arguments, and now see the outcome of the game. and he can choose which arguments were persuasive and what evidence he thinks necessary, his lawyers will, what evidence necessary to try to convince the judge to remove his case. going forward, i think without any question, this will be appealed by the meadows team. i think you will still see efforts by clark and others to move forward as well, to have the case removed. if nothing else, it is a strong case for a delay. and remember that de

meadows replies, no, i did not. prosecutor, no role at all? meadows, the only time i remember of an electors point is when somebody raised the issue with me and i referred it on the campaign. prosecutor -- so you had no role for the campaign or as chief of staff in coordinating those efforts across contested states? meadows -- no, as chief of staff, no i did not coordinate those efforts. prosecutor -- okay. got that? meadows said he had no role in the fake electors plot, none whatsoever. then just a few moments later when the prosecution asks meadows to read the e-mail he wrote to 2020 campaign staffer jason miller where they discussed a memo laying out the fake electors plot. mark meadows then tells jason miller in the e-mail, quote, we just need to have someone coordinating the electors for the state, end quote. fulton county district attorney fani willis made a point of emphasizing the fact meadows had not been truthful while under oath. here's what fani willis told the court. quote, after insisting he did not play any role in coordination

meadows. that's not federal work. the ruling goes on like this with judge jones not buying what mark meadows was selling. that his involvement in the phone call between donald trump and georgia secretary of state, brad raffensperger, was somehow federal work, that his arrangement of a call between trump and other georgia elections official was, again, somehow federal work. that a meeting with a michigan state official was, again, federal work. judge jones was not agreeing with any of that. in fact, the only thing mr. meadows is accused of doing that judge jones finds was within his duties as chief of staff, was the fact that mr. meadows sent a text message to republican congressman, scott perry. as judge jones writes, near the end of this ruling, meadows was required to come forward with competent proof of his factual contention that his allegations, his actions, involving challenges to the outcome of the georgia election results were within his role of chief of staff. his efforts fall short. tonight, just before we g

meadows' lawyers are arguing that everything meadows did as part of this alleged conspiracy is part of his job as the white house chief of staff. in the indictment, they lay out eight overt acts meadows took in furtherance of this alleged conspiracy. his lawyers insist all eight of them, that was all part of being the white house chief of staff. but a judge here saw it differently, said, no, these were political activities. and then points to his testimony, noting that when he was asked to describe the limits of his power as chief of staff, he couldn't. and then they also note that in that infamous call with the secretary of state, brad raffensperger, he points to the fact that the lawyers in the call, those were campaign lawyers and the judge firmly rules that these were all political activities, which is why he is not going to be able to remove this case to federal court. his lawyers had hoped that they could get this removed to federal court and then get it dismissed because there are certain immunity protections afforded to federal officials. but of course it does not appear that t

meadows replied snow, i did not. the prosecutor, no role at all? meadows, the only time that i know from the electors point was when somebody raised the issue with me and i referred on to the campaign. prosecutor, so you had no role for the campaign or as chief of staff in coordinating those efforts across contested states? >> meadows, as chief of staff, no i did not coordinate those efforts. >> prosecutor, okay. you've got that? meadows says that he had no role in the fake electors plot. none whatsoever. okay. just a few moments later the prosecution asks mark meadows to read an email that he wrote to trump in 2020, where they discuss a memo laying out the fake electors plot. mark meadows then tells jason miller in the email, quote, we just need to have someone coordinating the electors for the states, and quote. in a new filing fulton county district attorney fani willis made a point of emphasizing the fact that meadows had not been truthful well under oath. here is what fani willis told the court, quote, after insisting that he did not play any

meadows rejected.ederal judge just denying the former trump chief of staff's bid to move his georgia election case to federal court. it could have major implications for trump because trump said yesterday that he wants to move his case out of georgia, too. there is his precedent. that was failure. med said he should be immune because he was performing his official duties.adows said he se because he was performing his official duties. he might have had a much better chance of getting it dismissed. but judge tonight -- by the way, we expected this ruling could have come the past few days of the judge took time to come to a conclusion saying tonight meadows had not met the low threshold for removal, going on to add, quote, the evidence before the court overwhelmingly suggests meadows was not acting in his scope of executive branch duties during most of the overt acts. he failed to provide sufficient actions that these actions related to any legitimate purpose of the executive branch. this is extremely sig

