Willick to the conversation as well because you ve an opinion columnist. you actually think, i mean set aside the list that chris is talking about of who the worst chief of staff may have been. i don t think anyone wants that title. but i think he might actually be successful in movinging his caso federal court. why? well, i do think he might be successful. i think it s telling that he s not charged in jack smith s federal indictment with breaking federal law. in fact, in jack smith s federal indictment, he s described as urging president trump to stop the rioting on january 6th. he s described as telling president trump that the recount, the signature verification in georgia, is going in an exemplary fashion. so the way he s portrayed is a lot more mixed than the way he is in fani willis indictment. i think that tells us at least something about whether he was acting within the scope of his duties because if he clearly wasn t, i think jack smith might have been more interested in c
In most judicial circuits, there is court rules that kind of govern what judges are able to do and not do. and in this case, mr. harrison, because he was already indicted by a fulton county jury, laura, as you know, he was not entitled to what is commonly referred to as a first appearance hearing or a commitment hearing wherein a magistrate will look at his charges, inform him, and set bond. in this case, because the case is already indicted, it is technically assigned to judge scott mcafee. judge scott mcafee will make all decisions with respect to his case. so as the judge in this case today indicated on the record, judge mcafee will consider bond for him at the arraignment hearing. important to note. jessica, thank you. and floyd is accused of playing a role in arranging a meeting between a fellow co-defendant and treveon custddy and electio
Not the one in the court of public opinion, but in the actual court of law. but the big question, of course, is which court? well, that s the question that donald trump s former chief of staff mark meadows has been asking and in georgia because e wants a federal court, not fulton county. but it takes more than just wanting something to then make it so, right? you ve got to prove why it should be the case. and under the law, any federal employee may remove a criminal case to federal court if they re being prosecuted for things that they did in the course of their official duties. emphasis on the word official, of course. we ll talk more about tonight w what exactly the officials duties of a chief of staff are, and do they include getting involved in, say, state election? but wait, there s more, everyone. you also have have some kind of federal defense.
Difficult for mark meadows to get this information in evidence. it s inconceivable they re going to put him on the stand and subject him to cross-examination at this early stage, yet he s got to get this information in front of the judge. what they did in their motion was cite from an, in a selective way, from the indictment and sort of spin it the way they wanted it to appear. and there is an argument if you take their read. i think when they get to court on the evidentiary hearing on this, it s not going to look as close or as fuzzy as it does right now. and i know that jack smith was well aware of the removal problem. and there s also the possibility that this could stay part of it in state court and part of it in federal court. that exception is available and could well exist. so the big loss to me in going to federal court is no cameras, and i think the american public
There has to be some federal def defense. one law that s being mentioned is the supremacy clause, one that tells you the federal law trumps the state s. if you ve got a federal law saying i cano what i did, a state court shouldn t be hearing a case about it. you stay in your line. i ll tell you what, i ll stay in mine. but then again, just because you re a federal employee, it doesn t mean that everything you do is untouchable in state courts. holding the office itself does not hold the prosecutor at bay. no. meadows has to prove that what he was doing was actually part of his official duties and that it was authorized by federal law. and he s got to show that he didn t do more than what was necessary and proper to do his job. now, the allegations in georgia say that he was interfering with the certification of a state s election. will the court believe that that