A judge rejecting Donald Trumps former chief of staff, citing his own words on the witness stand. You see, when meadows told the judge that he worked with the Trump Campaign on so many things, including selling out that infamous call when trump asked to find vote, that was not in the scope of his duties as a federal employee. The judge says that if he were to agree with meadows, quote, the court would have to turn a blind eye to express constitutional power, grant it to the states to determine their election procedures. As well as limitations on political activities, of Executive Branch firs. That comment light it in has some major implications for donald trump and also potentially for his codefendants. Joining me now is clint rucker, a former prosecutor for Fulton County, georgia, who worked with District Attorney fony willis. Now, meadows is appealing tonight this ruling, but it is significant that the judge pretty clearly and firmly knocked down a lot of the arguments that he and his attorneys were make. Good evening, thanks for having me. Youre absolutely correct in that. I believe this is a major to the defense strategy, not only for mr. Meadows but many of the other codefendants, as well. I think it was a big part of the strooj have this case removed to Federal Court and in very clear language judge jones has told them that that defensive strategy is not going to work. So i think we really need to yeah. Absolutely. I mean, i think theres a lot more to come. Judge jones also made it clear that this probably doesnt apply necessarily to the other codefendants like Jeffrey Clark or even donald trump. This particular ruling. But does it set the bar for those other codefendants who might try move this to Federal Court . Right. Right. And while judge jones was very jude, in the way in judicious in the way he tailored his order and allow the other defendants to have [ Audio Cut Out ] their appropriate day in court, i think it does kind of set the tone for how this case will be looked at once those other defendants actually have their day and arguments heard before the court. And so i think the judge jones was very clear, that this is a strategy thats going to be a tough one to apply whether its for the former expresident or anyone else. But lets talk about that. Meadows did argue that his actions were part of his federal duties. The judge clearly disagreed, though, writing in part that the state argues and meadows agrees that he is bound by the hatch act a law that prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity. Meadows has not shown how his actions relate to the scope of his Executive Branch office. However, the hatch act, which is cited there, doesnt apply to one person, and that person is the president of the United States does apply. So is this actually in some ways potentially an opening for trump . Well, i think that certainly the president the former expresident has a great legal team, and the fact that hes represented by mr. Sadoa who will exploit that opportunity to make that Particularize Argument for mr. Trump. But i think that factually, we will find that the actions of the former expresident , with respect to the phone call, with respect to january 6th and some of the other activities, will place him in the midst of a conspiracy that i think will be very hard to argue a removal to Federal Court. I think were gonna see all of these defendants right before judge mcafee in the Fulton County supreme court. We also learned today that the special grand jury in Fulton County that was investigating this president ial interference in 2020, they recommended charges against a whole host of other people, including sitting senators Lindsey Graham and then former senators now former senators david purdue and kelly loeffler. But Fulton County d. A. , fani willis, who you know well, hospitalled not to charge those lawmakers. Based on the evidence that weve seen so far, do you understand why she didnt go there . I think so. As a former prosecutor, we take a special oath to make sure that we administer justice fairly. Its not a game of revenge or retribution. And so its not a situation in the case of this significance that you would want to just throw everybody in the same bag and blindly go forward. I think that d. A. Willis was very judicious and discerning about the way she looked at the report from the special purpose grand jury. I think she carved out with her staff what she was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which will be the standard going forward. And i think she made the decision that said, hey, lets go forward with the strongest cases possible and with respect to the rest, i will exercise by discretion to not pursue they at this time. All right, clint, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. And heres Lindsey Graham today responding to all of this. This is troubling for the country. We cant criminalize senators doing their job when they have a constitutional requirement to fulfill. Lets continue this conversation now with house delegate stacey plays cet, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee on weaponization of the federal government. Congresswoman, thank you for being here tonight. Thank you so much, always great to be with you, abby. , what is your reaction to what happened today . A federal judge rejecting mark meadows move to move this case to the federal Court Criminal system. Well, i think this is really just the judiciary, which is really trying to hold up the standard of our democracy and really working overtime to try and ensure that the guardrails remain. We know that the things that mark meadow is alleged to have done