Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Co-Defendant Files Very AGGRESSIVE Motion in New Criminal Case

Episode Date: August 16, 2023

Legal AF Co-Hosts Ben Meiselas and Karen Friedman Agnifilo discuss the new motion filed by Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows who is a co-defendant in the new criminal case filed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.  Go to https://eightsleep.com/legalaf and save $150 on the Pod Cover Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Ben Myselis from Legal AF joined by the one and only Karen Friedman Agnifolo. We got some breaking news that I want to discuss. One of the co-defendants, 19 total defendants in the Fulton County indictment brought by Fawney Willis. One of those co-defendants, Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff within 24, less than 24 hours of the indictment, filed a notice of removal, seeking to remove the case to basically transfer the case from state court in Fulton County, where it is currently filed to federal court in Georgia before the Northern District of Georgia United States District Court. Now there will be a proceeding in federal court to determine if the case should remain in federal court as it relates, in this case exclusively to Mark Meadows, because he's the one who filed the removal,

or whether the case will be what's called remanded or sent back to state court in Fulton County where the indictments were brought. I wanna bring in Karen Friedman and Agniplo, but we've seen this very recently, right, when Donald Trump in the Manhattan District Attorney case, the case brought by Alvin Bragg, where the Manhattan Grand jury indicted, Trump used the same statute 28 USC, section 1442 and 1455 to try to remove that case to federal court.

The federal judge who presided over it ultimately said there should not be federal jurisdiction remanded it back to state court with Judge Juan Mershon and the argument that Trump made there that Mark Meadows is making here. And then I suppose Donald Trump is going to try to file a similar motion to Mark Meadows here. And then I suppose Donald Trump is going to try to file a similar motion to Mark Meadows here. Again, Trump's going to make the argument is that this invokes federal

law, federal immunities, federal statutes, and therefore there should be federal jurisdiction, right? And Mark Meadows argues, I was just performing, this is the argument, routine, chief of staff work, setting up meetings, coordinating calls, and all of that falls within the ambit of the executive branch. We have in the Constitution what's called a supremacy clause, and therefore this case should go before a federal judge, a federal jury instead of Fulton County. What do you make of this motion? And what can you tell us about this filing and its broader implications?

So, element number one of a removal is the person has to be a federal officer at the time that they committed the acts that they are being accused of committing. And so only certain defendants in this 19 defendant conspiracy, Rico indictment would even be eligible to make a removal motion. Donald Trump for one, because in the case you just referenced, it was Alvin Hellerstein, the federal judge, although he remanded it back to State Court, said you are a federal officer, even though you're

president. It's a federal employee number one, I guess. So Donald Trump would be considered a federal officer, Mark Meadows, and maybe Jeffrey Clark also could potentially, but I couldn't really tell anyone else on the indictment who could even make this motion because they're not federal officers, most of them. So that's number one. Number two, the second element you have to meet

is you have to be acting under the color of federal law or as your duty. In other words, it has to be you're acting within your job or as the in the context of your job. And in the Alvin Brad case, Judge Hellerstein ruled that that was a personal matter, that he was paying off a lawyer, his personal lawyer, who had paid off a porn star who he had had in a fair with. And so that was personal. It had nothing to do with his job as president. So he was not acting under the color of his authority as president. And so that's the other argument. It would have to be under the color of law. And the third element is you have to have a plausible federal defense.

And so of all the people in this who could assert removal in the Fannie Willis case, I think Mark Meadows is the only one who has a chance. I think Donald Trump gets remanded back down and so does anybody else who tries to make this, because you're not acting within the color of the authority of your job when you're trying to steal an election, literally. So it's not like he was acting as president. He was acting as somebody trying to remain president. But Mark Meadows could potentially say, look,

