it is a harder case with meadows. the points you raised, lawrence, seem beyond the pale anyway however you strike it, but a lot has to do with how you characterize his conduct and his lawyer terwilliger has somewhat adroitly tried to frame this as doing this chief of staff-y stuff, conducting calls here. and the circuit here has pretty liberal removal, that is to say it favors removal. so i agree with andrew, it's not a straightforward motion. you could see his prevailing here. one interesting point to raise, you have 30 days to do a removal and you would think trump in his delay strategy would want to wait until the end, and meadows here jumps begun innocence and speeds up the clock. there are other people as well, but trump, if you were really in control, would have won, and none of this to occur for 29 days and instead we are already off to the races with the meadows motion. >> a good case. do each one of these defendants get their own day in federal court if they want it, making the claim that their case should be

meadows motion.is machete to cut through everything and he is kind of drawing his own conclusions it sounds like that no one really thought was a settlement discussion at the time this call was made. again, you have brad raffensperger who is an engineer by trade before he became secretary of state. a very precise man who talks about how nervous he is about even taking this call. he thought it was a campaign call because they were campaign attorneys on the phone. he thought that he shouldn't have been on the side, all that it wouldn't be on the bounce of what he had done before. and for the judge to ask mr. raffensperger which seems to be a softball question, is this really a settlement call? does not bode well for mr. meadows. >> barb mcquade, there seems to be credibility questions from mark meadows in this. we know from this summer he reported in some of the newspapers that he claimed that he went to georgia when he visited the cop county for the vote audit that was going on out there and it was tu

that is quite a visual from mark meadows. and, he insisted that he was acting solely in his capacity as trump's chief of staff when he worked to overturn the election. same quote, i don't know that i did anything that was outside my scope as chief of staff. okay, let us pause without a moment, because i've served two presidents and six chiefs of staff. obviously, none of those six were calling secretary of state to overturn elections or trying to find dead voters either, thousands of them. but, it does not take a legal experts to know it's not a job of the chief of staff, north of the job of the chief of staff to interfere with the presidential election under the guides of, quote, making sure elections are accurate, as he argued today. which, by the way, it's worth noting, he defines i was making sure his boss won. so, what he is arguing is that the job of the white house chief of staff includes contacting state election officials to change the outcome of the election against the will of the people. that is simply nonsensical

those were challenging times, meadows said of his tenure. as he seeks to move the case from state to federal court, prosecutors delved into the case and some of the allegations against meadows. meadows denying that he directed another white house aide to disrupt. saying he had zero recollection of that happening. it was the biggest surprise to me upon reading the indictment. putting meadows on the stand he's accused of participating in in georgia, a risky approach for any criminal defendant. meadows making the case that his activities were part of his official duty it is of chief of staff. >> mr. president, everybody is on the line. this is mark meadows, the chief of staff. >> i just want to find 11,780 votes which is one more than we have, because we won the state. >> reporter: raffensperger also took the state saying he first tried to resist the call and testifying there was no federal role in certifying georgia's election. when prosecutors questioned what federal role meadows was fulfilling in post election calls with trump and another pu

i served with mark meadows and wait with him when _ mark meadows and wait with him when he — mark meadowsmself regardless of who — he will save himself regardless of who have who is on his way. what _ of who have who is on his way. what information do you think you might give to harm the former president?- you might give to harm the former president? you would have to ask — former president? you would have to ask the _ former president? you would have to ask the prosecutors l former president? you would | have to ask the prosecutors at all levels _ have to ask the prosecutors at all levels. the smith, be it fani — all levels. the smith, be it fani willis or anyone else. i think— fani willis or anyone else. i think we _ fani willis or anyone else. i think we will find out once these _ think we will find out once these cases again. is think we will find out once these cases again.- these cases again. is this something _ these cases again. is this something of _ these cases again. is this something of particular l something of particular concern, mark meadows, his former chief of staff? 0bvi

