give lawler well, it's unconstitutional executive orders. i feel that way about student loan forgiveness. i feel that way about moratorium on rent president biden said that the supreme court tried to stop me on student loan forgiveness, but i didn't let them. well, maybe he should let them because it was unconstitutional, was trying to do is similarly, i think that there's colorable, decent argument that he can't do this stuff at the border that the republicans were wrong about it. i think the republicans in congress should have passed the border legislation and so now we're just gonna see both sides sort of reverse and the left-wing base is now going to say this is an outrageous executive order. he doesn't have the authority to do it and the right is going to say he does have the authority to do it, but it's too little too late. >> but of course i mean, of course it would've been better to do it through congress. i think biden would say that. i mean, you saw this executive order challenged in the courts under the trump administration. i mean, this was not his first choice but again, absent republicans playing ball on this, he's left with no other option. one thing that stuck out to me in this furnish is that they actually seem to have
but there is two answers. yes and no. there is one school of thought that said the other 18 defendants go if mr. meadows goes. if one goes they all go. to put it simply. there is another school of thought and i think that this is probably more likely. that you had determine what happens to each defendant on his or her own own merits. remember some of them are not even federal official. some of them would not have any plausible, colorable, federal defense and federal courts. it makes more sense to me that you would determine each one on his or her own merits. >> that seems fair. a random state senator or a publicist for a rapper. at least at this point in our country's history does not count as a federal official. chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney. former fbi official. clarion is always. chuck thank you so much. >> thank you rachel. >> we will be right back. stay with us. with us
be successful. secondly, how surprised were you meadows did this? a lot of legal analysts were taken aback, that he'd expose himself in that way. >> first question first, jonathan, i don't think it is a frivolous motion. i think it is plausible. i mean, the supreme court has laid out a three-part test to get a case -- laid out a three-part test to move a case from state court to federal court. the first part is easy. mr. meadows was a federal official. i think the third part is easy at this stage of the proceedings. he has a colorable federal defense if it gets removed. the second part is hard, and that sort of centers around the notion that he was acting within his appropriate role as a federal official. he was doing things that federal officials ought to do. the reason i think that's hard, jonathan, is what he was doing here was try to interference in a state election. he had his political hat on, i'd argue, not his chief of staff hat on. does it succeed?
joining us now is chuck rosenberg former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official. chuck, it is great to see you. thanks for being here tonight. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> what do we know about how mark meadows did today, how good his case is that his trial should be moved to federal court? >> yeah, so there's a three part supreme court test that's important that i want to talk to you about. in order to get plucked out of state court as you described, he would have to show that he was a federal official. he was. that part's easy. that he was acting within the scope of his federal authority. that part's hard. and the third piece, rachel, that he would have a colorable federal offense if the case were removed from state court. let's focus on number two was he
from trump attorney john lauro, who was cautioned twice by the judge to turn down the temperature when he was speaking. lauro claimed it was the violation of the oath to do justice that the former president be tried so soon, arguing he would not have time to prepare his client's defense. judge chutkan dismissed the concerns, noting that trump has been aware since last year that he was the focus of jack smith's investigation and could have been preparing his defense during that time. as for when the date falls on the political calendar, the judge said, quote, setting a trial date does not depend and should not depend on a defendant's personal and professional obligations. mr. trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule, end quote. judge chutkan did note there is a strong public interest in the case being resolved sooner rather than later, and the quicker it goes to trial, the more it reduces, quote, a defendant's opportunity to commit crimes while on pretrial release. trump was not present at
prosecutors put the puzzle pieces together? on the other side of it, how do you navigate this as a defense? >> it's unimaginable, willie. actually, i don't know if the prosecutors are going to coordinate, but yesterday we got a hint that maybe the judges might coordinate. judge tanya chutkan said she'd been in touch with the judge in new york who scheduled a trial there for march. they were going to deconflict those potential dates. in terms of donald trump's legal team and trump himself and the mental resources they're going to have to devote to these various defenses, it's -- i mean, we've never been here before. four complex criminal trials potentially all unfolding over the next year. you know, there's a lot of bombast and hyperbole when trump's lawyers go into court saying how long this will take. in this respect, they are correct. they have their work cut out for them here. it's just -- the amount of work they have to do to get ready for
narcissistic to think that america doesn't need friends. we do need friends. we do need allies. we should never stop doing that. we have a front line of defense with ukraine because they are keeping putin from doing what he said, which is the next stop is poland and the baltics. that's a world war. that is what we're trying to prevent. >> meanwhile, ramaswamy released an outline of his foreign policy agenda in an op-ed for the american conservative. the biotech entrepreneur said his administration would end aid to ukraine and would not defend taiwan from a chinese invasion. after the united states, quote, achieves semiconductor independence. someone, elise, who worked in the foreign policy space, what is your reaction to both of those ideas? >> um, wow, just a lot of leaps and bounds there. semiconductor independence, how quickly is that going to be achieved, first of all? and the idea we can completely separate ourselves from ukraine and europe and overall security,
super tuesday, obviously a little later but not a lot later than jack smith was hoping for, and much, much earlier than trump's defense team had requested. what do you make of the march 4th choice? >> makes a lot of sense to me, willie. plenty of time for the defense to prepare its case, to do what they have to do. you know, sometimes where you stand depends on where you sit. i spent a lot of time as a federal prosecutor in the eastern district of virginia, so-called rocket docket. cases moved expeditiously. continuances were extraordinarily rare. six months would have been an ordinary window of time to set a case for trial. so strikes me as appropriate. let me also add something, willie. the january 6th case in federal court in the district of columbia is a one defendant, four charge indictment. so it's really not all that complex. if the defense attorneys want to get ready for trial, my advice, and i don't mean this in a
it's like hoosiers in the sense that the hoop is 10 feet and it's the same thing no matter what court you are in but it's very different. it's not going to change her approach or what the evidence is going to be, but it does change a little bit in the sense that you are in a different place. it's a little less familiar. >> nancy, let's stick with the georgia case, if this is a base before you what are you going to be listening for in terms of some of the witnesses today, some of the evidence in terms of whether mark meadows has what we've heard a lot, a colorable defense, has some legitimacy for moving this to federal court? >> i think the question is going to first depend on what the law is, what the standards are. if the standards are if the judge believes that the standards are low and there is some mushiness here because this is not an often used statute, whether or not it is colorable, whether -- that's a very low standard, colorable federal
of what the criminal trial to look like. >> do you think he has a case to move this to federal court and how quickly could this all be resolved? >> he definitely has a case. some would say a very good case. it is an exceedingly low bar to get a -- if you're a federal official to have that matter moved to federal court. the interesting thing to me is proving that he has a colorable federal offense is one part of the standard to get it removed. but using that defense if federal court, that is where he might find bigger trouble to prove that he was acting under some federal law or interpretation of the koo constitution to achieve that objective rather than pursuing some corrupt self-benefit or benefit to his boss. >> and if he succeeds, trump will try to do the same. but will it be a slam dunk that trump's case will be moved to federal court if meadows succeeds? >> not at all. they are very different in terms of how the court wouldee valute