state courts hear way more cases than federal courts. they are the ones principally responsible for enforcing a lot of state rules leading to elections that affect the federal election. there is no question the state courts we are seeing now and the turnover and was constant and turmoil and states over the years and turnover in the port about what it means going forward in the enforcement of the law. do we prefer cases brought in federal court or that sometimes comes and goes depending what we think of the federal and state courts. host: we are seeing reports from columbus, ohio -- what are your thoughts about that? guest: ohio passed an anti-gerrymandering statute. it didn't have the clearest remedial solution. how are we supposed to remedy this? this has caused a lot of difficulty in the ohio state supreme court. they also turned over some of the personnel that made those decisions previously so the effort is to say lots of states have these independent redistricting commissions. let's not only have something like that and ohio but let'

interpreting a state constitution as opposed to a state court inteng a state statute if what we're getting at grounded ilanguage of the clause in both instances is, is this a rulion, is this a legislature? mr. katyal: they're absolutely bo iredibly high, which is why this court has never co-guessed anything. i do think there's somethg, yoknow, special about state constitutions, but i don't nt th to be like a framing effects thing to say, just because that standard is extraordinarily high, that the statutory standard is lower, a lot lower. it's not. i mean, this court do't do it is one of those cardinal principles, going back to neal's lessee in 1832, that state courts are the masters of -- justice barr, get that. but that's just about where we locate the standard. thsn't deny the proposition that there's ral content there that there would have to be some federal check. mr. katyal: i think there probably would be. again, my friend oother statutes and saying youg shouldn't, so d't think you should get into statutes here at all. but i do worry tst radius of this theory is going to rea

by state courts. stice thomas: let me ask this, just as -- it may be a bit unfair. t state legislature had been very, very generous to minority vot their redistri and the state supreme court said under their state constitution, that this was -- violated their own state tution of north carolina, would you be making the same argument? mr. katyal: yes, i mean there is -- justice thomas: yo -- justice gorsuch said it seems as thoudepends on whose ox is being gored. so i'm ch which ox is being gored. mr. katyal: yeah. no, we don't think anything turns on the substance of the individual decisions -- justice om: but you would still be making the same point? mr. katyal: our point to you, justice thomas, is that this court has never second-guessed state court interpres of their own constitution. and so if there'general clause and it happens to benefit or hurt minority voters, as judge sutton says, that's a process the states deal with. and as saying to justice alito, there's a special ard here, which is the sec

court in georgia. so it would leave the state, - district court in georgia. so it would leave the state, but. ave 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 have to decide that she sever— willis would have to decide that she sever the _ willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants _ willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants and _ willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants and try to - willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants and try to pull some _ sever the defendants and try to pul

state courts hear way more cases than federal courts. he ones principally responsible for enforcing a lot of state rules leading to elections that affect the federal election. there is no question the state courts we are seeing now and the turnover and was constant and turmoil and states over the years and turnover in the port about what it means going forward in the enforcement of the law. do we prefer cases brought in federal court or that sometimes comes and goes depending what we think of the federal and state courts. host: we are seeing reports from columbus, ohio -- what are your thoughts about that? guest: ohio passed an anti-gerrymandering statute. it didn't have the clearest remedial solution. how are we supposed to remedy this? this has caused a lot of difficulty in the ohio state supreme court. they also turned over some of the personnel that made those decisions previously so the effort is to say lots of states have these independent redistricting commissions. let's not only have something like that and ohio but let's correct

including the state supreme court. at theory was known as the independent state legislature theory. it was addressed in june of this year in a case in which the court rejected that extreme interpretation of the independent state legislature. it sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration, avoiding the most extreme version that could have been adopted at the court accepted the arguments of the north carolina legislature about its authority in drawing congressional redistricting plans. it only applies to congressional redistricting plans because that's the specific language of the federal constitution on which it was relying. that is an important decision as well of a little different nature from the alabama decision which was simply reaffirming almost 40 years of court precedent3 . host: peyton mccrary, a professional election law historian here to talk about the case and taking a look at voting rights. you can see those oral arguments at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. thank you for your >> during the 2022-2023