mark meadows, hands off mark meadows, huh-uh.eadows too. >> she chose to go forward with this long before anybody in -- >> this train has been coming. this train has been coming the whole time. jack smith is late to the party. she should wait. no, jack smith was late to the party. she has been working on this for a very long time and if people don't like it, if people don't like rico, well, where have you been all this time? this same prosecutor was using this to put rappers and teachers in jail. if you didn't like rico then you should have said something about it. a lot of us on the progressive left have been concerned about overabuse of rico but if there's ever a time to use a statute like this to get everybody who is involved and send a message, you cannot conspire to overthrow an election in the united states and get away with it and if jack smith wasn't willing to go after everybody, she is. >> what do you guys think about cameras in state court? >> in fulton county it would be nothing new to have a camera in the court. obvi

because i served with mark meadows, i know mark meadows and i believe today that mark meadows has sunge a canary already to jack smith. he is somebody who holds himself out with a bit of a compass. that requires you to skip past the fact that he went to work with donald trump, which holds all these morals questions in and of itself. he is somebody who considers himself to have a certain amount of compass and i think he's someone who doesn't want to go to prison for donald trump. i think he's in that category that says if my personal jeopardy and freedom are on the line, i'm happy to talk about donald trump. so with that in mind, you know, what i am curious about is a move by mark meadows to try to move the georgia matter to federal court avoids the substantive matter, avoids the substantive question, it raises the question if he can get out of federal court without addressing the hard questions in georgia. and i actually think that's consistent with him having cooperated with jack smith. i guess i'd have a question a bit for glen or john's reporting. could jack smith actually support t

meadows had set up another notable call.2nd, 2021, in which mr. trump can be heard telling mr. raffensperger that he wanted to find 11,000, 780 votes, that would allow him to win in georgia. and in 2021, during the january 6th committee's hearing, it was revealed that meadows had repeatedly pushed the justice department to conduct investigations, based on trump's unfounded conspiracies about the election. since trump's efforts failed, mark meadows has been doing a delicate dance. as the new york times explains, meadows try to navigate the legal and political peril of the moment, seeking to avoid being charged himself, while also sidestepping the career risks of being seen as cooperating with what his republican allies had cast as a partisan persecution, of the former president. but meadows couldn't avoid being charged in georgia. and this week, a federal judge denied his request to extend his deadline to surrender to state authorities. this is just the beginning of meadows is -- . he filed court documents this week, seeking

if not, meadows should proceed with arraignment. joining me is paul butler, former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. just to clarify that last thing, if he doesn't rule, he should go for a speedy trial. let's go through all of this. paul, let's start with meadows' chances of being able to move this to federal court. you just heard him on the call. he didn't sound like he was performing some sort of federal duty. he sounded like he was asking if there was a way to flip the election. can that be ruled in any conception as doing his federal job? >> nope. so joy, here's the law. if a federal official is charged with a crime in state or for conduct that the defendant says was part of their federal job responsibilities, then the case can be moved to federal court, and you remember, donald trump tried the same move. he wanted to get the prosecution by the manhattan district attorney moved to federal court. and the federal judge in new york denied that motion, telling trump paying hush money to porn stars wasn't part of trump's of

meadows has a hearing on monday.aring to see whether he could get his case moved to federal court and a hearing that could prove rather revealing about the state's case. joining many he now to discuss, former georgia democratic state senator and attorney jen jurden and former prosecutor david aarons. it is nice to have you both with us. david, what are you expecting here in terms of witness testimony, and evidence that could be presented that shows us what is in fani willis's case on monday? >> it is going to be very interesting to see how this proceeds. mr. meadows's team is going to have to describe why mr. meadows was acting in his federal officer capacity. i'm not entirely sure what evidence they've going to offer of that. they probably don't want him to testify and the judge may allow them to proceed based on an attorney proffer. >> in terms of what this sets up for me too is this fascinating look, we know that brad raffensperger have been subpoenaed and along with those on the infamous phone call where donald t

mark meadows is on that call. this georgia state investigator, frances watson, who is another person who mark meadows directly sort of dealt with, interacted with, texted with about trying to look for new votes and to take another look at the election in georgia. so it's really going to be sort of a preview of, i think, the determinative issue at trial tomorrow. >> carrie, meadows is not the only defendant to ask for their case to be moved to federal court. david schaefer and kathy latham, who served as a fake elector, both filed similar notices. they claim they were just acting at trump's direction. do any of these defendants have a chance, and what do we make of what's going to happen with this case with all of these defendants ping-ponging in different directions, wanting different things. it sounds like it could be chaotic. >> there certainly are a lot of different moving parts because so many different defendants and defendants who are coming at this from very different perspectives from the former president