are outside of the scope of anyone who acts as a chief of staff. And particularly in a post election manner, trying go to states to try and interject themselves in that. Nevermind being outside of the hatch act, its outside of the scope of a federally designated executive. And therefore he did not have the protection of the Federal Court as a federal officer acting in his position. And so it will remain in the state court, fani willis has done an excellent job, i believe, of narrowing the scope of those individuals that she believes that she has through her are prosecutorial discretion. The strongest case, and is moving board that. We know that there are so many charges against lots of individuals that probably could have been brought on this and many other issues in the Trump Administration throughout his time, but i think that she has tried to bring the most assailant to bear to a jury of his peers. Do you that i she determined that, for example, when it comes to senator Lindsey Graham and Senators Purdue and loeffler, that those charges wouldnt stand as good of a chance of being successful . Is that you think the judgment that she ended up make something in. I cant say what her rational was or the many, maybe layers of reasons why she might have done it. That may be one of the reasons. Another may be that widening the scope just brings so many other motions that individuals will be bringing. Never mind moving from state to Federal Court or discussions of, you know, the Debate Clause, which a speech and Debate Clause that members of congress have, which isnt an additional protection. I think what shes doing is trying to bring this racketeering case with the individuals closely around the president s orbit, who assisted him in attempting to overthrow our government. And try to throw out valid elections of many thousands of georgia residents who voted in the president ial election. So as we mentioned, youre also the Ranking Member on this house resignation committee, and your counterpart is republican congressman jim jordan. Hes pursuing an investigation into Fulton CountyDistrict Attorney fani willis and her prosecution of trump and his allies. But will thinks week fired back in a pretty extraordinary statement that was made public calling it basically illegal. Lets first remind viewers though of this moment between you and congressman jordan during a hearing earlier this year. I think theyre brave individuals for being willing to come after theyve been named in a letter from the biden ftc. Is this your question time now . No, im responding to your ridiculous statements you made in your opening statement. Okay. Well, lets get on with it. So youre pretty familiar, obviously, and i think our audience is, too, you know, congressman jordan is really eager for a fight. Do you have any indication here whether hes gonna back down . Well, hes not gonna back down, but he doesnt have a leg to stand on while hes attempting to make this stand. He has repeatedly gone after any individual who is trying to bring justice to bare on the former president and his actions, whether it was during the time that he was president , before that with, you know, the new york prosecution of the president , who he has also attempted to try to get information. Now we see him going after fani willis, and if there are other individuals, whether its the fbi, The Department justice, those are the people that he is trying to stop from being justice to the former president. Jim jordan has determined that this committee is going to be the Save Donald Trump committee, that he is going to be the individual who is going to do whatever is outside of the scope of a member of congress and the rightful work of this committee to try and stop work that these individuals are doing on behalf of the american people. Rather than doing investigations of true weaponization of the federal government, much of which occurred during the Trump Administration, jim jordan is trying to simply act as a Sounding Board for new messaging for the president as well as to try and thwart the valid work of prosecutors around this country to try and bring to bare justice on the former president from alleged unlawful actions on his part. All right, delegate mask the, thank you for joining us tonight. Have a great weekend. Thank you. You too, delegate plaskett. Just in, donald trump right now getting an endorsement from christy know. Is this a running mate audition . One of his rivals is telling reporters tonight that hes deport the children of undocumented immigrants who were born in the United States. That of course would be a violation of the constitution, well discuss that, and as we talk about the age of lawmakers, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi pelosi announcing another run for congress. Barbara boxer, her former colleague, joins me live ahead. Expresident donald trump is getting an endorsement from kristi noem. It is an evolution of sports for noem who said back in november she didnt believe trump offered, quote, the best chance for the party in 2024 and went on to say if we narrow our focus there, then were not talking to every single american. But just yesterday, she said this. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, i in a heartbeat, President Trump needs a Strong Partner if hes going to take back the white house and needs somebody who knows what its like to run a business, to be an employee, earn a paycheck but also having a wife, mom and a grandma isnt bad either. So is this a vp tryout . Lets discuss with cnn political commentator and editor and chief of the dispatch jonah goldburg. Jonah, too soon or is this the right time to kind of put out this Trial Balloon . I think it makes total sense for chrissy know. You know, shes been kristi noem, shes been running these ads paid for with Covid Tax Dollars and promoting work in south dakota and shes they at rick can and has been trying to theatrical, and shes been trying to get her name out there for quite a bit. Shes actually a pretty god pick when you think about it because shes actually held office, unlike kari lake, shes actually won an election. Kari lake is trying to audition for this position too. Moreover, unlike kari lake and swamy, who people talk about, while shes a very attractive and wellspoken, you know, candidate, shes not going to outshine donald trump with the crazy, with the stuff that is going to like generate controversy not gonna eat the scenery on the stage. And donald trump does not like to be let me put it this way, donald trump always wants to be the center of attention not be sort of playing catchup to somebody whos getting more attention than he is, and shes makes a lot of sense in that way. So in the meantime, trumps been, until really tonight, hes largely not even been on the campaign trail. He will be in iowa tomorrow. But all the other candidates, theyve really been barnstorming these early states. I get that this is kind of narrowly political important move for him today to be in south dakota with kristi noem, but i wonder, is he potentially taking for granted that his lead may not stick, that he has in all of these national polls, particularly in states like iowa and New Hampshire where voters want to see the candidates there all the time. Yeah. I mean, i think so. In fact, i think his lead is inflated. Hes obviously a Double Digit Runaway Frontrunner but as we know, he gets these extra this extra support from voters in the past said they werent necessarily all in for trump because of the criminal prosecutions. Theres a certain am of stick your thumb in the eye of pollsters and the establishment and saying youre Backing Trump because hes being persecuted and all that kind of thing, which means theres room for him to fall. And at the same time, the way i think about both the democratic and republican race is that we essentially have two defacto incumbents at the same time. As far as republicans are concerned, trump is essentially an incumbent, and obviously mr. Joe biden, the actual president , hes like an incumbent but both pretty weak incumbents. And the danger is you put it for donald trump is that hes not an actual incumbent and a lot of these people are putting in the sweat equity and the leg work in iowa and New Hampshire and those states really like to be independent, like to claim that theyre sticking it to the establishment, too. So its entirely possible one or both dont what trump wants home to do yet. Yeah. I mean, in iowa today, you know, iowa has been a place to santos, ron deswap eke both trying to vai it now for that state, ron deswamy was asked a question about whether he would deport a family of undocumented immigrant if they had a child born here in the United States. For which law have a path to Legal Immigration to the country if they meet the criteria. If the child was born in the United States, would he also be deported. Yes, thats correct. And i think that there are legally contested questions, and im honest about this. Theyre contested but legally contested questions under the 14th Amendment of whether a child of an illegal immigrant is indeed a child that enjoys birth rights or not. And this is buckley, jonah, an escalation of something that he told me two months ago. Listen to this one. We should say also both of your parents are immigrants to the United States. So you would have been a beneficiary of birth right citizenship but you now are saying would you ban that for people coming into the country. And what is the period of time for which that would be the case . For people coming into the country illegally, thats the key distinction. And people make this mistake all the time, and i think you gotta be really careful when you talk about the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. One is founded on following the rule of law, the other is founded on breaking the rule of law. Its a page out of the trump playbook, and its not really its not constitutional. But what do you any. Yeah. I mean, i find ron deswamy increasingly exhausting for precise lete reasons youre getting at. Its very similar to Donald Trumps im going to build the wall, it will be so easy, i can do it really fast, every time mexico complains it will be 10 feet higher. Donald trump mastered the after salesmanship that says what do i have to do to put you in this condo today, and deswamy is sort of borrowing the same thing. He knows if he says something bombastic, it gets him the attention and the small donors and if he would has to walk it back in the next few days, sometimes he walks it back, sometimes he says thats not what i said, and sometimes he sticks to his guns but at the end of the day, its very cute that he says, i understand that this is contested. Its not contested. Its pretty settled in law and the constitution. Even if you think theres a good argument on the other side against birth right citizenship for illegal immigrants, the president of the United States does not have the Youn Lateral Power to do that. It would immediately go to court. It would immediately be stayed and litigated for years, just like a lot of the wall was. Its just him saying stuff to get attention knowing that theres no downside to him being wrong or controversial. And maybe its working. Is it work something in. I think it is working. I mea