to federal court _ removed from state court to federal court and _ removed from state court to nstance, the criteria he _ court. and in this instance, the criteria he needs to meet is that in fact the _ criteria he needs to meet is that in fact the activities he was doing, as you mentioned, travelling to georgia, _ you mentioned, travelling to georgia, being on the call, organising the call and being on the call with— organising the call and being on the call with president trump went secretary of state brad reference berger _ secretary of state brad reference berger was asked to find votes, the question— berger was asked to find votes, the question will be were those behaviours and actions taken as part of his— behaviours and actions taken as part of his role _ behaviours and actions taken as part of his role as — behaviours and actions taken as part of his role as a chief of staff. i think— of his role as a chief of staff. i think that _ of his role as a chief of staff. i think that many little people believe _ think that many little people believe that will be a very hard bar

this one brought in state court. the legalities a little bit different, but in essence, it is one more indictment and a long list president donald trump been indicted in fulton county, georgia. this is the first state indictment. we want to bring in matt finn, who has been outside the courthouse all day long covering this. what are you hearing? we heard from the da, fani willis a short time ago, not willing to bring up the answer about this document that apparently leaked out earlier and she said she is not quoting he

if it was in a state court, ou away. if it was in a state court, you would _ away.ould see _ away. if it was in a state court, you would see it _ away. if it was in a state court, you would see it as _ away. if it was in a state court, you would see it as well, - away. if it was in a state court, i you would see it as well, because they have television cameras, and you would not see as much in a federal court. as it was the questions that has to be settled when it comes to mark meadows is that whether he was acting in his capacity as white house chief of staff reaching out to white house officials or if he was acting as part of the trump campaign. what we hear about him as regards his responsibilities? i’m hear about him as regards his responsibilities?— responsibilities? i'm here in washington. _ responsibilities? i'm here in washington, dc, _ responsibilities? i'm here in washington, dc, and - responsibilities? i'm here in washington, dc, and my . responsibilities? i'm here in - washington, dc, and my colleague is in court in atlanta. what we were expecting to see

you think he should be tried in state court? well, the norm at process is a federal case is tried in federal court or handled in federal court. a 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 sta

trump defense team would rather have the federal courts of appeals evaluate any conviction than a state court. the other reason you would do it is you get a different jury pool. you're in federal court in atlanta, you get a lot more pro trump sentiment, than in fulton county where you're going to get a lot more biden voters. >> tom dupree, great to have you here. thank you. >> thank you. >>> with donald trump about to be the center of attention when he turns himself in on thursday or at least when he says he will turn himself in, just what are the other republican presidential candidates need to do at tomorrow night's debate to breakthrough that noise? and there is plenty of noise because there's so much attention, live pictures again here at the fulton county courthouse where there has been so much activity today. why pictures of the jail as well. codefendants surrendering today. others setting up their bond agreements so who could show up next? stay with us to find out. .] struck out with the cheap seats? important things aren't worth compromising. at farmers, wewe offer both quality insura

of staff is now the first of the codefendants to try to get his portion of the case moved from a state courtfederal court. his legal team is now arguing tonight that charges in the indictment pertain to actions he took while he was serving in the white house, and they intend to submit, they say, at a later date. why the case against him should be dismissed under federal law. i'm joined tonight by maggie haberman of the new york times, also the author of confidence man, the making of donald trump and the breaking of america. maggie, i mean, trump -- i feel like we've seen this movie before worries finally promising to -- something he's been teasing, especially the election fraud claims, that never been borne out. but you have new reporting on what's behind what we're expecting to see on monday. >> so, jonathan swan, my colleague and i reported earlier today that aides and allies of trump woke up today several hours after this indictment was filed accusing him of trying to subvert the 2020 election as part of a conspiracy to discovered that he had posted on truth social saying he has a major n

also the fact that it is in state court. it is not something he can control if he becomes president again, although i think there's an argument as to whether a state case would actually go forward against a sitting president the way this is. but yes, these are -- this is many tentacled. it's big. it's voluminous and there's a lot of allegations in it and there are a lot of people connected to it, not all of whom are in his direct orbit 37 that's the other thing to bear in mind. >> yeah, the second half of that list is coffee county officials who aren't directly connected to him. mark meadows is, though. and to see his name as i was reading through, reading mark randall meadows, just stood out. he hasn't been indicted in the other cases. he's now the first one to try to say, well, i was just fulfilling my official white house duties and that's why he's trying to get it moved to a federal court here. >> it's an argument that i expect that former president trump will make too, which is that they were acting under the color of th