think mark meadows has a potential good argument _ actually think mark meadows has a potential goodonl actually think mark meadows has a i potential good argument there on the sunremacy_ potential good argument there on the sunremacy clause _ potential good argument there on the supremacy clause of _ potential good argument there on the supremacy clause of the _ supremacy clause of the constitution. _ supremacy clause of the constitution. he - supremacy clause of the constitution. he was - supremacy clause of the i constitution. he was acting supremacy clause of the - constitution. he was acting as an officer— constitution. he was acting as an officer of— constitution. he was acting as an officer of the _ constitution. he was acting as an officer of the united _ constitution. he was acting as an officer of the united states, - constitution. he was acting as an officer of the united states, thel officer of the united states, the function — officer of the united states, the function and _ officer of the united states, the function and now— officer of the united states, the function an

and as we are losing our seagrass meadows, we are losing our seagrass meadows, we are losing our seagrasssing our biodiversity, we are losing that cot.— losing that cot. by harvesting healthy meadows, _ losing that cot. by harvesting healthy meadows, the - losing that cot. by harvesting healthy meadows, the team | losing that cot. by harvesting i healthy meadows, the team are pointing to plant a million seeds all gathered by hand. free snorkellers, _ all gathered by hand. free snorkellers, divers - all gathered by hand. free snorkellers, divers and - all gathered by hand. free snorkellers, divers and waders, we collect _ snorkellers, divers and waders, we collect just — snorkellers, divers and waders, we collectjust the top snorkellers, divers and waders, we collect just the top of the plant which — collect just the top of the plant which has the seeds in, they are processed — which has the seeds in, they are processed and cleaned and stored and then they— processed and cleaned and stored and then they are ready fast wanting in then they are ready fast wanting in the autumn. but then they

it's not just meadows.g basically that he has absolute immunity according to some constitutional scholar, which is probably ridiculous. alone, for him to espouse this is disqualifying for the offense. dick about what they're saying. they're saying that joe biden and his chief of staff, jeff science, canter out the election next november and install themselves for a second term. it's ridiculous. >> yeah, they are saying that president biden and the white house chief of staff now can basically commit any crime they want. this really is the nixon doctrine that nixon did not there enunciate on top after he was pardoned. >> exactly, normally, they only voice this when they have absolute immunity, with the next guy's power. it's not the case. i think back to what donald trump is saying and what he thinks joe biden's powers are. now it's just constitutionally absurd. the other question about mark meadows and what he said about the standing order to declassify, i don't think that's all that surprising lawrence. we

the meadows' hearing just wrapping up. how did it go for mark meadows today? he spent a long time on the stand. >> reporter: he did. it's pretty remarkable that he took this stand at all, considering he is a criminal defendant in this case. and of course that comes with some risk. but obviously meadows and his team wanted to use him to make the case that everything that he was doing in georgia in the aftermath of the 2020 election. when he was on calls with rudy giuliani, he said that was part of his role as a scheduler, part of making sure that from a federal prosecute iv that elections were being carried out. he said something similarly when asked about setting up the call between donald trump and brad raffensperger, that that was part of his job as white house chief of staff, even though raffensperger testified that the federal government doesn't play a role in certifying the results at this state level. to give you a sense of how broadly the meadows' team is viewing his responsibilities, here's part of what played out. the judge asked meadows' attorney at

it will take center stage in a court hearing tomorrow morning where meadows, mark meadows will ask a to move his case to federal court or dismiss it altogether. let's turn now to some legal experts and cnn legal analyst e elie honig. let me start with you. what do you think we'll learn from this hearing tomorrow? is it possible? i was kind of curious about this, might there be little nuggets or easter eggs in tomorrow's hearings that there might be information that we haven't heard before as to fani willis justifying keeping this case in fulton county? >> for sure, jim. i think what we could see tomorrow could be a microcosm of the issues that will be presented at the trial. essentially what mark meadows will be arguing is i was just doing my job as chief of staff. what fani willis will say no, you were trying to commit the tri crimes that i am charging you with, and trump asked him to find 11,780 votes and mark meadows is on that call and this georgia state investor, francis watson who is another person who mark med omeadows interacted wih and to take another look at the election in

