convicted. but the issue is not whether or not mark meadows was an officer of the federal government. the question really becomes as that officer, was what he was doing part of his role. was it consistent with him being chief of staff and counting electoral votes, challenging the state of georgia, that is not his role. people have that role and that is not his. so that is the problem. all you need is a colorable defense. what does that mean? it hasn t to be a defense that will win unequivocally. but at its face, what he is doing a beyond your job. and that is where it is problematic. how much do you think we ll learn on monday beyond what is in the indict? there may be evidence that weer hear. i think that it will be really tight because you don t want to have a trial within a trial. so we know people are being subpoenaed. we know probably from the state