Posted on 08/28/2023 2:39:11 PM PDT by vg0va3
“I don’t know that I did anything that was outside my scope as chief of staff,” Meadows testified.
Over the course of his testimony, Meadows repeatedly emphasized that he was acting squarely in his role as the president’s top aide in each one of the eight incidents – called overt acts – outlined in the indictment. His justifications ranged from being a gatekeeper to Trump’s schedule to making sure the president was informed of developments of interest
There was a federal interest, he said, in the fair and accurate administration of state elections.
Under cross-examination Cross pressed Meadows on whether he was acting on behalf of Trump’s re-election campaign – rather than as a federal employee.
Becoming more defensive, Meadows said he wanted, “to make sure elections are accurate.”
“I would assume that has a federal nexus,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
“To win a removal motion, defendants have to clear three hurdles:
1) show that they were a federal official at the time of the alleged offense-✔️
2) show their alleged criminal behavior was carried out as part of their official duties - ✔️
3) show they can raise “a colorable federal defense.” -✔️
Legal experts say that is a fairly low threshold to clear if valid arguments can be made.”
fixed it
more fixing
why would he be working for the election campaign??
that doesn’t even make sense.
She should have been asked if she was working as a Democrat Party employee rather than as a county prosecutor...
Spot on!!!
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.