chief of staff mark meadows. is also believed to be a central figure in both the special counsel jack smith's investigations, the alleged mishandling of classified documents, and the election interference case. as one piece from "the new york times" put it this weekend, mark meadows is everywhere and nowhere, a visible ghost, because so little is known about what he has had to say about any of this. but this morning for the first time, abc news can report key details about what mark meadows has told federal investigators about the classified documents case. from the moment federal authorities revealed they had found hundreds of documents marked classified at mar-a-lago, donald trump has insisted it was all declassified. >> something he repeatedly claimed in the months that followed. >> when they left the white house, they were declassified. i took what i took, and it gets declassified. and, by the way, they become automatically declassified when i took them. everything was declassified because i had the right to

and meadows was acting on behalf of the president.udge is going to have to look and say, well, 154 of those 157 overt acts that the district attorney has alleged were part of the conspiracy were done while trump was the sitting president of the united states. and so how does that play into meadows' job? and trump's lawyers had a chance to hear this. they'll now know what to expect from raffensperger. they'll know he's going to say it's a campaign call. they'll know about the whether or notes on whether or not they think this is some kind of campaign violation on meadows' part or otherwise. but it really gives them a very brief -- and it's very brief, frankly -- preview into the case to come. and i think it also tells us that we will have a number of versions surfing around both in the interpretation of the telephone call. and if you listen to that call where meadows says, this is the chief of staff, and apparently they're calling from the oval office, it's a unique introduction. clearly he didn't say, this is the trump campaign. wheth

of course, mark meadows was the chief of staff.nvolved within the federal government? especially during a federal election, a presidential election. >> it is stunning to see mark meadows's name in an indictment, because in the january 6th indictment, he is chief of staff as mentioned, but he is not charged. >> i think that a lot of us assumed that mark meadows was cooperating with the department of justice. i actually think otherwise now. folks in his camp, they kind of officially -- he complied with the subpoena but has not flipped with the department of justice. i tend to believe that, and i tend to read into it to doj thought he was such a valuable witness that they would rather work with him through the channels of the subpoena than try to charge him in this. georgia is a different ball game, and it always has been. when you look at laying this out, as that conspiracy charge, as the r.i.c.o. charge, he falls very clearly into that in the actions that he took. i think that he likely is just doing the bare minimum that his attorn

the meaning defense of mark meadows.t was george i whether or not he was going to be able to remove himself from the state court, go to federal court which is where he thinks that he has the best chance of dismissing these charges entirely. he couldn't do that and get a judge to agree unless he had some testimony or for himself or another witness to make the guard commit, hey, i was just acting in my federal duties, i'm the chief of staff of the president, after ten his calls, after ranged, i have to participate in them. and that's essentially what he argued and there are of course as you will probably ask, steph, some big caveats and what mark meadows had to say for four plus hours. >> yes, big. how big of a deal is, it filled, that we got this sneak peek, this preview from meadows to testify this early in the case. don't you kind of show his parts? >> he did, steph. and he answered a lot of questions and we also learned from brad raffensperger, a lot of detail played out in the courtroom about january 2nd, 2021 foot ca

meadows. >> to start wholesale trying to change the way that we conduct elections state by state, i could tell we're asking for problems, we're asking for fraud. >> reporter: taking the tand in a federal courtroom in georgia after he and former president donald trump and 17 others were charged with racketeering by the fulton county district attorney. for their attempts to overturn the 2020 election in georgia. >> you can't ever accept when they steal and rig and rob. >> reporter: meadows who has kept a stunningly low profile amid the various investigation news donald trump now breaking his silence on the case under oath. those were challenging times, bluntly. meadows told the court of his white house tenure. as meadows soo seeks to move from state to federal court, prosecutors delved into the allegations against meadows. denying under oath that he directed another white house aide to write a memo about how to delay or disrupt the certification of the election on january 6 saying he had zero re

