That should go over well. 
Maybe the Fox lawyers did the Miranda warning or the fallback is “it’s just an opinion”? /s
But doesn’t this directly respond to the judge’s inquiry? The answer is, “No removal, not when any of the acts, even one, are indicative of a decision to enter into a conspiracy.”
I’m no expert, but it seemed very convincing, unless all their cites were bullshit.
True dat. But those folks in the Trump cult are going to believe it’s a baseless witch hunt no matter what. Assault Rifle Jesus could come down and tell them he’s guilty and they’d refuse to believe it.
Team meadows’ response https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.67.0.pdf
Still reading…
What if the court were to reject severability? I mean, it seems somewhat unlikely, but if it was ruled that the cases had to be tried en masse, who would get precedence? The speedy-trial people or the drag my feet people?
Seems as if it hinges on prosecution’s argument that because it’s a RICO charge, the defense’s arguments aren’t unpersuasive so much as irrelevant.
I’d guess the speedy trial guys, in the remotely unlikely even they refuse to sever. The speedy trial guys have the force of law, judges have the discretion to otherwise set the date. So, if the judge wants to be certain to be reversed, there’s this option. 
Kemp is holding firm against the sedition caucus in Georgia who want to impeach Fani Willis to try to stop the case against trump and company.
“In Georgia, we will not be engaging in political theater that only inflames the emotions of the moment. We will do what is right. We will uphold our oath to public service. And it is my belief that our state will be better off for it.”
“Do what is right”??? That won’t fly with the hardcore R’s. “Do what gets us power” is the core principle.
The decision should come down today.
IANAL
I think the prosecution’s most compelling argument was that if Meadows wants to transfer into federal court in order to invoke the Supremacy Clause as his defense, that needs to be his complete defense.
He can’t also argue that the overt acts were also political speech protected by the First Amendment and, by arguing that (which he has), he admits he was working for candidate Trump rather than President Trump.
Even though the Trump Administration blatantly ignored the Hatch Act, it still exists and that means that if Meadows was engaging in campaign activities while acting as Trump’s Chief of Staff he was NOT acting within his federal duties, because there is a law that specifically prohibits that, even if that law was routinely ignored. And I would also argue that even obtaining a phone number for Trump was political activity if Trump was using that phone number for political campaign related activities.
If Meadows didn’t understand this (which is possible, because I’m pretty sure Trump gave him the job BECAUSE he didn’t understand it), ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But again, IANAL.
QFT. This is exactly my response to Meadows’ argument. “Which law were you breaking, Mr. Meadows? The Hatch Act or the Georgia RICO Act? Pick one, there is no third option. Any way you look at it, you’re a criminal.”
Now he will, of course, go for the Hatch Act which is generally toothless and is subject to a potential Trump pardon, but I hope the Court(s) won’t allow it, but who the hell knows these days.
The importance of the Hatch Act is not that he may be in trouble for violating it, but that it takes away the argument that he was doing legitimate government business.
Nothing yet?
Is it possible that these idiots think that things said on tv are inadmissible? So many of them seem to do this.
Not that I’ve seen or heard. Perhaps Tuesday?
It seems we are at an impasse -
I clearly cannot take the Rico act that is in front of me, and I clearly cannot take the Hatch act that is in front of you.
you’re trying to trick me into giving something away - won’t work.
But it has worked - hey, look over there!
I don’t think so they’re unaware, but they’re scared, despearate people who know it’s likely they’ll lose in court. Trump himself is absolutely terrified. Putting out 30+ videos in one dayt is a cry for help.
Here’s something that potentially applies to a lot of the cases, but I’ll stick it here.
Washington Post has an article about John Eastman’s bar proceedings. The prosecuting body has filed a brief by a lawyer named Matthew A. Seligman, who eviscerates Eastman’s “theory” that the Vice-President could stop the vote count. Seligman concludes that Eastman’s approach could not reasonably be advanced by a lawyer on the issue.
The brief is filed to support the argument that Eastman was not acting professionally and should be sanctioned by the bar proceedings, but as the WaPo article points out, it has serious implications for some of the accused parties in the various criminal proceedings, notably Trump, Guiliani, Cheesebro and Powell, who are expected to advance the argument that they were all acting in good faith on legal opinions.
If the bar proceedings accepts Seligman’s argument and rules that his legal opinion cannot be supported at all, then it undercuts the “acting on legal advice” defence. And, since it is purely a question of law, a trial judge could rule on it before the evidential phase of a trial. If a trial judge agrees that the opinion was completely lacking in reasonable legal analysis, that could mean that the defence will not be allowed to advance it in front of the jury.
Lots of “ifs” and “maybes” there, but it is a significant issue.
Doesn’t look like it’s paywalled: