court. he also is arguing that as a matter of the supremacy clause, georgia should be barred from prosecuting him even once the case is removed to federal court. so he s filed two kinds of motions. i think the supremacy clause claim that says what i did was under orders of the president, thanks a lot, we re done here. it s far less likely to be entertained seriously, but the removal effort really has some substance to it. i expect trump will be pursuing the same sort of claim at some point. why does the removal aspect of this have a better chance? the essence of removal is not that the case should be dropped against me, but because what i did was related to my federal duties. we shouldn t let a state court preside over there.
what i am trying but what i m trying to explain is is whether or not this has moved the ball forward politically where democrats want it to go. i am not defending, nor do i agree, that the republicans are doing themselves any favors with a lot of the theories they re using to try and explain what the president did. i think the transcript has been pretty clear. it s kind of ironic that everybody agrees on the transcript and if you talk to democrats, they will say look at the transcript. the president asked for investigations into biden, his political rival, and that is the problem. and i don t think democrats republicans have done anything to explain that away or make that an easier sell. but the reason i focus on the removal aspect is because most voters look at impeachment as akin to removal. so even though we know that this is a matter of impeachment and removal is up to the senate, the way voters look at this is if you want to impeach the president, it means you want to remo