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

obviously, the georgia state court one other benefit to the public is that georgia state trials are generally televised. federal trials are not televised. the georgia case if it remains in state court, it is one that almost will be able to see for ourselves. i do think that is going to be important. michael, to your point about how we tackle the big lie on trial. i do not think televising means everyone sees the truth and recognizes the truth. i do think that for many people it will have that effect. michael: if there is a televised gnash of mike pence -- of mike pence saying the things that he has said in the various indictments, that will be riveting. one of the questions that comes from the audience is relating to the way the georgia case was charged, using ricoh, the state analog to the state racketeering law. it is a lot of defendants to cram into one courtroom. what is the significance of this being charged as a racketeering case, a type of conspiracy? when are we likely to see a trial with that many people in one room? >> the d.a. says she wants to trial them altogether. personally, ha

a federal official, who gets sued in state court, gets prosecuted in state court, can ask to send thatal courts. it is still a state lawsuit under the same state statue, but it's decided by a federal judge and the whole gist of this entire procedure is that the person who's being sued in state court or prosecuted in state court, has a uniquely federal defense that they can't use in state court, so, that would be unfair. if you get the case into federal court, they can use that defense, and in many cases, it will dispose of the matter entirely. that's the argument that meadows is making. he says that i'm immune from prosecution as a federal official. this case should either be dismissed outright, or it should be transferred to federal court. so, i can make out that the fence. >> so joyce, on august 28th, if judge jones does is evidentiary hearing in federal court, as a trial lawyer, evidentiary hearings require evidence. you can't actually have hearsay and committed. so, is there a risk for mark meadows to have to take the stand in some way, he put under oath, and testified to the natur

if it stays in state court, it will be televised, unlike federal court, where there are cameras not allowed in the state of georgia they do have cameras in the courtroom. so i think for that reason it would be beneficial for people to see what the evidence. is >> it is one of the defendants who asked for this date, just two months for now from now, not the prosecutor. do you see any possibility that these 19 defendants, even some of them, will be on trial two months from now on what is quite a complicated case? >> when you say any possibility, yes. if, the d.a. willis has had two years to get ready for this moment. i guarantee she's thought about all the different ways this could proceed. she said about her opening statement, her closing statement. all that is going to be structured, generally, and ready to go. i think the question is going to be kin kin chesebro is he gonna wanna go into months? in two months means less time to review discovery to, make motions, and what the judges are not gonna allow is saying i want to go quickly and when the judge says let's go use a hold on not slow do

in atlanta because he is asking the federal court to pluck this trial out of state court in georgia and please hold it in federal court instead. 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. tha

you can't try this stuff in state court. what say you, sam? >> i think that is right and i know mr. meadows has set in motion removing the case to federal court and i think you will see other defendants do that and strong case to take this out of state court and put in federal court. you are attacking federal officials for doing what is in their job description >> you may not like it, every white house since start of the two-party political system has done it. i think that is where we're going to go. >> todd: please continue. i was going to say, i looked at briefing on this, there is not a lot of case law with regard to this removal and immunity when it comes to state versus federal prosecution, that will require time for takeaway at home and that means october 23rd is a pipedream. >> carley: thank you for joining us, we appreciate it. >> todd: seattle times columnist blaming the upon hawaii wildfires on colonnizers. >> we need education, not indoctrination and in florida, we stood up for what was right. >> carley: teachers union bos randi weingarten tries to attack ron desantis on e

mark meadows, who is the chief of staff, he is trying to get this switched from state court to federalrt. he plays a big part of this because not only was he connecting people between the white house and georgia, but he was in cobb county when they were checking the signatures. he has a big role to play. how likely is it that he would get this switched to federal court, given that he was a former federal employee? christine: it's interesting, there are conditions to have a case removed from state court to federal in this instance of the criteria he needs to me is that in fact activities he was doing -- as you mentioned, traveling to georgia, being on the call, organizing the call and being on the call with president trump when secretary state brad raffensperger was asked to find votes. the question will be were those behaviors and actions taken as part of his rol as a chief of staff. i think that many legal people believe at that will be a very hard bar to climb over, in that election interference, as has been claimed, is not part necessarily of a chief of staff's roles. christian: you