I was just doing my job as chief of staff. I was scheduling telephone calls and getting meetings, et cetera. And that was under the color of my job. And PS, I do have a plausible federal defense, which doesn't mean it's successful. It means he has one to assert, which is the, you know, he, there's an immunity, he's immune from being prosecuted, and there's the supremacy clause,

meaning the federal government trumps the state court, so that you can't prosecute me federally. And Mark Meadows is tricky because Thai Cubs, who was a White House lawyer, has been saying he's confident 100% that Mark Meadows is cooperating with Jack Smith. And he was just on CNN earlier tonight saying he was 100% sure that Mark Meadows is cooperating with Jack Smith. And certainly one would surmise that he's cooperating because he's not listed as a co-conspirator in the indictment, right? He's not listed even as an unnamed co-conspirator or an unindicted co-conspirator, right? So, and you would think he would because he was so

involved in so many of the schemes and planning, etc. He's also an excellent witness, right? He's the guy on January 6th, who was on the phone with Trump all day and Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the select committee that she was saying, Mark, do something, make him stop and he was on the phone and she testified he was on the phone saying he's not gonna do anything.

So he's a great witness for Jack Smith if he were going to do anything. So he's a great witness for Jack Smith if you were going to cooperate. But the issue that I have is is why then is he indicted in Georgia? Why would his lawyer and he has a really good lawyer, right, Mr. Turewilliger? He has a really good reputation. Why would he negotiate cooperation for Jack Smith, but not for Fanny Willis. That makes no sense. A good lawyer normally if you're cooperating in one case you'd cooperate in both and the reason I'm because otherwise what doesn't make any sense, right? You know, because think about it logistically in order to cooperate in a federal case, you have to admit to everything you've done, right? They

don't just give you a pass. You have to actually swear under oath and admit to all your crimes. And under Jack Smith's theory of the case, Mark Meadows is a co-conspirator and has committed lots of crimes. So he would have to admit them on the record. And so those statements could be used against him in any state court case. Unless, A, he's either not cooperating. And so that's why there is this disconnect.

Or B, his lawyer thinks that the supremacy clause, actually, he has a legal argument here that he can't be prosecuted and that he thinks this case will get dismissed. Because otherwise, it actually makes no sense to me of how he could be cooperating with Jack Smith and then be, but then be prosecuted here in Fanny Willis' case.

In this motion, Mark Meadows goes on and they list actually and put the the counts that he is charged with and the acts in the conspiracy that he's charged with. And it says that he, you know, they actually quote it. And, you know, honor about November 20th, Trump and Meadows met with the majority leader in Michigan. And so it talks about his work in Michigan and making the Donald Trump made false statements there. And then it says on November 21st, Meadows sent a text message to United States Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania asking for a phone number. And then on November 25th, Trump and Meadows and Giuliani and Jenna Ellis and other unindicted

co-conspirators met with a group in Pennsylvania at the White House and discussed holding a special session of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Now that's I think a little more than just arranging a phone call, right? And so that's one where I think he's got some exposure because that's obviously, that's not just setting up meetings and arranging phone calls. That's actually holding a special session where they're going to not accept the electors, the legitimate electors and put in false slates of electors. I'm so excited to say that this episode is brought to you

by Eat Sleep. We've been almost half our lives in bed. And if you're a woman of a certain age like me, regulating your body temperature and getting a good night's sleep can sometimes be a challenge. My old mattress was old school. It would overheat while my husband and I were in it together, causing us to toss and turn and not get a good night's sleep.

And inevitably, when he was hot, I was cold and vice versa. There's nothing worse than tossing and turning or sweating in the night, whether it's because of the summer heat or your body heat, the pod cover by eight sleep will keep you cool all night all the way down to 55 degrees Fahrenheit. If that's the temperature you choose, so you wake up feeling fully refreshed. The pod cover by eight sleep fits on top of any bed like a fitted sheet and it will improve your sleep by automatically adjusting the temperature on each side of the bed based on your and your partner's individual likings. It can cool down, it can warm up and it adjusts based on the phases of your sleep

and the environment that you're in. The other thing I love about eight sleep is it genuinely helps improve your sleep routine and your habits and your overall sleep quality. I really love the temperature control and that both me and my husband can set our side of the bed, each to our own liking. And I love the gentle vibrating alarm that you said each morning. And I wake up feeling refreshed after a great night sleep allowing me to start the day off, right? My husband loves eight sleeps technology, which is incredible. While the temperature part is the biggest game changer for me, the pod cover has other amazing features thanks to the pods sleep and health tracking. You can wake up to a personalized sleep report for you each morning that offers insights into how certain behaviors like late night exercise or caffeine impact your sleep in overall health.

