of black robe that sets the model here and on the other hand, they are not accused of stashing weapons, a bag depot for pence that there were gonna have ready to bring into washington just across the river in virginia, was him to be the central part of the oath keepers conspiracy. at least as possible they are accused of using ordinary people in the crowds as wobble, lower ranking people as their tool of insurrection. and so that s also not quite the same thing as this trial even though the charges is the same. remains to be seen and how a jury will react to that, simone. so glad, you noted the prosecutors did not invoke trump during the trial at all and what i am wondering if you thought that was a smart strategy, and then to, what does that tell us or doesn t tell us anything about how you know the justice department could involve trump in this particular case? so the question of his involvement in january six. and there will be any charges
cnn s sara murray has the latest, and is with us now. sarah, why was mark meadows trying to fight this subpoena? what are prosecutors in georgia now wanting to know from him? he lives in south carolina, so that s where this legal fight was playing. out he argued that he had executive privilege, argued that search south carolina law should not force him to testify based on the kind of subpoena that he had, and the kind of proceeding in georgia. the south carolina supreme court said today that the arguments were manifestly, without merit. he should have to testify. prosecutors want to know a lot of things for mark meadows in georgia, he was on that call where trump called georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger and asked raffensperger to find what he needed to win the election in georgia. he showed up in georgia, he was passing along emails to the justice department with unsubstantiated voter fraud claims. there were a number of issues
it s almost as if you went to law school, because that s a question right out of first year criminal law, which is how one is charged and convicted of a conspiracy. there has to be an agreement between the two parties, and what is called an over act in overruns of the conspiracy. you have to agree to do, it and then take a step towards doing it. he did not have to step on the grounds of the capitol, to for instance, senate number of text messages calling for a bloody revolution, stashing weapons, in virginia, across the border and on and on, organizing these strike teams to come into the capitol. no, one need not to step on a place where the underlying crime happened. if you re the puppeteer blowing the strings, and directing people that absolutely you
you had all this talk, jennifer, and still from his lawyers this was just a protest, we were there to keep the peace, et cetera, there are multiple communications as well as evidence of planning, stashing weapons for a qrf, quick reaction force, that this was planned and had a goal of overtaking the government. what is the legal significance of that? well, jim, they need to prove seditious conspireacy. that requires proof that the transfer of power was going to be by force. that s basically what they have to prove. so the notion of this evidence is that they re proving not just that there was organization, that there was planning, that they went on january 6th, but it was a broader effort from november all the way through january and that it involved the use of force. that s really the key here and that s the piece that hasn t been charged before in the cases where they have charged conspiracy to stop a government proceeding. that s what makes this more serious, makes the penalties m