nicolle wallace. all of the president s men, or in this case, four times indicted ex-presidents with notorious outliers and enablers. rudy giuliani is in court, a jury is deliberating for a second day on that right now, as soon as there is news from the courtroom, we re going to head right to our reporter in washington. and, of course, mark meadows, trump s former chief of staff turned codefendant in the interference case. he s he heart of the sprawling, high octane racketeering case brought by fanni willis, a case that s spooked meadows so badly, that he s using every oce of his firepower to get it moved to federal court, arguing everything he did was part of his official job as chief of staff. specifically, he s trying to dust off a 234-year-old federal statute which allows officials charged with state crimes to transfer them to federal court if the alleged criminal behavior was carried out as part of that person as official duties. meadows argues he was acting as trump
hey, everyone, it is 4:00 in new york. the question of when donald trump s rhetoric crosses the line was a subject of a bit of a lips as pivotal court hearing. prosecutors and attorneys met in front of a three-judge panel in the u.s. court of appeal for a d.c. circuit for oral arguments. the substance was the validity of a gag order imposed on the ex-president that limits what donald trump can say in public about prosecutors, witnesses, and court staff. the heart of arguments, how do you balance the first amendment rights of a defendant who was also a former president and front runner with the need to protect prosecutors, witnesses, and prevent the railing of the justice system? trump s attorney was grilled by the judges for more than an hour, judges pushed back, that they had no right to step in with a gag order. essentially what they are finding is we have a past pattern when the defendant speaks on this subject, threats follow. now he s making similar statements again