meadows and mr. navarro, now convicted, were shouting from the rooftops, michael, that it wasn't that they didn't want to talk to the committee. it wasn't that they could never cooperate. it was that there was a principal at stake, principal of executive rivers, principal of government. you would think that we were just sitting around with jefferson, drinking tea and talking about ethics.michael, no spoilers here, but it was all crap. if somebody holds the line until the end, viewers know, i will credit it. turns out, it was crap. mr. meadows has testified, both now trying to get out from criminal cases. and so, initially, i want to show, when we spoke to mr. navarro several times, he did talk about it as this privilege. take a look at him on "the beat." if you say all those things out here, why risk a legal battle or going to jail to refuse to discuss them with the committee under oath? >> because, i have a loyalty to the constitution and a loyalty to the president it's not my privilege. >> that was

the last is for meadows it's horrible for him. his entire argument is based on what you've described that he was taking everything he was doing was within his authority as chief of staff but he says i did it because i wanted an option for the campaign. that's a pure campaign trying to win the election issue. there's nothing about the federal government's authority with respect to that particular item and there he is saying at the end of the day after lunch that quizzed him and here he admits it was purely the idea of trying to preserve trump's options. >> stephanie, you spent many hours around meadows over your employment at the white house. what do you think about him testifying that he had no role with the fake electors but then explaining he was trying to coordinate them because he would afraid trump would yell at him? >> well i certainly understand the feeling of not wanting the president of the united states to yell at you and in this case, the former president, his anger was swift and it was cruel and we all did everything w

meadows to his testimony the appropriate weight.o our jurors what that means. does it mean judge jones said i didn't believe mark meadows, or as a judge and saying, considering all of the evidence presented by the defense, because it was their burden, i gave mark meadows his testimony the perfect weight. >> there are two ways to look at, it we can conclude that judge jones just thought mark meadows didn't carry's burden, but i think that the stronger inference is that judge jones didn't believe mark meadows. it wasn't hard to conclude that mark meadows was not being straight when he was testifying under oath, one, for example, he testified that i had nothing to do with the alternate electors scheme. the fake elector scheme. then he was cross-examined with some of his own written communications when somebody urged him to get involved in the alternate electors scheme. what did mark meadows say in writing? on that, as of yesterday, there are two conclusions to draw. one, he was lying under oath, or, he was lying in his own private emai

mark meadows injail, i think they're i meadows injail, i think they're looking — meadows injail, i think get a conviction. with - looking to put his boss injail or get a conviction. with17 - get a conviction. with17 codefendants— get a conviction. with17 codefendants and - get a conviction. with17 codefendants and the i get a conviction. with17 - codefendants and the president is not paying — codefendants and the president is not paying anyone's _ codefendants and the president is not paying anyone's legal - codefendants and the president is not paying anyone's legal bills, i not paying anyone's legal bills, depending _ not paying anyone's legal bills, depending on— not paying anyone's legal bills, depending on the _ not paying anyone's legal bills, depending on the jurisdiction, i not paying anyone's legal bills,| depending on the jurisdiction, a conviction— depending on the jurisdiction, a conviction rate _ depending on the jurisdiction, a conviction rate ranges - depending on the jurisdiction, a conviction rate ranges betweenl conviction rate ranges between 70-90%, — conviction rate r

and this is what meadows wants. it's basically what trump wants because they are scared like heck of cameras in the courtroom in georgia state courts, you know, they have cameras in the courtroom. so they're trying everything they can. but last week, meadows lost every which way. i mean, the judge said, yeah, you are a federal official. but he said, you are not acting under the color of the law. and our founders cut the executive branch out of the process of disputes over presidential elections for the most important of reasons, it's because they have selfish interest and they have all the powers and the competency to try and hand the election to themselves. and so, that's why they got them out. the judge said that. the judge even goes so far as to quote or reference trump and john eastman, his lawyer's statement, that state legislatures that the founders put in charge of election disputes not the executive branch. so, that blows the case out of the water. meadows is now trying to take it to the 11th circuit. it's o

