excellent piece in the washington post, trump s elevating his extreme politics over his legal interest, this guy tom fenton, he runs this right wing organization called judicial watch, chris, he s not even in a lawyer, but he reportedly advised trump he could keep those classified documents at mar-a-lago, and that he should fight the justice department. we know how that ended, with the 40 federal charges that trump faces in florida. so, ryan, moving on monday, a busy, busy, day, right, two counts, there s that hearing for a trial date for jack smith s election interference case, another hearing involving mark meadows, walk us through those. reporter: yeah, a busy weekend in fact because there s going to be the proud boys sentencing in the seditious conspiracy cases. monday, we have the hearing taking place in the mark meadows case, mark meadows is trying to move his case from state court to federal court saying he was acting in his federal capacity during the allegations at issue
arrests would be delayed or blocked. is there anything in what we have seen from the judge today, in his two very fast moves, that gives you a sense of where the judge might be leaning eventually on the question of removing mark meadows case, for example, to federal court? what his order gives me a sense of is that judge jones gets it. he knows this is an important prosecution that the federal part of it doesn t need to delay the state part of it if there s no good reason for it. and that he is going to move forward with all haste. there is a hearing scheduled on monday. since its in federal court, it won t be televised. this is just town mr. meadows motion. i understand secretary of state, brad raffensperger, has been subpoenaed by the the aids office to give testimony about the appropriate duties of the state elections. we have that to look forward to. it s hard to read the tea leaves with the judge, his
in this latest indictment in georgia trump in 18 others are charged under the r.i.c.o. act. you said that you thought the district attorney, fani willis, did a good job of laying out the case. you also said that there is a good possibility that some of the other defendants could flip, become cooperating witnesses. which is often a part of the process. if you re not a lawyer you don t always know that. if you look at this, who, specifically, do you think would be the most likely to do so? who do you think it is the most likely to go after? what i don t know is the kind of information that a particular witness the prosecutor thinks may have key information, key evidence. maybe the support of the point that is the prosecutor has concerns about getting them into court getting into evidence in the courts. it is hard for me to gauge. typically it ll be hard for me to gauge who is wrapped up in a major conspiracy like this. in a major case. but maybe large in a lesser offense.
someone who wants to get out of this. i think that is who you will be looking at. that is who the prosecutor is going to be looking for. again, based on the kind of information that the prosecutor believes that that witness may have that is vital. could be critical to a successful constitutional case. there is also the argument that some trump allies and individuals who have been indicted or making fulton county is not the right venue for this case. it should be brought to federal court. mark meadows the former white house chief of staff has the strongest argument to have the case moved. there are also rumors of donald trump himself could make that case to make that request. do you also think he would have a strong case to make. he was a sitting president at the time. again, yes. their argument can be made. i do not believe that it will be the same strength of the mark meadows case. i anticipate the president
this afternoon. you have been outspoken on how the department of justice is not biased against republicans. what should people understand about the judicial process, and the protections that are in, to prevent that political bias? maybe those who haven t worked in government at a higher, or even lower, level. i think that people need to understand that just because the facts of one case look similar to another case, that does not mean that there is going to be a prosecution. people need to understand that the difference are based upon facts, treatment of cases are based upon the facts. upon the judgment and experience of the prosecutors. you may have one case a prosecutor very aggressive. they are willing to take a chance on being aggressive in the prosecution. and another case with similar facts in a have a prosecutor who s less experienced. perhaps a bit more conservative. the fact that you may have a prosecution in my case and the prosecution in another case doesn t mean, at all,