Which means while they are finding more bodies, they could also find more survivors. Thats right. When i was here in turkey back in february, there was a devastating twin earthquake here that killed Tens Of Thousands of people. And we thought, wow, we hope the novels dont go up to that level. There are people being dragged out of wreckage, five, six days afterwards. Thats something were hoping we can see in morocco, outside of marrakech. As you mentioned, this was a 6. 8 earthquake on the richter scale. As you said, this is the strongest they fell in 123 years. So what were seeing now, a coordinated Rescue Effort between local authorities and the moroccan military, trying to get, out as you mentioned, to some of these more remote areas. This is going to be a struggle. Because you know, they havent actually officially, the government of morocco, asked for any foreign assistance. Weve heard the United States and france have offered assistance, if accepted by the moroccan government. And also, the red cross, World Health Organization of said that they will pitch in. But so far moroccans of not actually formally asked for any assistance. I think in the coming days we will start to see real magnitude of this earthquake, starting to take shape as we see Rescue Workers taking not just survivors, but dead bodies out of the earthquake. Thats where we saw here in turkey back in february. Where the numbers really starts to take up when they started pulling people out. Thats why were gonna start to see these numbers going up. You mentioned that its now over 1000. It is just a couple hours ago that it was 800, and in a couple hours before that, it was about 600. When i woke up this morning, it was very low. Honestly, i think were gonna start to see these horrifying numbers increasing as the week goes on. Let me ask you something, youve covered earthquakes before, including turkey. In major cities, buildings are built with a good mix of concrete, and usually the steel bar, metal bar psycho through a building. Some of these places in this earthquake are very old, and the construction does not have metal in it. Yes, theres two sides to this. When we are talking about this earlier today, here in turkey, im in turkey right now, a lot of those buildings have shoddy construction, but they were reinforced concrete, recently built. This was a scandal here in turkey, they were built hastily, cheaply, as part of a Building Boom overseen by the president here. In morocco, its a totally different story. Were talking about buildings built centuries ago. But theyre low rise, one or two floors. Not skyscrapers. They were at least highrise buildings that collapsed. But, yes rudimentary materials in morocco. But the buildings, especially in the mountains in rural areas, not nearly as high. Now how that plays out in terms of devastation . In terms of the death toll, injury toll, what we will have to wait and see. Ali. Thank you very much. Well continue to come back to you, nbcs matt bradley covering the earthquake in morocco. Turning now to Fulton County georgia which has been at the center of the legal world since donald trump and 18 others were indicted on criminal racketeering charges. We begin with brandnew devastating developments in a cascade of legal actions there. Last night, a judge denied Mark Meadows Motion to remove, to move his case to Federal Court. Its an early and major loss for trumps former white house Chief Of Staff, who try to make that argument the actions for which he has been criminally charged were performed under his role as a federal official, not as part of Donald Trumps official campaign, or is part of his subsequent campaign to deny the election and stay in office, despite knowing he lost an election. That argument was sadly rejected by the judge, who wrote in his conviction, in light of the states evidence that meadows undertook actions on behalf of the campaign during the time period of the alleged conspiracy, meadows was required to come forward with competent proof of his factual contention that his actions involving challenges to the outcome of georgias president ial Election Results where within his role as Chief Of Staff. His efforts fall short. And quote. Late last night, meadows filed notice that he will appeal the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of appeal. The question is still alive one. It could ultimately affect other defendants in the case. Those four other defendants, jeffrey clark, sean still, in cathy latham have filed the same motion to remove their cases to Federal Court. Donald trumps lawyers, who notified the court this week that they make, that they may also do the same thing in the coming days. Although the judge and meadows case wrote, this decision does not affect the other defendants efforts. It was specific to things that mark meadows said in court. The result doesnt bode well for other defendants. Some legal experts believe that meadows, as then Chief Of Staff to the president of the United States have the strongest argument for moving the case to Federal Court. Meanwhile, a newly unsealed grand jury report shed more light on the sweeping nature of trumps efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 president ial election. 