The pod cover by eight sleep truly provides the ultimate sleep experience. I've never experienced sleep like this and the pod's cooling technology has been a life saver for me at this phase of my life. So if you're a woman of a certain age like me and we all know who we are, invest in the rest you deserve with the 8 Sleep pod. Go to 8sleep.com slash legal AF and save $150 on the pod cover. That's the best offer you'll find. But you must visit 8sleep.com slash legal AF for $150 on the pod cover. That's the best offer you'll find. But you must visit 8sleep.com slash legal AF

for $150 off. Stay cool this summer with 8sleep, now shipping within the USA, Canada, and the UK and select countries in the EU and Australia. That's 8sleep.com slash legal AF. And then you've got another one on December 1st, Trump and Meadows met with John McAtey and to prepare a memorandum, outlining a strategy for disrupting and delaying the joint

session of Congress in January 6. Again, right there, that's criminal, right? That's not making a phone call or setting up a meeting. And then on or about the next one, December 22, 2020, Mark Meadows traveled to Cobb County Civic Center in Georgia and attempted to observe the signature match audit being performed there by law enforcement officers from Georgia, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Georgia Secretary of State. And then it goes on to say that others prevented Mark Meadows from entering into the space where the audit was being conducted.

And then on the 23rd of December, Trump placed a phone call to Georgia Secretary of State, Chief Investigator Francis Watson, that had been previously arranged by Mark Meadows. And during the call, Trump falsely said he won the election by hundreds of thousands of votes. And then on the 27th of December, Mark Meadows sent a text office to a text message to the Georgia Secretary of State Chief Investigator

Francis Watson that said, is there a way to speed up Fulton County Signature of Verification in order to have results before January 6th, if the Trump campaign assist financially? Then January 2nd, Trump and Metta's committed the felony of solicitation of violation of oath of a public officer. So this is where it goes from being just an overt act of a conspiracy into one of the crimes that you're required to commit. It's called a RICO Act, and that's for the RICO case. And here, he's being alleged to solicit

the violation of oath by a public officer in violation of Georgia Law, section 16-4-7, and 16-10-1, of Georgia Law, section 16-4-7 and 16-10-1, by unlawfully soliciting requesting Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffinsberger to engage in a conduct constituting the felony offense of violation of oath of a public officer, by unlawfully altering unlawfully adjusting, and otherwise influence certified returns of presidential electors. And then again, the last one talks about Donald Trump and Mark Meadows committing the crime of solicitation of violation of the oath of public officer again when they on January 2nd

when they on January 2nd called Brad Raffinsberger, and again, similar to what I just read in the other one. And so this is the conduct that he is charged with. And so his lawyer and he is making the argument that he should be immune from state prosecution and that he has a plausible federal defense here and that this case should be removed. And so if any of these defendants do get removed into federal court, then those defendants will proceed on their own in federal court. Fanny Willis will still be the prosecutor.

And the reason they want it removed is because the jury pool will pull from greater than just Fulton County, which is a blue county. And they will reach into red counties and they want the red churrs. So you just broke down, I think every argument we are going to see in the brief, the motion for remand is the next motion that gets filed and something like that. The order is removal happens. That just took place. The grounds for removal were asserted in the motion by Mark Meadows. Lawyer, which you just stated. The next move is from Fulton County District Attorney Fony Willis to request the remand. Remand, then you will see an opposition filed by Mark Meadows, then you will see a reply

by Fulton County District Attorney Fony Willis' team. You'll almost certainly hear about an oral argument taking place, not always, but I think there will be one in this and then there will be a written ruling as well. And so there are those three key elements here for the removal in a case like this one. Federal officer, I think Mark Meadows checks that box too, though, was his conduct within the color of his official duties. He's going to say, I was just being a chief of staff, Fulton County District.