why is mark meadows trying to move the case from state court to federal court?, i think the reason for doing that is trying to get it completely on a fulton county jury so they would have a broader jury to pick from that would include conservative republicans from rural areas. i think that's the primary reason to do it. the reason mark meadows, i think, is a very strategic decision among the defendants. of all of the defendants, he probably would, on the surface, seem to have the best chance to do this because he was basically a gopher for donald trump. so the question is going to be when he goes before and files this in federal court whether he was acting within the scope of his duties as donald trump's main person as his secretary and whatever it is. he was the guy that was supposed to be running that, and i think what the prosecutors will do is they'll come back with very hard evidence showing that mark meadows actually committed crimes and that will do it because the standard here is whether or not he was acting in the scope of his duties as chief of staff f

bringing a claim by an african-american family against a politically powerful white police officer in state court in anywhere in the country was going to be very, very difficult to and so this was the first time that a case like this could be brought in federal court. this why monroe versus is such an important in the history of supreme court decisions about civil rights and that sort of development of this particular ability to sue. but i also think that the story of james monroe and his family and what they endured is an important story for. what it says about for its similarities to things that we face today. and it's similarity things that were happening in the 1860s and 1870s when congress first enacted this right to sue. so it's an important historical bridge as well as a legal bridge. so james monroe was married to his wife flossie monroe and they had six children and they were asleep in their chicago apartment in october of 1958. and in the of the night they heard a loud pounding on their door. and it was chicago police named frank pape was infamous for people. he was referred to as chica

testified before a federal judge in georgia monday as part of an effort to move his trial from state court to federal court. meadows is one of trump's 18 co-defendants in the georgia case. arraignments for that case are scheduled for september 6. we'll have more on the criminal legal cases against trump and his allies after headlines. the university of north carolina chapel hill says a suspect has been arrested for fatally shooting a faculty member in a science building monday. unc officials have yet to identify the staffer who was killed or possible motive in the shooting which prompted campuswide lockdown that lasted for nearly three hours and prompted security alerts that disrupted classes at public schools on the first day of the school year throughout chapel hill. meanwhile in california, investigators say the gunman who killed three and wounded six others at a southern california biker bar last week was a retired police sergeant who traveled from ohio to confront his estranged wife. former venture police officer use three handguns and a shotgun during the massacre, all of which he pu

she's gonna be fighting to keep an in state court. i think six months is aggressive. >> that directly intersects with the timetable jack smith is laid out. >> the spring is going to be a busy trump season if all of this plays out. >> other storm clouds on the horizon and term of the federal case? so much overlap, especially the fake electors thesis which is central to jack smith's case. we've talked about this a number of times you love the packing orders such that the federal criminal trial happens before the state. what happened? the judges are gonna have to hash this out. >> if i were jacks mitt at this point you do want to have a phone call and talk to each other, it's just too many overlapping witnesses. we may have overlapping or conflicting theories. so if i were jack smith, i would be saying, look my case may actually go away depending on the election. it is important for the public to see a verdict in my case no matter what and then the public should be able to see that. you will always be able to go to trial because it state

in— york against trump was a state court judge in the — york against trump was a state court judge inma. magistrates are not article three judges _ magistrates are not article three judges that not life terms and are not political appointees. the}r not political appointees. they -redict not political appointees. they predict cameron _ not political appointees. they predict cameron on _ not political appointees. they predict cameron on the - not political appointees. tia: predict cameron on the arraignments and court appearances so far. i think is a likelihood but he will turn up in washington, dc and the look of the polling in the programme and say, it is working. it and say, it is working. it has worked in — and say, it is working. it has worked in every _ and say, it is working. it has worked in every indictment. and say, it is working. it has i worked in every indictment has and say, it is working. it has - worked in every indictment has come right after a big story on hunter joe biden. every indictment is from the day after two days after. it changes the narrative in the media ded

in state court. if this is not a case that married some consideration i don't think there ever will be one. >> he is facing charges at the federal level of similar counts. >> the massive question andy mccabe, you were fbi director, we were deputy fbi director. he dealt with donald trump while he was president as a law enforcement official. you look at that image on the screen right now, did it ever occur to you that that would happen? a mugshot of donald trump? >> of course not, right, my interactions with donald trump, my personal interactions with him more early on in his administration. we couldn't see into the future where we would end up, but, i think the point that you make on the consideration of removal, there is no question that could be a very effective legal strategy, isn't obvious and moment is paying for any of these defendants to do. i still think it will be very hard here. i totally respect you are telling of the council, but bolton medley, to make the case that these acts were committ