19 people were indicted in a criminal racketeering case as you know, brought by Fulton CountyDistrict Attorney fani willis last month. But, as we are now learning, the Special Grand Jury that investigated the Election Interference Matter in georgia identified and recommended twice as many people for indictment. In his final report, members of the Special Grand Jury recommend the 21 additional individuals Face Criminal Charges in the case. All of whom, for one reason or another, or not ultimately indicted by prosecutors. But that list of 21 individuals include some bombshells. Senator Lindsey Graham of south carolina, as well as two of georgias former United States at the time, kelly loeffler, and david perdue, are among those who recommended for criminal charges. Trumps former National Security charges, michael flynn, once pled guilty to lying about his contact with a russian ambassador. But this was pardoned by trump. He was also on that list. As was boris epshteyn, a longtime trump aide who remains a close adviser to the former president. And the Special Grand Jury also recommended the indictment of this guy, georgias current Lieutenant Governor robert jones, who participated in the alleged conspiracy as one of the states 16 fake electors. Lets let that sink in for a second. The Lieutenant Governor of georgia was one of the people who was the fake elector for donald trump in the 2020 election. A judge blocked fani willis from Investigating Jones Due to a conflict of interest. Because well start hosted a fundraiser for joness opponent in the Lieutenant Governors race last year. But a state agency has said it plans to appoint a Special Prosecutor to determine if bert jones, Lieutenant Governor of georgia should face charges. Graham loeffler and flynn have all denied wrongdoing in response to the Special Grand Jurys report. Epstein has declined to comment, while purdue and jones have not come out with any public statements at this time. Now these names are not particularly surprising. All of them are known to be hardcore trump who are openly doing the former president s bidding in georgia. All day they were not charged in the end. Their inclusion in the Special Grand Jurys final report reflects the widespread efforts of Donald Trumps desperate in antidemocratic attempt to cling to power. The point emphasized by the january 6th own investigation. Lets put this whole thing into perspective. These were senators, elected officials, white house aides, who were exposed to criminal charges due to their association, to a failed and disgraced former president. In turn, their own reputation, and legacies have been damaged because of their Blind Loyalty to one man. Joining me now, anna bower, legal fellow and courts correspondent for lawfare, also with us is morgan clown, the professor of law at Emory University in atlanta georgia. Welcome to both of you, thank you for being with us this morning. Analysts start with you. In a new article for lawfare, you wrote about some of your takeaways from this Special Grand Jury report. Now in one of the observations, this just came, out so most people have not had a chance to read this. But in one observation, you noted quote, comparing the Special Grand Jury report to the indictment indicates that willis did not feel especially beholden to the jurors recommendations on indictments. In some instances, she declined to charge trump with crimes at the grand jury thought she should pursue, and quote, tell me about that, tell me why she would have taken that Special Grand Jurys recommendations, and just decided to take some, and ignore others. Right, so i think it is important to note that the Special Grand Jury finished its investigation in december. It wrote that report, published it. And then subsequently, we know that there was this eight month gap between when the report was finished, and then when fani willis unsealed this indictment against trump and 18 others. So i think its important to keep in mind that fani willis continued to investigate, also we know that the january six committee, or at leasts report, in a trove of evidence, after the report was completed. So theres plenty of things that fani willis was continuing to investigate, continuing to look, at and prosecutors have a number of decisions that theyre going to take into account when deciding who to bring charges against. So for example. One of the questions that they will think about is whether or not the evidence is admissible in trial. Because when youre presenting evidence to a grand jury. Some of the things that you can present there is not necessarily something that you can then admit at trial. So those are some things that fani willis would be thinking about. They could also be thinking about whether or not they can prove that conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Where is that the grand jury stage, its just probable cause, which is a relatively low standard. So i think that one reason why we see some of these people being charged, and not others, it has to do with all of those decisions that prosecutors are thinking about. Morgan, i, and im sure most of my viewers, without legal training, this is all new to them, Special Grand Jury, is a lot of people didnt know how grandeur is worked. Now were all learning as we go along. Theres an interesting footnote in the Special Grand Jury report. I just want to distinguish, the Special Grand Jury was the one that was convened for this along time ago, not the one that came up with this indictment, or that voted on this indictment. There is a