andrew, how bad is this for meadows? >> it's not good, in two ways. in addition to the claims that joyce so eloquently summarized, because it's a difficult legal area, it's very complicated and no one better than joyce to try and get it concise and understandable. but in addition to the legal issue there's a factual issue, which is, do you believe mark meadows when he testified and said, oh no, i was doing this all within my role as chief of staff, this is why i was privately wanting to, quote, land the plane, meaning i wanted to see a treat peaceful transfer of power. i don't think he is going to be bound by the judge to be credible, and it's also the case that if you lie on one thing and the judge can throw out that testimony on that item, but also disregard your testimony altogether, he really, having reviewed everything now, i don't think comes off is a terribly thoughtful witness or terribly careful. he is a wonderful defense lawyer. i'm sure they tried to prepare him a lot. and it really showed that he was not terribly prepare-able, because he m

meadows has appealed the ruling.'s paula reed has details. >> reporter: the judge in this case noting that the bar for meadows was pretty low. the standard was not that high. but he still was not able to meet it. now, meadows' lawyers hoped they could remove his case to federal court and try to get it dismissed using laws that extend some immunity to frederal officials. but that is not going to happen for meadows unless he somehow successfully appeals this. the judge found that everything that meadows did in his role as chief of staff in this alleged conspiracy were political activities, even though meadows' attorneys insist the things he did and allegations in this indictment were all related to his official duty, to his federal job. interestingly, the judge uses meadows' own words against him where meadows was asked to define the limits of his authority. couldn't do that. and also noted how meadows acknowledged how the lawyers on that infamous call with the secretary of state brad raffensperger, those were not gove

meadows is trying to get his case moved to federal court. meadows made the unusual claim that stealing an election was part of his job description as chief of staff. he argued that it is, quote, impossible to draw a bright line distinction between a chief of staff engaging in official and political activity. meadows lost that argument, but he's now appealing that decision. the second deadline is in the special counsel's election interfere. trump is expected to respond in court to the doj's gag order request. the special counsel had asked for a quote narrow gag order, citing trump's, ot established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him. joining me now to break it all down is former watergate prosecutor nick ackerman. so, nick. >> yes. >> let's talk about mark meadows. >> absolutely. >> what do you think of this argument that it's within the job description of chief of staff to basically try and overturn an election? >> totally absurd. not even cl

argument in there that mark meadows did not? >> i don't think so. and it isn't because of the position that he held but the nature of the conduct that he was engaging in. so for mark meadows, for example, he was the chief of staff, he was a federal official at the time. what the judge looked at was the nature of the conduct? he was engaging in political activity, campaign activity, not government, and similarly, donald trump was engaging in the same kind of conduct. he was pressuring officials in the state of georgia to change the outcome of the election. he was pressuring individuals who were poll workers. that is campaign activity. that is not governing. and so i don't expect the decision to be any different whether it's mark meadows, donald trump or any of the other defendant sgls do you expect him to file a motion to do so? he hasn't officially filed a motion to remove his case yet. does this make his lawyers think maybe it's not a good idea. maybe it's not even worth it. >> i think on the merit, it's probably not worth it.

district judge steve jones declined to move meadows' case to federal court. meadows has appealed. as we said the swamp of alligators waiting to bite meadows head off, trump telling nbc news this about meadows, quote, well, i hope he's loyal to me. that hope-warning comes as, quote, trump has been warned by the federal judge in the case also stemming from his efforts to stay in office brought against him by the special counsel jack smith, to avoid saying anything that might affect the testimony of witnesses. his comment about meadows could attract new interest. it should come as no surprise that ex-president would want to keep meadows close. few people have a better fwraps into every aspect of the coup plot than the former chief of staff. here's cassidy hutchinson. >> leaning against the doorway saying, interesting conversation with rudy, mark. sounds like we're going to go to the capitol. he didn't look up from his phone and said something to the effect of, there's a lot going on, cas. but i don't know. things might get real, real bad be on january 6th. >> i remember pat saying so