mark meadows is a fascinating case. because he did -- it did feel like something was missing in the federal case when you're like, where is meadows in here? he was barely mentioned. then he gets indicted in georgia. so from what you have been able to see, there has been fear in trump world that he was, quote, a rat, that he was somehow cooperating. he did cooperate with the january 6th committee to a great extent and then pulled back and then, you know, there were charges recommended for obstruction, but that never happened. he was never, ever charged with defying the committee. do you read it as he cooperated with the feds and didn't in georgia and that's why he's indicted in georgia? >> i think first of all it's really hard to tell. what i suspect is that he's doing what he did when we were investigating on the january 6th committee where he wants to do enough to avoid full culpability but not enough that he has to stand up in court in front of the public and say what he actually did. he's walking that tightrope and i

wants meadows to play on their terms. and essentially come in, have the bond process take place like the others, like trump. then be arrested. come in through the jail. meadows says no, we are getting this case in federal court and that's where it is now based on what we've done procedurally. so we're not coming in yet. have us arrested. and the d.a. is threatening to arrest meadows if he doesn't turn himself in by this deadline of friday at noon. there is a hearing set for monday that meadows wants to m push this whole thing past. it's gearing up to be quite the hearing because there's a lot of people looking at whether that case could be moved to federal court either one or two defendants or all of them. >> what about when the former president plans to turn himself in? do we know more details? >> we don't have the full plan available yet. but we know that donald trump is announcing, he is prlanning to turn himself in to be arrested on thursday in this case now that his lawyers have made that bond agreement. he was posti

was also related to meadows.meone who is providing ammunition to the prosecution. whether it be voluntary or not. trump of course is not the kind of person who forgives that kind of thing. in fact, he's the kind of person who will try to punish someone for it. i think if these other codefendants get that sense that trump is looking for fall guys, is looking for someone to off-load this case on to, and be like, a, i was just filing legal challenges. these other people got out of hand. i think not only meadows, but other defendants are going to try to separate out their case, separate themselves out from this debacle. >> yeah, the representation strikes me as a key thing to watch here. kersley, with cassidy hutchinson, she had a lawyer that was provided to her by this trump world. she left that lawyer after she felt like that lawyer was counseling her not to be fully honest. she got a new lawyer, and gave this explicit testimony. my understanding of meadow's legal counsel, and i don't have that name in front of me,

judge jones denies mark meadows' emergency motion. 7:15 p.m. district attorney willis files a brief in response to mark meadows' request to remove his case to federal court. in district attorney willis' 20-page brief opposing moving the case against mark meadows to federal court she raises an issueis that i for one am embarrassed to say i had not thought of, the hatch act. the hatch act sitting right there. didn't think of ha it. district attorney willis quotes mark meadows in an interview while he was white house chief of staff saying, quote, nobody outside the beltway really cares about trump administration officials violating the hatch act, which they did more than any other white house indi history. district attorney willis then points out, quote, the defendant unreservedly declares that all of thely alleged conduct as to . meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of first amendment and all the substantive allegations in the indictment concern unquestionably political activity, and thus if not covered by su

allegations against meadows. meadows denying that he directed another white house aid to write a memo about how to delay or disrupt the certification of the election on january 6. saying that he had zero recollection of that happening. and it was the biggest surprise to me upon reading the indictment. putting meadows on the stand to challenge the events he is accused of participating in in georgia, a risky approach for any criminal defendant. meadows looking to make the case that his activities after the 2020 election were part of his official dutsies as chief of staff including rararranging th call between between president trump and georgia secretary of state. >> everybody is on the line. >> i just want to find 11,780 votes which is one more than we have. because we won the state. >> reporter: raffensperger also took the stand saying that first tried to resist the call and testifying that there was no federal role in certifying georgia's election. when prosecutors questioned what federal role meadows was fulfil