state court is a different story. state court deals a lot of violent crime, street crime. and treats people like they are criminals in the worst sense of that word. dehumanizes people. sometimes treats people like animals. they should not be treated that way and yet, that is sometimes the way that the world is seen the lens of state court because they deal with such difficult circumstances of humanity. to that extent, i think it might be a little more of a rough and world in state court. they don't put up with a lot of nonsense in state court. and, so i think there is a possibility that we may see fani willis take a tough line and the judge take a tough line. i'll tell you what, the thing that really surprised me and i appreciated, was strategic decision by fani willis to say, i've issued arrest warrants, but i'm gonna give you a little courtesy. if you show up in the next two weeks, i won't execute them. you can come in turn yourself in. that was such a smart move, and i'll tell you what, we don't do it in federal court. colin say, would it be convenient for you to bring

but if you can make that showing, then you get your case pulled out-of-state court over into federal court, so there's a lot of moving parts here. >> and to david's point about this whole idea let's say we come up to the convention this coming summer, he gets the nomination or there's some kind of effort for a brokered convention on the floor. i was there in 2015 when ted cruz and folks tried to do that. it is an incredible uphill battle. it's not something you can do easy, something you can do quickly. and someone with sky high approval ratings with the base of the party doing his delegate math now and spent years investing in that, there's virtually no scenario -- >> i'm sure the rest of the team they've got delegate finders and know to a person who's voting for trump on the floor. >> if donald trump would have stood up and said i think this election was rigged, and he watched us in georgia go through recount after recount and finally got to that moment and said i'll come back to this again, i'll move on. we wouldn't have had january 6th. we wouldn't have completely soiled the repub

and wilson trump has until friday to surrender to georgia state court officials. uh, the rumor is that he will, he will go to georgia on says day which is interesting that he would pick says day because of the day off to the, the primary republican debate, which he's announced he will not be attending of the. well, there have been rumors going around in the last couple of days suggesting that, especially after donald trump said he would not take part in that 1st debate involving republican hopefuls for the republican presidential nomination. that once he said that he wasn't going to go, because his poll numbers were too strong and he really didn't need to defend his record during his one term in the office. that he was doing this in assets to bring the attention back to himself and to basically drown out any public attention that might be focused on the doesn't or so other people who have already said that they are running for the republican nomination. there had been reports that perhaps he would try to turn himself in as early as wednesday, even though the deadl

so in this hearing it is a hearing regarding meadows trying to move his case from state court to federal court because he says too he was acting under the presidency. he was the chief of the staff at the white house when he set up that call for donald trump and spoke on it somewhat whenever trump was calling the secretary of state. so this hearing monday, it will be like a mini trial. the da's office is having witnesses. they are going to put them on display, have them testify and then a judge is going to look at this and determine should mark meadows be able to move his case to federal court and get some constitutional protections around him because he was the white house chief of staff or should this stay in state court? was he politicking when he was setting up that call and working for trump after the election, the other thing the judge could weigh in on is should everybody have their case in federal court and maybe signify exactly what should happen with trump's case as well , if he could do the same thing. >> fascinating to see. thanks for being there and thanks for all the element

it's right now in georgia state court. they would like to move it into federal court. in order to do that you have to establish that some officer, perhaps the president of the united states, was acting in the context of their office. not as a candidate, not as an individual, but as front. by saying that the president was writing me memos he's saying necessarily look, the president was doing his job as president, therefore we should all be moved into federal court. it's an argument that might work. again, there's entire classes in law school on just this one idea, how you get things into federal court. it's very hard. it's very confusing. and a court has to sort it out. >> it's interesting to me that so far there's only been a handful of the co-defendants out of 19 that have surrendered and turned themselves in. are you anticipating a rush by thursday, friday? >> i think the next 72 hours, when you have 15 defendants showing up i guess that kind of is a rush. it's like a bank run on going to court. but they have to. i don't think anybody wants -- setting aside the bluste

