Analysis: Defendant Mark Meadows testifies in hearing on whether to remove Georgia election trial to federal court

To get his case “removed” to federal court, Meadows needs to establish three things. The first, that he was a federal officer at the time of the alleged offense, is not in dispute. The second is that the conduct alleged against him has a “causal connection” to federal office. The third is that he has a colorable federal defense against the charges. To satisfy the third prong, Meadows has asserted a federal defense called Supremacy Clause immunity, which shields federal officers from state prosecutions arising from conduct they subjectively and reasonably believed to be “necessary and proper” in carrying out their federal duties.

Meadows’s attorneys have decided to put him on the stand today in support of the second and third prongs of this removal test. That is, they need his testimony to support the notion that his conduct was in some meaningful way an expression of his federal office—not, say, campaign activity or a rogue bit of lawlessness aimed at overturning an election. And they need to show that Meadows subjectively and reasonably believed his actions were “necessary and proper.”

Good luck, I could see it for something like espionage charges, or ignoring a member of office for the sake of national security, but arguing that undermining the very foundation of our political structure, attacking one of the core tenets of America itself was somehow in service to the federal government is absurd.

I imagine this is being attempted to pave the way for all federal officials, i.e. a certain ex-president, who are charged with being part of this conspiracy to wiggle out of the charges in a more favorable and potentially hand-picked court.