patting him on the back and being like, okay, you think these were rigged. we have no evidence of that. but okay, good. we ll keep looking into that. that was kind of the role meadow was playing. i think that mark short has an interesting point because george willigger, a interest lawyer representing mark meadows, makes this pretty strong claim, hey, it was all part of his federal job. short is saying, a lot of this looks political. a lot of this looks like it wasn t a executive office of the president role. i do think that there is a challenge for fani willis here. because some of the things that she claimed that mark meadows was engaged in don t sound criminal. visiting an area that was auditing things for whether or not signatures were properly verified. arranging a phone call. attending an event in a meeting
on whether or not all of these acts or were under his specific job. but if all of the candidates for this, he s got the strongest argument. he literally is located in the executive office of the president. clark s role gets weaker and weaker for a couple of reasons. not least of which is that incredibly spicy moment when the deputy attorney general tells jeff clark to please go back to his office and if there is an environmental spill, they ll call him. but he doesn t have any role at all in whether or not the election was fraudulent and no role at all in running the department of justice. however, the fake electors, i could see a world in which they could make a legal argument, maybe very dubious, maybe very questionable, but some electors believe they were told they have a specific role and they were tricked, again we ve heard from from a few electors. i m not asserting that everyone
feel that it s more likely than not. if that fails, though, the state trial would likely be televised. the federal one would not. would donald trump, do you think, in the event that this does actually get heard in a georgia court, where cameras are allowed, would he, do you think, embrace that? or would he try to get cameras barred from the courthouse? i actually think he would embrace it, jake, although i don t think there s unanimity of opinion around him about how to handle that. i think your point about legal experts think there is a real chance. it s not definite, obviously, but there s a chance the removal motion, meaning asking this trial to be moved to federal court because these actions being taken the capacity of his office. prosecutors would argue it was outside his capacity. but he was a federal office holder. there is a non-zero chance that that happens. if that happens this does change
there s going to be multiple trials, not just one trial of 19 codefendants. that s really liable to tax the d.a. s office here and the criminal justice system. and i think, you know, it s really going to test the system to see how efficient we can be into bringing these cases to trial and to an ultimate conclusion. i m also just curious whether we re going to see donald trump in a courtroom here. i mean, the judge has not yet set arraignments for a number of these arraignments. but for ken chesebro, who, again, asked for a speedy trial, set an arraignment on september 6th, unless chesebro wants to weigh in, which seems the judge is going to be inclined to waive arraignments potentially for other defendants in this case. it does feel like a question mark of when is trump going to be in a courtroom. we will see monday it hasn t gotten time and attention frankly because there s things like donald trump s mug shot we re looking at and watching