job. so, how is there any stretch of an argument that he was working on behalf of the federal government? he certainly wasn t working on behalf of the federal government. and we haven t made a final decision on that. you may wind up being right. we re not sure yet. you ve made the counterargument very well. i mean, john eastman didn t work in the government. but so far jeffrey clark and mea mark meadows, we know they did. is it a stronger argument for them? a much stronger argument. i imagine if mr. eastman will try this case, that clip will be played back in court. the transfer of court to a federal court is about having federal executives, federal employees who have actions brought against them, criminal actions, or civil actions by having the right to have the case moved. it talks about their duties, talks about their job. it s a pretty low bar. they ve got to make a plausible argument and a plausible claim they were doing something connected with their employment.
some of these other lawyers are going to do it. some are going to want to go fast. some are going to want to go slow. i do wonder, katelyitlan, the ds office has other matters to bring. they re going to have to do some of the trials earlier, some of the trials later. they re going to be stretched then. and at the same time they re going to have all the resources of the former president and his team making motions to try to delay things as long as they can. right. they ve made very clear they re going to pursue many of those legal maneuvers. michael, one thing that has been a question is whether or not trump would try to get his case moved from state court to federal court. one person that we know seems unlikely to do so is joohn eastman. we were talking to his attorney last night about the prospect of how this could happen given he never worked for the federal government. this is what charlie burnham said. he wasn t being paid by the federal government. he didn t have a taxpayer fu