Federal Appeals Court Raises BIG ISSUE in Trump RICO Case and DEMANDS Quick Response
Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Meidas Media Network
4.9 • 6.1K Ratings
🗓️ 13 September 2023
⏱️ 25 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | The 11th Circuit is weighing in on Mark Meadows bid to try and get his case removed from |
| 0:07.4 | Fannie Willis's jurisdiction, her home court in Georgia, to federal court, and they are on an |
| 0:14.9 | expedited briefing schedule that we're going to talk about here in a duet with my legal AF |
| 0:22.9 | co-anchor Michael Popok. So let's talk about a little bit where we are and how we got to where we |
| 0:31.1 | are today. So if you remember, Mark Meadows wanted to remove his case to federal court under 28 USC |
| 0:40.0 | 1442 and 1455, which basically sets forth the procedure on how you get your case moved from state court |
| 0:49.4 | to federal court. And that requires three things. You have to be a federal officer, you have to be |
| 0:55.5 | working under the authority of your job description, and you have to have a plausible federal |
| 1:01.7 | defense. And it's the defendant's burden. So it was Mark Meadows's burden to get his case and to show |
| 1:08.4 | that he had those three elements and that he met those three elements. There was a hearing before |
| 1:14.8 | Judge Jones. The hearing was held on August 28th and Meadows testified. And he tried to say that |
| 1:24.2 | everything was under his job description as the chief of staff. Remember, he was the chief of staff |
| 1:29.4 | for Donald Trump at the end, maybe for eight months. And he said, you know, look, my job description, |
| 1:35.9 | there's nothing that the chief of staff doesn't do. So everything was in my job description. |
| 1:41.2 | The just the law here and when a court will assert federal jurisdiction, there's a strong |
| 1:48.7 | policy against federal interference because of federalism. But there is this carve out in the law |
| 1:55.6 | with those three elements. And what Judge Jones said was, okay, are you a federal officer? Do you |
| 2:01.5 | meet number one Mark Meadows? Yes, the state conceded that too, by the way, Fannie Willis says, yeah, |
| 2:06.3 | of course, he was a federal officer. Number two, was it relating to any act under the color of |
| 2:12.5 | such office? And what Judge Jones ruled was the scope of this is a mixed question of fact and |
| 2:20.8 | law. It's an analysis that has to be done where you apply the facts to the law. So first, |
| 2:25.8 | you have to define what the acts were, ascertain the scope of the federal role and analyze whether |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Meidas Media Network, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Meidas Media Network and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.