He says, no, you were violating your constitutional duties. You wanted to destroy the Constitution. How could you be working in official duties? Absolutely not. And then you get to the third prong. And if you don't even succeed in the second, you still have to succeed in the third. Is there a plausible defense under federal law being asserted? Meadows will say that he's got immunities under the supremacy clause, and Fulton County

District Attorney Fony-Willis will say again, absolutely not. You are trying to overthrow our democracy. Prong 2 and 3 is where Donald Trump failed in his attempt to remove the Manhattan District Attorney case. That's where federal judge Alvin Hellerstein said absolutely not. I'm remanding the case back to state court. So that's why the Manhattan District Attorney case is proceeding in criminal court right there. And also if you want to think of some relationship here, I think Fony Willis will cite this case as well. Some of the civil cases brought against Donald Trump in the district court in Washington, DC, before federal judges

like Judge Amit Mehta and even the DC Circuit Court of Appeals there, where the courts have basically held that Donald Trump's conduct during the January 6th insurrection would not provide him with the immunities that people who are Donald Trump's disgrace the executive branch, but people who hold the title president would be entitled to sweeping immunities if they're engaged within the course and scope. But the fact that Trump's conduct in Washington, DC, relating to the insurrection was held not to be within the scope, that will not, that's not precedent. It may not even be strong persuasive authority, but at least

it's another case out there that Fulton County District is already phony. Will as can say, look, no defenses there. That should be the same case here, and try to analogize the two right there. But that's what we've got going on in Fulton County, the first big move, aggressive move, by Mark Meadows, I think making a statement also, doing that within the first 24 hours. He technically had 30 days to do it, but he just did it right away, had it prepared,

anything final Karen before we could do. Yeah, so I just want to say one other thing. So interestingly, he keeps saying in this that he wants the charges dismissed because of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, which doesn't usually, doesn't really make sense in the context of this because it really should be, he really, it really, be, um, he really, it really, it just makes a, it gave scratching my head thinking, why does he keep saying that in here, right? Why does he want to dismiss because of the supremacy clause?

But then there's footnote number two where he says, Mr. Meta will submit a separate motion to dismiss at a later date, which more fully sets forth the facts and law supporting dismissal. And so it leads me to surmise one other possibility that I hadn't thought of until we were sitting here and talking about this, which is perhaps he is cooperating federally, and he pled guilty to all of this. And that is why he is saying the supremacy clause when I give you the full, the facts later, you know, let's get it into federal court first. And then I'm going to

do a more a fuller motion to dismiss under the supremacy clause because if he already did plead guilty to all of this and to this conduct, there is an argument that the supremacy clause would apply and that Fonny Willis would be precluded from also prosecuting him and he would be immune. So that could be what's going on here because like I said, he put it in a footnote and when you read footnotes, you sometimes get the best information. And he said, I'm going, we'll submit it in a separate motion to dismiss at a later date, which more fully sets forth the facts and law supporting dismissal.

So he doesn't, maybe he doesn't want to signal that he's cooperating, but that's the card he has up his sleeve. Because like I said, that the lawyer, Mr. Turelliger, has a really good reputation. He would never have not negotiated it. So I think that could be another possibility here. Well, to be continued, we'll keep you posted as we learn more here on the Midas Touch network and on legal AF. Now consider yourself all experts in the removal process and remand process under state and federal law

and bed micelle is joined. By Karen Friedman, Agnifolo, make sure you subscribe to Legal AF and check out MidasTouch.com for all the latest updates and breaking news stories here in the Midas Touch Network. Shout out to the Midas Mighty. Hey, Midas Mighty, love this report? Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram, at MidasTouch, to keep up with the most important news of the day.

What are you waiting for? Follow us now.