meadows.right nicole. i think it is important to note he has serious counsel. someone not playing at being an attorney but has been one for a long time. i think the losses for meadows are not unanticipated. they are not shocking. i don't think i would be shocked if there were small ways a judge ruled in his favor either. i feel strongly covering a lot of these kinds of cases that meadows had maybe the best argument among all of the other 19 for claiming that he had some sort of federal official role but there were huge problems and you and i have talked about them already. some of the acts of the indictment might not be the strongest in accusing meadows of a crime but whether he was acting as a normal white house chief of staff in specific moments. in particular him deciding on his own whim to go and visit an audit of elections in georgia. there does not seem to be anything criminal about it ones it face but it certainly raises questions why a white house chief of staff wants to sit in on such

, if meadows isn't going to be successful, we may not even try.ling has no impact on other individuals, each case will be decided on its own, and it is not a good sign for them. the former president trump, he is in a different situation, a slightly different set of facts, but this also is not a good sign for him, and his attorneys, they have signaled that he too will try get his case moved to federal court. amara, victor? >> thank you. >>> in the meantime the entire fulton county special grand jury report was released on friday. the unredacted report provides new insight into the 2020 election subversion investigation in georgia. >> it shows the panel wanted to indict 39 people in this racketeering case. cnn's evan perez has more on the special grand jury report. >> reporter: victor and amara, the special grand jury in fulton county investigating the 2020 presidential election in georgia recommended charges against republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina, and former gop senators david perdue and kelly loeffler of georgia. the grand jur

there is no irreparable harm to meadows. i think they also are concluding that they don't have a great chance of prevailing, another reason that they will stay. i wanted to add one more point on the speedy trials, i don't know if it's that they don't want them, i agree with barb, the delay is fine. but what they do want is severance, and fani willis made the argument in her briefs, you have to make them wait speedy trials, otherwise, if you give severance, they could play that automatic speedy trial card and all of a sudden, you're looking at five, six, seven trials. do not let them move for a severance that they need a resend for, if they haven't made. i think they saw that writing on the wall, and that's what you got the procession all the way through the defendants today. >> gwen, is the chaos to the way your watching this, did it seem like a chaotic start to the litigation, is starting to form in a flow that makes sense? >> i think it is. and again, remember, the district attorney wants to try all 19 defendants together.

plus, another setback for mark meadows and his attempt for a federal case.lking a.i. and regulation, jake ward is here to break down what happens, as the 11th hour gets underway on this wednesday night. ♪ ♪ ♪ good evening once again, i'm stephanie

and he starts yelling at meadows.e should have made more calls and we should have done this and that and i don't know exactly what would have been done. it is supreme court. but then said trump, he don't want people to know we lost. it is embarrassing. i mean, that is potentially of significance legally if he knows that he lost. >> correct. but, that is -- and i elaborate this in my testimony where i can't climb inside of the former president's mind and know exactly what he was thinking but it is not just me that has come forward with information like that. general milley has also said that he was in the former president's presence when he admitted that he lost -- alyssa farrah griffin as well. i can't speculate about his actual mindset and his motivations but in that moment it was clear to me that there was some concession. and i would like to point out that the president directed mark to begin declassifying the cross fire hurricane documents before january 6 happened. because he was worried that those documents woul

saying it to mark meadows. >> absolutely.nd i think in addition to the substance of what she has to say, and obviously she has direct evidence to mark meadows who's currently charged in georgia, and we'll wait to see whether he is charged anywhere else. but with respect to mark meadows, she's so clearly a central witness, but there's a little bit more than that, and this is something joyce and i know as people who have done trial work, which is if you think about her demeanor on your show, lawrence, last night and her demeanor in the congressional hearings, the phrase wise beyond her years comes to mind. in some ways when you think about her background and what she had to overcome in terms of her upbringing and also what she's been through in sort of transitioning from a loyal trump soldier to really shedding that, you really sense somebody who is just a phenomenal witness because she's so grounded and so centered as to what her values are. so when you're sizing up not just the substance of what someone has to say but whether