mark meadows.nald trump, georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger to violate his oath of office by altering the certified returns for presidential electors. the federal judge seems to be leaning toward the view of the indictment that mark meadows was not just the telephone operator who set up the phone call. when >> i think you're right. first of all, judge jones seems to have at least a preview of what this case is about. i think it's also interesting, in the motion, one of the examples of mark meadows permissible conduct, or conduct under the color of federal law, is where he offers trump campaign resources to expedite what was happening in terms of vote counting. i believe that was a conversation he had with investigator watson in cobb county. again, i think you will see from the district attorney in her response, laying out how all of these things are all related to state elections, which is not the responsibility of the president of the united states. if it is not his responsibility, then

in atlanta, key evidence is going to be presented as trump's former chief of staff mark meadows is going to seek to move his charges out of state court and into federal court, and so, could this set a precedent and could trump be next. and in washington, d.c., four months away or a longer, years' longer delay? will the trump case fall smack dab in the mid of the campaign? we will begin with zachary who is there. >> yes, we have lawyers and others working with the prosecutor jack smith, and talk about the timing for when a trial for former president donald trump would start. jack smith and his team have argued they want a speedy trial, and they want it to happen soon, and as soon as january of next year. now, if you are comparing that to what donald trump's lawyers are asking for, it is radically different, because they want a trial tro start in april of 2026. there is a lot of daylight between the two sides and a judge is going to have to make a call to see if she gives donald trump more time to prepare. they argue so much evidence, the former president's team, there is so much evidence

that is clearly coming from mark meadows.out that he, basically, removed very damning evidence from his book which is now very anodyne. the original draft was really much more damning. that seems to be coming from lagos rioters who would know that side of the story. i think that this is definitely more to come. both fani willis and jack smith are basically going to be telling mark meadows, or have told him, you either are a defendant or ui cooperator who has pled guilty. it is one of the. other it cannot be both. >> just picking up on the mention of the book. there was new reporting as you referenced about an earlier version of meadows 2021 book mentioning the episode at best minister where trump showed classified documents to the ghost writers to give more meat on the bones and. the report saying he personally edited out because it in believe that trump would have possessed a document like that. i will leave judgment on that out there for a moment. neil, could he be in trouble for that? is that something he could face legal

so how does that play into meadows's job?rs had a chance to hear this, they know what to expect from raffensperger. they're gonna say it's a campaign, call they're gonna hear about the arguments or whether or not they think this is some kind of campaign violation on meadows's part or otherwise, but it really gives them a very brief, very brief, frankly, preview into the case to come. and i think it also tells us that we will have a number versions something around both in the interpretation of the telephone call and even if you listen to the call where meadows says this is the chief of staff, and the fact that they're calling from the oval office, it's a unique introduction. clearly, he didn't say this is the trump campaign. now, whether that's -- from the federal judge, i doubted. but it's a piece of information that will get put into the mix as they decide how it should lay forward and maybe compel it to an appeal court. >> the fact that he was repeatedly asked by prosecutors why he visited that atlanta facility where georg

meadows' reply, i am pushing it hard, i agree.ting with others who were allegedly pushing slates of fake electors, disingenerous lawsuits, and bogus claims of bad voting machines, saying little about it publicly. meadows sat down with the grand jury earlier this year, and since then he's been even more tight-lipped, spurring some to wonder if what mark meadows is not saying speaks volumes. >> that looks to me like somebody who's cooperating with the federal government. >> reporter: to be clear, we do not know if mark meadows is cooperating with the government. we do not know if he's in any legal jeopardy. but we do know earlier this spring team trump wasn't very happy that he kind of went underground. and we also know a lot of people in this town right now would very much like to know where mark meadows stands. >> thank you very much, tom. ryan goodman is "outfront" with me, "outfront" legal analyst. when you put all this together, like chris christie's way of saying it, this very much looks like someone cooperating with the feder

