Well, howdy there internet people, let's bea again. So today we're going to talk a little bit more about the Meadows case and a question that the judge has because it seems like it's probably going to end

up being pretty important and it may establish things for other

developments later.

So, short version is that the judge is asking for more information.

Now this is about Meadows, who was Trump's chief of staff, trying to remove the Georgia case and get it into

federal court instead.

The question asked by the judge, the one that seems like it's going to matter, would a finding that at least one, but not all of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadows

office be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution.

So what is being asked of a criminal prosecution.

So what is being asked is out of all of these actions,

some look like they were within Meadows real scope of duty.

And some don't.

Does the fact that some of them appear

to be within the scope of his duties? does that mean

mean that it goes to federal court?

That's what the judge is asking for arguments on. I would suggest that the judge wouldn't ask this question unless they

believed that some of Meadows acts, alleged acts, are something that would fall outside the scope of his duties.

Now the judge has given them until Thursday to submit and say this is this is our

argument. My gut tells me that I mean even just a few of the acts being outside of his scope

would be enough to leave it in Georgia but I'm not a lawyer I'm not a judge that just seems like how it should work

One of the things that is also important to note is that I wouldn't expect a decision anytime soon

The judge seems very aware that the decision reached here is going to be used as as kind of a precedent, not really, but for other decisions later.

...