meadows claim. he really is somebody who s seen to have so far exceeded the scope of his official duties by corrupting and weaponizing the department of justice, and interfering in a state election. you know, once we get a decision in the mark meadows case, then you are going to see other defendants lineup to try and take their shot. amy lee copeland, i had my doubts about anyone who wasn t a federal employee being covered by this removal statute until i read it today. what it refers to, any officer, any officer of the united states, any officer, in parentheses, or any person acting under that officer, and we already have these fake electors saying, i was acting under donald trump, people in this case who have no federal employment affiliation who were saying they were acting under the direction of federal officers.
case, then you are going to see other defendants lineup to try and take their shot. amy lee copeland, i had my doubts about anyone who wasn t a federal employee being covered by this removal statute until i read it today. what it refers to, any officer, any officer of the united states, any officer, in parentheses, or any person acting under that officer, and we already have these fake electors saying, i was acting under donald trump, people in this case who have no federal employment affiliation who were saying they were acting under the direction of federal officers. that s what they are saying in their motions. i read mr. stills motioned the most carefully. what he says as he walked into a room, in the georgia state house, sitting there were attorneys, and attorneys told him that this was all perfectly legitimate. what i think is really interesting in this case, there