Judge here because obviously you can t do electioneering because that violates the hatch act if you are a federal employee or someone acting under the color of law. we have a judge here. let s ask about that. how strong of an argument is it, judge, that you were doing potentially elicit acts at the direction of a former president? how convincing is that to get their case moved to federal court? i think it s a stretch to get that into federal court. i think that you ve got to start with the stretch that is mark meadows stretch first. he has he clearly was acting as chief of staff. and the question is whether the law says that all you have to do is to be a federal official. all these acts, the charged acts, the crimes took place while you were a federal official. it s clear that this judge has rejected that argument because if that argument were accepted, meadows would be in federal court now, since he clearly was
The direction of the former president? how convincing is that to get it to federal court. i think that s a stretch to get that into federal court. i think the stretch is mark meadows stretch first. he clearly was acting as chief of staff and the question is whether the law says that all you have to do is be a federal official, these acts charged acts of crime took place while you were a federal the official. it s clear this judge has rejected that argument because if that argument were accepted, meadows would be in federal court now, since he clearly was chief of staff when he was doing these activities. the likely standard is whether or not what he was doing was related to his official status. and as their previous speaker indicated, campaign stuff is not related to your official status. likewise, messing around with