We are also following the
latest developments
in the 2020
Georgia election interference case.
A federal judge is asking
Fulton County prosecutors
and Mark Meadows,
defense attorneys to file
additional arguments
as part of the former
White House chief of staff's
efforts to get his Georgia
criminal case moved from state
to federal court.
CNN justice correspondent
Jessica Schneider is covering the story.
So, Jessica,
what more information
is the judge now asking for
and what's the timeline?
Yeah, Alex,
so this federal judge
is asking for more briefing
And that really indicates here
that this judge will not make a decision
on whether Mark Meadows
can remove his case to federal court.
Any time before Friday.
That's because all the briefing on
this issue is due Thursday evening.
So the federal judge is asking here
both sides, he's asking this question.
He's saying
because Mark Meadows is charged
with two counts
one of them being that racketeering
conspiracy charge
that actually consists
of several different overt acts.
The judge is saying, well,
if just one of those overt acts
falls under the umbrella of Meadows
as a federal officer,
does that alone
mean that Mark Meadows
can remove his case to federal court?
So really,
that would be a win for Mark Meadows
if it only took one act under Rico
to let him move it to federal court.
They're going to have briefing on this
and then the judge will take that
into consideration.
But it's an interesting legal question
that this judge is confronting.
Alex? Yeah, it certainly is.
And Jessica,
there was also a new filing today
from the Fulton County district attorney,
Fanny Willis.
What can you tell us about that? Yes.
So this all relates to how quickly
this trial might happen
and if this trial could get splintered
among the 19 defendants.
So Fani
Willis is pointing
to one of Trump's campaign
lawyers, Kenneth Cheez Bro.
He has asked for a speedy trial.
The judge has actually already set
a trial date of October 23rd for him.
Now finally Willis is saying
wait hold up Judge.
Are you already severing
or separating cheese
Brose case from the other
other 18 defendants
including the former president.
She said
if that's what you're trying to do
if you're trying to already separate
this case
we want to do a hearing on this.
We want to actually argue this issue
because remember Fanny Willis
really has this goal
of trying all 19 defendants
in this RICO case together.
And if these defendants
are already splintering
off, as we've seen here,
she at least wants a hearing on it
to discuss this issue.
But Alex,
it really does
just show
how difficult it is to try a Rico case,
especially with 19 different defendants
all that have their own interests.
We're seeing Mark Meadows
trying to get his removed.
So it's
we're seeing the splintering
already happen
and we've only heard
from a few defendants so far.
All right.
Jessica Schneider,
thank you very much for that report.
For more on this story,
I'm joined now by CNN legal
analyst Sally Hoenig and Jennifer Rogers.
They are both former federal prosecutors
thank you both for joining us.
Ellie, I want to ask you first
about what
Jessica was just talking about.
Is this a reasonable request
from Fanny Willis
to try all 19 defendants in this case
at the same time in October,
No, Alex.
And I
don't believe that Fanny Willis thinks
it's a reasonable request.
Here is the way this works.
The right to a speedy trial
belongs to the defendant,
not to the prosecutor. Or here.
So if the defendant wants to insist
on the right to a speedy trial, as Mr.
Cheese Barrow
and Sidney Powell have done,
then, yes,
you have the right to be tried
under Georgia law
in this case by November
But the prosecutor cannot force people
who are unwilling to exercise that right
to be tried that quickly.
I think what Fanny Willis is doing here
is, a, she's making a statement,
and that's perfectly appropriate
to say we're ready on everybody.
And she's trying to get clarity
from the judge.
How many trials will there be
and when will they be?
Jennifer, do you agree?
What do you think the strategy is here
by Fanny Willis?
I do agree.
I mean, there's
no way
19 people can be
tried together logistically,
even if they were already, which,
of course,
this suggests
that they will not agree to be,
nor should they.
I think it's actually foolish
of the two of them
to want a trial in two months.
So I think Bonnie Willis
just wants to get a date certain
on the calendar for the 17 others,
which is also another group
she'll have to thin down before trial,
because even 17 is
just not going to happen logistically.
So this federal judge is deciding
that the federal judge, rather,
who is deciding
whether to move Mark Meadows case
to federal court,
is now requesting
additional briefs
about Georgia's RICO law,
which is at the center of this case.
Ellie,
does this suggest anything to you
about how the judge may ultimately rule?
It suggests to me
that the
judge is right
on the fence here
and close to making a decision.
And it's a really interesting issue,
because the determining factor
as to whether Mark Meadows
and eventually perhaps Donald Trump
gets the case over to a federal court was
were they acting within the scope
of their official federal jobs
or outside the scope?
And what the judge is asking here
is he's saying, okay,
these defendants are charged
with racketeering.
The racketeering is comprised
of dozens of dozens of different acts.
And the judge is asking
if I find
that some of those acts
were within Meadows Job,
but others were outside of the job.
Is that enough?
And the answer, by the way, Alex, is
we don't know.
This specific
question has never been addressed
by statute, by a case.
And so I think the judge wants to assess
the strength of the arguments.
He knows he's going to be appealed
either way.
And I think he's trying
to get it right here.
And to that point,
during his testimony
yesterday, Mark Meadows claim
that his actions
were all undertaken
as part of those official duties,
as part of his role as White House
chief of staff.
Jennifer, I want to get your reaction
to what Marc Short,
the of course,
the chief of staff
to the former vice president,
Mike Pence,
told me about Meadows argument.
We spoke just yesterday. Take a listen.
Then why
was he circumventing
all the White House counsel's advice?
Why wasn't passive baloney involved?
While wasn't that team of all,
why wasn't DOJ involved
Instead, Marc recruited outside lawyers
who he wanted to listen to.
And so I think that undercuts
the notion
that this is all part
of my federal responsibility.
If I'm not getting counsel
from the people
hired into your office
to serve the White House in that role.
Jennifer,
what do you make of that argument?
I agree.
I mean, they're kind of
two rebuttal arguments here.
That's one of them, just a factual issue.
You know, he wasn't actually
doing the job.
He was going outside of it.
And then,
you know, there's a legal issue as well.
So I think that the judge is just
going to have to
to sort through all of this and decide
whether he was acting within the scope
or whether he overstepped the bounds.
Then, you know,
I think there are
especially decent
arguments on both sides,
but ultimately
the better arguments
are on the prosecutor's side here.
Ellie, what did you make of
what Marc Short, Marc Short told me?
I think it was
a good point by Marc Short.
You know, it's
one thing for Mark Meadows
to say just sort of
generally what I was doing
was within the scope
of being chief of staff
but when he was confronted
on the stand yesterday
with specific phone call,
specific statements,
it got a lot harder to defend.
Mark Meadows
is taking a sort of interesting position
here.
He's saying
the chief of staff is
is a unique job in our federal government
because it's properly
both federal governmental and political.
I don't know that the judge
is going to buy that
but it's going to be,
like we said,
a novel issue of law
and I think a close call
by the judge here.
All right.
Ellie Hoenig.
Jennifer Rogers,
certainly a fascinating few days
and months ahead.
Very interesting to see
when and how all of these trials
are going to fit together on.