special footnote in there, in which it says, quote, one of the Descending Jurors voted against recommending seeking indictments of former senators purdue and loeffler on r. I. C. O. Claim, leaving their statements following the November 2020 election, while pandering to their political base, to not give rise to their being guilty of a criminal conspiracy, unquote. Talk to me about that, with loeffler, with purdue, with Lindsey Graham. As Public Officials, do they have more of a lake to stand on perhaps than others . Im gonna take a slightly different angle to answer your question. It kind of follows with what some of the things on it was just saying. So what i thought was most striking about the public release of this report was that, it undercuts, it seems to me, some of the most fundamental arguments being made by defendants throughout the case. One of them being, i think its implicit in your question, that this is all political. This is an attempt to go after republicans by a democratic operative. What this report demonstrates among other things is that some of the most highprofile republicans, who are not indicted, including mr. Flynn, Senators Ruffle in and produce, senator graham. And last night, mr. Giuliani apparently found the motion, not an hour after the judge, judge jones issued his order of attack trying to cross the indictment. Im certain that within, although i havent seen that yet, but im certain that among his arguments will be, im being punished for being a lawyer, and engaging in this advocacy, and this First Amendment protected speech. Now if you look at the list of people that the Special Grand Jury recommended for indictment, youve got some of the most prominent lawyers working on behalf of mr. Trump in the georgia event. Including, i can see in the list you just put up, for example lynnwood. Who is a very wellknown georgia lawyer. And he concludes other lawyers like mr. Epstein. And peter mitchell. Who were not in indicted. I think for, me the most important political and legal result of the release is, again, something that ana was talking about. It undercuts the idea that this was a political prosecution, and instead shows the prosecution took time and months to look at the facts, and look at the law, and see what they could prove. This is why, i mean, i dont know if you guys want to do this, its in the bottom right corner of your screen. If you dont want to read the indictments, ive read them all for, you can read that code. But thats why its worth it to read. That for the very point that you made. Its all in, its in the nuances, its in the details. You should read these things. Anna let me ask you about this. I want to switch to mark meadows for a second. You cowrote an article for this week. You argued the removal of mark meadows case from Georgia State court to Federal Court may have been the right move. You said removal for the purposes of litigating the forthcoming issue of Supremacy Clause Immunity is one of the best approach for district judge steve jones. This is a provocative position, in part because theres so much anxiety about the perceived disadvantages to the prosecution if the case is removed and quote. I really am very interested in this. Ive always wondered, if he moved to Federal Court, theres still a trial, theres still a case about the underlying things that hes proposed. Tell me why you thought it might be an interesting proposition to do that. Look, i want to clarify that the reason that we saw that it might be the right approach is because of this kind of policy really that maybe federal officials and the scope of their duties, which is what is being raised here in mark meadows so federal defense. Hes raised the question of Supremacy Clause Immunity, and that requires the judge to decide whats in the scope of a federal official duties. And the scope of the presidency. Our argument was that maybe that is a question of a federal judge that should decide, rather than a state judge. Thats going to be great. However, i want to make it clear that i think my point where it should be remanded back to state court. A federal judge would decide whether or not this defense is valid. I dont think it is. Once it is decided when meadows was acting outside of the scope of his Lawful Authority as a federal official, then it gets sent back to state court. I do think that is very important to keep in mind, that that is the argument we are making. I also want to make it clear that if he did stay in Federal Court, we were making the argument that some of these issues that have been raised about the jury pool, about whether or not federal reports would be more friendly, those kinds of things. We were doing some myth busting. In our view, is not going to be that different. Its still going to be fani willis and the team prosecuting the case on state charges. We wanted to make it clear that the jury pool was different but its not that different. We also wanted to make it clear that it might even be more efficient to have this case in Federal Court, because Fulton County has a whole backlog of cases. In the past, and we have seen that in other large rego trials. Its taken months and months just like the jury, whereas in Federal Courts, there is rival tivoli fewer cases, more resources, things tend to go more quickly. Time is of the essence. The American People deserve to know the outcome of this trial and case. The