staff duty, that is violation of the hatch act which prohibits partisan political activity on behalf of white house staff. it s going to be a very interesting day. chris, what is meadows best argument for removing his case from state court and sending it over to federal court? well, he needs to establish that the conduct that s at issue in the case concerns his official government job duties, and this san area of the law that s pretty untested, so it s very hard to predict how it will be resolved at the en of the day. it seems like a tenuous argument at least intuitively. i imagine one of the questions he ll be asked on cross examination and i share catherine s fascination with the fact that he s testifying really will be, you know, however other than the call to raffensperger call that we all heard did he have cause to do any kind of work with the georgia secretary of state as chief of staff? to most of us that seems out of
Case-shouldn-t-go-forward
Argument
State-court
White-house
Chris
Violation
Behalf
Staff
Activity
Duty
Hatch-act
Wasn-t-the-case