mark meadows was on that call. we also know that he made another of calls to reach out other georgia state officials and so his involvement in that pressure campaign has always been a part of this narrative. as charles was mentioning, though, the key question before the judge here was who was he acting in his federal capacity as the chief of staff to the president or was he acting as a part of the political campaign citing that these were political actions, and that the case can't be moved or shouldn't be moved to a federal court. one of things to keep in mind here is how each of these decisions that we are seeing and the many motions that we expected to have already come and will come in the weeks ahead, related to the georgia election subversion case, is that they're giving us a little insight into how some of these were going to unfold. let's not forget that we already saw the motion from ken chesbrough's attorneys to try to sever his case, from us in the polls, and also from the other 18 defendants. it doesn't

meadows claimed that all of the alleged criminal

that person is mark meadows

mark meadows took the stand.he stand never mind in a pretrial hearing. the judge found that med dose was unable to explain the limits of his own authority as chief of staff. therefore the judge ruled against mark meadows. he said the judge in his ruling, the actions at the heart of the state's charges against meadows were taken on behalf of the trump campaign. meaning not as chief of staff by mark meadows in his official job but really as somebody working for the trump campaign. so the judge has rejected this motion. and for now, mark meadows will remain in state court, fulton county, where he was initially charged. >> for now seems to be a key caveat. >> there will be an appeal. mark meadows made an appeal. meadows will now get to automatically appeal to what we call the 11th circuit court of appeals. now there are 13 federal circuit. the 11th circuit is traditionally known as the second or third most conservative circuit. generally speaking, if you're mark meadows you probably want a more conservative circuit.

meadows was acting as a campaign official. in fact, the judge says that he barred meadows from acting politically. then that key quote that you put on the screen a moment ago, from page 29 of the opinion, which says that the constitution and our framers cut the executive branch out of supervising presidential elections. because he didn't lie, after, all incumbent to use their own powers to keep themselves in office. that is really devastating. then that other line, which you didn't read, but you put on the screen now. which says the elections clause expressly reserves regulating federal elections to state legislatures. that is a shot across the back. because jonathan, remember, trump's whole defense, and john eastman's, and all of these cuckoo's defense is state legislatures were the ones who call the shots. what the judge has done here is say, hey, you yourselves are the ones saying there is no executive branch, no federal role when it comes to supervising presidential elections. it is up to state legislatures. in this case c

it would have been meadows and not trump. the fact that the judge made very quick work of that, as joyce pointed out, early in the decision makes it abundantly clear this argument is going nowhere fast, so donald trump should not expect to make any traction with it at all. >> so i want to follow up on this because this is something i think a lot of people who aren't lawyered don't understand. if this had gone through, if mark meadows was tried federally instead of in fulton county, would that mean that the prosecutors were different? would it still be fani willis' people? explain what would have been different if the judge had ruled in another way? >> i'm so glad you asked that question because a lot of people are getting it wrong. it still would have been under georgia law, still would have been fulton county prosecuting the case. the biggest difference which mark meadows was more likely than not hoping for would be an expanded jury pool. in fulton county, you have a predominantly democratic jury pool, mainly black. you're n

it is a surprise with meadows.puty attorney general, he's got a great team of lawyers working with him. i think it is tough to view this as anything other than a misstep. certainly as parts of the transcript are released, and we see where meadows has been contradictory in some regards, contradictory might even be putting the best possible face on his testimony. that is the peril that defendants in criminal cases expose them selves to when they expose in settings like this. and meadows arguably has the best case of any of the defendants for removal, because as the chief of staff, he does have extensive duties. he does, as his lawyer said, have to keep the chief of staff hat on even when the president's on personal business. so the fact that meadows has struggled to make out a case for removal bodes poorly for the additional defendants. jeff clark, for instance, who is over at the doj running the environment and national resources division has a tough time saying he had any business whatsoever helping to develop a st

i would do anything to get him re-elected, meadows tells her.nd after the election, in the wild scramble to overturn its results, hutchinson says meadows was constantly burning documents in the chief of staff's fireplace. and at one point leaked classified documents to far-right wing media figures. meadows constantly reassures his boss he will work to overturn the election that trump clearly lost. quote, i was irritated that mark gave the president false hope, hutchinson writes. of course, that's what the president wanted to hear, but he was damaging the country, but concocting false rationales. this is a theme in the book. soon to be house speaker kevin mccarthy and director of national intelligence john ratcliffe both expressed concern to hutchinson about the president a's erratically acknowledging he lost, backtracking and saying he didn't. are both men blame meadows. but it's trump who was most erratic. after the u.s. supreme court refuses to take up the non-sensical lawsuit files by texas to overturn states that biden won, trump pushes mead