meadows testified for several hours today. he tried to make the case that everything he did was within his official duties as chief of staff for trump. he talks about that infamous phone call to georgia secretary of state, where trump of course asked raffensperger to find him more votes. meadows excuse the call saying that trump believe there was fraud in georgia and you are trying to come up with a way to resolve the issues without going to court. now, brad raffensperger himself testified and called this out reach from president chief of staff setting up the call extraordinary in his words. so, we'll see which way the judge rules and of meadows can get his case out of state court. abby. >> yeah, very much important developments today, jessica, thank you and stand by for us. here with me in the studio's former gop congressman and host of the white flag podcast. joe walsh. also, wall street journal sabrina siddiqui, associate professor at law georgetown university peter johnson and former federal prosecutor gene rossi. i want t

what do you think his testimony will mean for mark meadows overall argument? he basically said the call was political and what trump was asking him was inappropriate? >> well, the thing he did that really hurt his case is that he said he was acting at the behest of donald trump. you can complain about how a -- handles your money. but you cannot rob it. so what donald trump did is he devised a scheme to affect the electoral vote, and he brought mark meadows in and helped him execute the scheme. if you met mark meadows did that came out of that hearing is that he violated the hatch act. you cannot under any circumstances claim color of law if you are violating the hatch act. so he shot himself in the foot. >> but he's saying everything that i did, broadly speaking, was part of my responsibilities because it's the president of the united states. anything that he wants goes? >> yes, well, it has limitations. but the hatch act says that you can only do certain things, even as a chief of staff. so when he tries to make the argument that he is acting under the law an

mark meadows is first.e will be up first to convince a judge to move his case in the federal court arguing that he was just doing his job as then president trump's chief of staff. it could be a preview of what this whole trial might look like. plus the country singer, who dethroned taylor swift on the charts with a boost from conservatives like marjorie taylor green. his song, richmond, north of richmond was laying at this week's debate as we were discussing. there's more to this story than you might think. and ronnie james, the older son of the nba superstar, lebron james is now expected to be making a full recovery after suffering a cardiac arrest last month. it stemmed we are learning from a congenital heart defect. the family spokesman says he will return to basketball in the very near future and will have much more on this condition tonight. first only begin with the latest news in that latest georgia election case here with me in studio cnn justice correspondent discussed letter in january 6 investiga

meadows face from the state prosecutors. the clark team will be going through a very similar exercise presumably soon and so it makes sense they would go watch. and, by the way, there is an interesting open legal question, if mr. meadows prevails and has his case removed to federal court, there is one school of thought that suggests that every other defendant just goes with him automatically. there is another school of thought that says each defendant will have his or her case for removal adjudicated on their individual merits. i don't know the answer to that question. but i can understand fully why anybody else who wants their case removed would want to watch these proceedings. >> harry litman, thank you so much. chuck rosenberg, you'll be joining us later in the hour. when we are back in 60 seconds, campus tragedy. a shooting at unc chapel hill a week into the school year. more on the suspected gunman now charged with first degree murder. >>> also ahead, new revelations on the racist rampage in jacksonville. the college se

role meadows played to keep trump in power. in the weeks following trump's election loss, meadows got involved. meadows and trump met with michigan legislators in the white house, where the former president made claims of election fraud in that state. the next day, meadows sent a text to congressman scott perry, asking, can you send me the number for the speaker and the leader of pennsylvania legislature? potus wants to chat with them. the following week, they met with pennsylvania legislators at the white house, the same day rudy giuliani and jenna ellis also traveled to the commonwealth and solicited, requested, and importuned the pennsylvania legislators to appoint presidential electors from pennsylvania. meadows was also allegedly deeply involved in the efforts to overturn election results in georgia, according to the indictment on december 22, he went to cob county, georgia to watch an election audit that was in progress. he was turned away. he then arranged a phone call between trump and then chief investigator for the ge

this is still the meadows case. giving real shape to meadow's strategy and how the district attorney fani willis plans to maintain control of her prosecution. now we should acknowledge that meadow's decision to take the stand at all was remarkable. it was a gamble. it was seen as a last-ditch hail mary chips on the table strategy and meadows risked a lot, through almost four hours of testimony including cross-examination. equally astounding is the big picture. this trial before the trial so to speak was the very first time a trump associate has testified in open court about the disgraced ex-president's action after the election. an if his actions were made in his capacity as a federal official, for a move to federal court, he insisted there was a federal nexus to everything that he did. and he said investigating sote voter fraud was a side task for him. it was kind of a chore. something he needed to cross off the list in order to get trump to focus on other pressing matters. quote, i just needed to land the plane, e