case should all defendants be tried in federal court or will it be divided up with some tried in state courtt. >> sarah, can i ask a quick question about why moving to federal court is so important to meadows? i mean, if it's in atlanta, the federal court there, wouldn't it be the same jury pool? what is he looking to do and what are others looking to do? >> i think there's sort of a plaintiff that the federal court is a little bit more apolitical, you have -- while the judge here presiding over the removal process was appointed by obama there is sort of an apolitical nature to the court. the federal procedures would apply, so i think that is of particular appeal to meadows and perhaps trump if he makes this move, as well, to seek removal which i'll expect he'll do depending on the outcome of today's procedure and i think there is also, you know, probably an appeal to sort of taking fani willis out of her comfort zone, out of her home territory, so to speak, and putting her in a courtroom where she's probably not as comfortable. >> on the political side of thing, the trump team is very happy

what if he wins the election, gets rid of the federal cases, can he be tried in state court?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 committee about what it was like to have a president attacking her. she is central in this case. >> sure. and ruby freeman is -- i mean, the best american you could imagine. she is african american woman. decides to help her neighbors vote. that's what she is trying to do. puts out a card table, helps her neighbors vote, suddenly the president of the united states is attacking her as someone who destroyed democracy. she is doing more for democracy than i did. all i did was turn my vote in. she tried to help her neighbors vote. her life has been a living hell. the fact that the prosecutor is sticking up for her, saying she can't be treated this way, saying she is as important to the system as any

that's because he's asking the federal court to pluck the trial out of the state court in georgia, andstead. why does he want that? well. all of that 19 georgia codefendants including trump would probably prefer having their case go before a federal jury. drawn by the whole district of georgia. they prefer that to going before a state jury that would be drawn just from willow 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 with that mean that the whole georgia case. the whole rico case would all go to federal court? and what 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? notice chuck rosenberg? former attorney and thanks for being here tonight. >> my thanks rachel. >> how do we know how well meadows did today? how get his cases that his trial sh

mark meadows i think is in federal court today trying to remove his case from state court in georgia where it would be televised and try to move it to federal court because these people are like vampires, they are so afraid, lawrence, of any sunlight that they just want to hide in the shadows than bloviate and attack the judges, attack the prosecutors, attacked the jury, attack frankly america, because they're afraid of letting all of us see what actually they did in a trial of the court of law. >> tonight's last word is vampires. neil cattle, thank you very much for starting us off tonight. really preceded. >> thank you. >> coming up, everyone was surprised that there was, in effect, a mini trial in the mark meadows case in georgia today with mark meadows actually taking witness stand and testifying under oath for hours. in a riskiest move yet in any of the georgia criminal defendants. hickey leads, -- barbara mcquade will join us, next. n us next ♪ jardiance ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went

there are things that affect the presidency that haven't been tested in these state courts the way that somebody like a meadows, he deserves to be charged, but he has the best case that you're going to have about executive privilege, and about conversations that he's having in the advising role as the president. that's something a federal court is prepared to handle in a way that this could be very complicated in georgia. >> everyone stay with, us a lot more to discuss, including what is an over act, -- leading to a conspiracy indictment. plus, hunter biden is down a lawyer. we'll explain what happened, plus other new developments in his legal troubles, ahead. carvana has hundreds of thousands of five star reviews and counting. the whole process was really simple and easy, and this is my third time selling to carvana. you just enter your license plate or your vin, answer a few questions. boom, you get a real offer. sell your car to carvana today. oh, booking.com ♪ somewhere, anywhere... ♪ ♪ i just want to lie motionless in a chair! ♪ booking.com, booking.yeah ♪ ♪ gives you access to eve

some would stay in state court. the moves to federal court, it's still a state case. just tried in a federal building. we moo removal, would go to the northern state of georgia. that person would have an unpardonable offense, right? >> yes. >> a man of few words. john dean, john sale, thank you for being here, both of you. >> nice to see you, john. >> thanks. >> that was pleasant. >>> most of the republicans are taking the debate stage on wednesday have something in common. you may not have noticed. but will it give them an advantage? i'm going to tell you what it is. give you a cliff-hanger. it's next. an get a little messy. good thing there's resolve. love the love. resolve the mess. (female announcer) attention! medicare has expanded dexcom coverage -for people with diabetes. -if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom g7 is the single most important thing you can do. it eliminates painful fingersticks, helps lower a1c, and is covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. my a1c was stuck. (female announcer) dexcom g7 sends your glucose num