meadows. with white house counsel, lawyers, and with mr. tony ornato. who served as the white house deputy chief of staff. she also worked on a daily basis with members of the secret service, who were posted in the white house. in short, miss hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the trump white house. miss hutchinson's already sat for four videotaped video it interviews with committee investigators, we thank you very much for her cooperation and for her courage. >> i saw mr. cipollone read before i walked out that morning. mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the capitol, cassidy. keep in touch with me. we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> do remember which crimes mr. cipollone was concerned with? >> in the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count. >> now, thanks in part, to her testimony, her boss, white house chief of staff mark meadows,

neil, what does judge jones's decision against meadow mean, meadows, mean for trump and others hoping to move their cases to federal court? >> it is a significant decision, jonathan. mark meadows who is chief of staff and donald trump really want their criminal trial to take place in federal court in georgia. not a local fulton county court. the chief reason is, at least i, think if the trial takes place in georgia state court, it is televised. the world can see it. if it's in federal court, it is almost never televised. trump and meadows are scared of cameras like vampires to sunlight, something like that. there is a federal law that has been around for a long time called section 14 42. what that allows you to do, if your a federal official acting under federal law and you are the federal defense, you can take your court trial and move it to federal court. what the judge yesterday, judge jones dead, a really detailed 49-page opinion, blow the move out of the water. he said your federal official, mark meadows, you are not at all acting under color of federal law in the federal law bar

meadows' lawyers, of course, are saying yes, even if one act touches on meadows' job as chief of staffwe'll see something before wednesday when meadows is set to be arraigned. and we have defendant kenneth chesebro, he's filed various motions in state court. first, he wants the prosecution to speed up their production of discovery to him and his lawyers. his lawyers are saying it's unacceptable that prosecutors have said they'll hand everything over by september 15th, which is two weeks from now, when they're speeding toward this october 23rd trial date. chesebro's lawyers say they've given willis' team a hard drive for the evidence and they're saying that willis' team really needs to speed it up. they say they can't say they're ready to go to trial but then slow walk this production of documents. and then also, chesebro's telling the court that he wants a solo trial. even though he and sidney powell both filed for speedy trials, he does not want to go to trial with sidney powell. he says he never had any direct contact with her and they're not accused of doing the same thing. so, a fl

julie, how is this ruling complicating meadows and his codefendants legal strategies? >> alex, it is a major setback. not only for mark meadows case, but also for the other five codefendants who want to make a similar move and made a similar action. that includes former president, trump, who this week said he was considering making that move, trying to throw his case out of the fulton county jurisdiction and into the federal court. that could impact his legal strategy moving forward. >> former trump chief of staff, mark meadows, dealt a major blow with the georgia election interference case. u.s. district judge, steve, jones denied his attempt to move the case to federal court. saying his alleged involvement in pressuring state officials to overturn the 2020 election result was not part of meadows work as a government official. jones writing meadows efforts to prove he was acting in his formal capacity as a white house employee and not on behalf of the trump campaign, quote, falls short. meadows lawyers hope to have the court heard in federal court where they can invok

is that sufficient to get meadows into federal court? so what that tells me is that the judge thinks that there is at least some things in the indictment that are alleged about meadows that maybe are things that he did within his duties as chief of staff. and fani willis responded by saying, you know, these overt acts under georgia's rico law, which is what meadows is charged with, they are not necessary to show in order to have meadows be convicted of the charge. so, therefore, even if some of these overt acts were committed within the scope of his office, it's not sufficient for him to use that as a hook to get into federal court. of course, meadows naturally responded with the opposite argument. but i think that it tells me that judge jones is really thinking carefully about this issue. i think that we are going to maybe see a little bit of time a pass here, before he comes out with an opinion. because it is such an unsettled area of law. i think that one of these big issues, and big questions, is going to be one act by meadows within