and that is what donald trump and mark meadows have big problems with. >> that same position, meadowsd out of state court to federal court. here's what a former federal prosecutor told me, charles. take a listen. >> he and trump are requesting a memo from an individual about how to disrupting delay the certification of the count. that is not an act that a chief of staff is engaging in. that's related to the campaign. similarly, he sent a text to the georgia secretary of state chief investigator about ways that that campaign could assist financially in speeding up the fulton county signature verification process. again, nothing to do with his role as a chief of staff. >> so does he, charles, have to prove to a federal judge the crimes he's accused of were not directly tied to the campaign? >> we'll know, alex, it's more a matter of in order to try to get the type of immunity he would be looking for, what he would need to establish is that his actions were connected to his responsibilities while in office, and that he was acting as an agent of being the chief of staff at the white house

mark meadows, all eyes will be on that proceeding. what do you think his chances are at getting this case moved to federal court. if it is moved to federal court, could this be a possible preview of not just his defense, but donald trump's? >> so, a lot of interesting questions wrapped up in this proceeding tomorrow. the most frustrating thing may ultimately be at the end of the day we may not know what the answer. is this is an evidentiary hearing. it is possible that the judge could take evidence and then different ruling until he's had the opportunity to considerate and evaluate the law. when he looks at the issues here, meadows we'll have to prove three things. that he is a public official, not and doubt, that his contract here was within the course of his official duties and that he has a colorable federal defense. that means not a solid meritorious defense. simply one that he can offer that's reasonable. he can likely prevail there to. so, hall eyes tomorrow will be on the evidence that helps to establish that the contact was or

i think his claim is probably far less robust than mark meadows claim. he really is somebody who's seen to have so far exceeded the scope of his official duties by corrupting and weaponizing the department of justice, and interfering in a state election. you know, once we get a decision in the mark meadows case, then you are going to see other defendants lineup to try and take their shot. >> amy lee copeland, i had my doubts about anyone who wasn't a federal employee being covered by this removal statute until i read it today. what it refers to, any officer, any officer of the united states, any officer, in parentheses, or any person acting under that officer, and we already have these fake electors saying, i was acting under donald trump, people in this case who have no federal employment affiliation who were saying they were acting under the direction of federal officers. >> that's what they are saying in their motions. i read mr. stills motioned the most carefully. what he says as he walked into a room, in the georgia state house, sitting there were a

it's not just that meadows was the chief of staff to the president. i think he is looking at what exactly was meadows doing. -- chief of staff ordinary activities? or were these activities pursuant to the campaign? with these activities pursuant to a -- that the president had absolutely no business interfering in, namely the electoral college, or were these activities on their face a legal, in which case they would not have been part of the federal policy? >> is -- this alyssa farah griffin -- this is more than him just wanted to avoid a mugshot in fulton county -- clearly, he would like to -- >> that certainly a factor. listen, none of this brings me joy. but meadows, from what i understand, is -- who knows him kind of playing all sides -- trying to leave trump world, think he is not cooperating, while going as far as he can, cooperating unofficially with the oj and you say that to me -- his answer, he has responded to a subpoena, he is very clearly, at least, claiming -- but fulton county was always kind of this x-factor. because fani willis did not

>> well, mark meadows is such a key figure in all of this.ndering for months and months and months, where's he been? he's disappeared. and when he was in the white house, he was trumps enabler in every single way. and was on that phone call with re raffensperger about looking for votes, went down to atlanta. his defense is that he was doing his job for the chief of staff for the president of the united states, doing what the president wanted him to do. there's also another version of that, which is what he was doing was trying to fix an election. so, i think he is a key witness here. very, very important. and i'm not surprised he tried to walk through a side door. >> and jeff, you know, as we've watched some people go in, some people in broad daylight, in the front door, some people in the middle of the night, because just to remind our viewers, this -- you can go in there for processing 24/7. so you have that option. if you want to avoid some attention, you can go in at 2:00 a.m., should you so please. it seems like there has been this effor