determination of their sentencing, or is this specifically to do with the role that they played on january 6th? you know, it s a delicate line, a lot of these scenarios. they have a lot of these first amendment claims. the history of the group definitely play a big role in the trial overall because they went back and looked at these previous events that the proud boys were involved in. and obviously that video that was referenced earlier in terms of the stand back and stand by from president trump was evidence in this case that is sort of this remarkable moment where you had this footage of the president inspiring a group that is now charged with seditious conspiracy and has now been convicted of seditious conspiracy. it s definitely played a role in how this case sort of all rolled out. they look back at the previous conflicts. and the proud boys were involved in skirmishes here in d.c. before january 6th, both in nevada and december of 2020 in that period after the election loss. a
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
exception to that arguing the intersection between trump s administration and his campaign means that the scope of meadow s day-to-day responsibilities went far beyond his role as a federal official. we re also learning more about what the georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger provided. we understand the state played four clips from the phone call where trump asked him to find him votes. raffensperger testified that the attempt was in his words extraordinary. again, this is going to be judge steve jones decision to make. whenever he decides to make it. he s made clear that moving quickly is understandable given the time line and that was before we found out about this potentially shifting timeline for everyone s trial to begin on october 23rd. whether or not that happens. but given how little case law there is to rely on, and the monumental nature of this decision, he s taking his time.
feels this way, but we ve heard that they feel they were doing what they were supposed to do and they were tricked into believing that they were offering the opportunity should the election ultimately be thrown into question. that they were preserving an option for another submission. if they were, and if they could prove they were tricked, then they were acting essentially in a quasi governmental role. i don t know that it qualifies for removing them to federal court. actually, ali go ahead. i was going to say, i m really i love geeking out with glenn. and i would love it if you would show that line one more time. because when i read it, it sounded as if the judge was saying if all of the acts are under let s read it again and put up the element number one. judge order asking the parties to weigh in on the issue. quote, would a finding that at least one but not all of the