meadows has the best argument because he can -- it's easier for meadows to characterize what he was doingies. whereas obviously donald trump was out there doing all sorts of things. and he's much more of a political figure and a lot of what he was doing could be more fairly characterized as political rather than him acting purely in his governmental duties as president of the united states. after all, the president of the united states has no role in regulating local administration of elections. and so i think what he was doing here strategically is they were letting meadows go first. meadows is taking this calculated risk. and they wanted to see how that was going to proceed. now they're not committing themselves, but if meadows happens to be successful then trump i think will at least try or go down the path of making that calculated -- that risk on his own part. of course the risks are much higher for him. >> and just for folks at home who aren't lawyers, the essential test here is whether this push in georgia to challenge and eventually in trump's hopes overturn the results, the quest

meadows attorney. quote. why did you care whether the electors were coordinated? meadows. so about this time, maybe on this given day, it was mentioned to me that there was litigation going on that you had to have a provisional or conditional elector. should a court or should a legislature rule that you can't just have one set of electors, you had to have a provisional set. what i didn't want to happen was for the campaign to prevail in certain areas and then have not this. it was brought -- meadows attorney interrupts then, why did you not want that to happen? meadows:because i knew i would get yelled at if we had not -- meadows attorney gets interrupted again. by whom? by the president of the united states. with trump and his co-defendants facing at this point pretty devastating legal risk, what has the head of the alleged criminal enterprise been up to, you wonder? well, we have the answer. raging on social media, of course. he is attacking the judge in the federal 2020 election case. the one being brought by jack smith. trump is lashing out at new york attorney letitia

the sources in this case, everyone was watching meadows' cause because they believed that meadows had the strongest possibility, the strongest likelihood of succeeding. the fact that he has not been successful in getting his case moved to federal court, not a great sign for anyone else who wants to try to do this. former president trump is a slightly different case, but also not a good sign for him either. though the judge officially says his ruling has no impact on anyone else's case, and each will be decided individually. paula reid, cnn, washington. >>> rudy giuliani, one of the defendants in the georgia election case, has filed a new legal challenge against the criminal charges he faces. the former attorney of donald trump has asked a judge to dismiss his indictment or at least set a hearing on the matter. prosecutors charged giuliani with 13 crimes, accusing him of peddling false claims about voter fraud to state legislators. but he argues there are day efficiencies in the -- deficiencies in the indictment that render it invalid. >>> body cam video of a deadly shooting involved i

and yes, mark meadows gets to appeal.im to try this in federal court where he had hoped he could get the whole case dismissed. and if not, he hoped it would at least be friendier terrain for a jury. rejected. that's pretty mow menmentous, p. >> thanks so much for the breaking news. >>> coming up on sunday morning, we're going to have antony blinken, ambassador and governor nikki haley, and house foreign affairs chairman mike mccall. that's all sunday morning at 9:00 eastern and again at noon. wolf blitzer is going to pick up all the breaking news coming up next in "the situation room." i will see you sunday morning. thanks so o much. white 80...! white 80...! hello patrick mahomes! hut...hut...? wait, who do you even play for? t-mobile! and i'm here to protect you from wireless companies that blitz you with phone deals th sack you with a 3-year device contract. even i could get sacked? t at t-mobile! they have plans that makepgrades work for you. they even have a plan which makes you upgrade ready every year. thanks ben!

in an odd way, meadows seemed to be similar. i was just doing what i was told or scared i'd get in trouble from the guy at the top. >> when you serve in that office, you take on a duty to take on and serve the constitution. it didn't prevent richardson from resigning in the face of nixon's demands they fire archibald cox. they resigned. that's the choice you have when you have that level of responsibility. you're not obligated to break the law. >> ty, thank you very much, good to speak with you. >> great to see you. thank you, erin. >>> next, new details about the lengths that north korea may be going to in order to keep kim jong un safe. he's about to meet with putin in russia about a potential arms deal. this includes the possibility of body doubles. this is a story you will see first here out front tonight. >>> plus just in, a top republican senator who is also a physician is raising questions about what the capitol hill doctor says caused mitch mcconnell to freeze for the second time in two months. >>> i think it's an inadeq