be successful. secondly, how surprised were you meadows did this? a lot of legal analysts were taken aback, that he d expose himself in that way. first question first, jonathan, i don t think it is a frivolous motion. i think it is plausible. i mean, the supreme court has laid out a three-part test to get a case laid out a three-part test to move a case from state court to federal court. the first part is easy. mr. meadows was a federal official. i think the third part is easy at this stage of the proceedings. he has a colorable federal defense if it gets removed. the second part is hard, and that sort of centers around the notion that he was acting within his appropriate role as a federal official. he was doing things that federal officials ought to do. the reason i think that s hard, jonathan, is what he was doing here was try to interference in a state election. he had his political hat on, i d argue, not his chief of staff hat on. does it succeed?
that puts this whole call and the other activities that meadows was engaging in squarely in the political realm. any reasonable person can see that. so it not only undercuts meadows claim to remove the trial to federal court, it ll be an issue when donald trump comes to federal court and says, i m immune under the presidential immunity document because i was concerned there was fraud in the election. deeply concerning hearing yesterday. lisa, i m sure people are wondering, if you are participating in an alleged conspiracy to overturn an election, why does it matter in what role you are acting? in other words, if you were acting as chief of staff or in a campaign role, you re still participating in an alleged conspiracy. what s the distinction there? i think the import of the question has to do with meadows effort to remove it to federal court. it is a threshold question. if you are trying to, as a state criminal defendant, move a case to federal court on the grounds that you ar
been scheduled for next wednesday, a week from tomorrow, september 6th. they re set to begin at 9:30 a.m. and run at 15-minute intervals. there s no word yet on whether those arraignments will be in-person or virtual. some kind of speed dating there, just getting them through, 15 minutes at a time, lisa rubin, to get them arraigned. let s go back to mark meadows. does he have a case that this should be moved to a federal court? he has more than a frivolous case but, i think ultimately, an un unsuccessful one. he was asked, is there anything the president could have asked you to do that would have been beyond duties as white house chief of staff? the only thing he came up with was trump asking him to speak at the rally. it is not that matter of law that speaking at a rally is the only thing he could do that would go beyond his federal duties. if it were, the hatch act would be a nullity. it s not whether or not he should be prosecuted for
attorney. just a really interesting appeal to how important it is to get this case to trial. she said that the defendant is accused of historic crimes. this is molly gaston from the special counsel s office. and there is an incredibly strong public interest in a jury s prompt consideration of those claims in open court. judge tanya chutkan agreed. she said the right to a speedy trial wasn t just a defendant s right, it was the public s right. she agreed the public had a right to hear this case before the november 2024 election. look, nobody thinks this march 4th date is firm. there are at will of reasons to think it ll slip. lauro made clear he is going to file a motion to argue that donald trump is immune because he was president from these criminal charges, and that s something that could go all the way to the supreme court while this trial is pending. this may slip, but the bottom line is judge chutkan clearly wants to get this trial moving sometime next year before the election. th
expected land fall. we ll have the latest forecast for that storm which is projecting to be a big one. welcome to morning joe. it is tuesday, august 29th. i m willie geist. we have the host of way too early and bureau chief at politico, jonathan lemire. nbc s ken dilanian and former analyst lisa rubin. good morning to you all. let s dive right now as we begin with a start date now set for donald trump s federal election interference trial. district court judge tanya chutkan ordered jury selection to begin on march 4th of next year. that s just one day before super tuesday. prosecutors had asked for the trial to begin in early january of next year, while trump s lawyers proposed it begin in april of 2026. yesterday, judge chutkan said neither of those dates were acceptable, but, quote, this case is not going to trial in 2026. that decision was met with pushback inside the courtroom