Mark Meadows hits back at Fani Willis in fight over his transfer request

Judge Steve Jones requested input from Mark Meadows and Fani Willis about whether one of Mark Meadows' actions being under his federal duties means his whole case must be removed to federal court, or if all of them must be. Willis responded to the judge first, and Meadows' attorneys did Thursday afternoon. Meadows argued that it's all or nothing.

Removal is required if the 'prosecution' relates to 'any act' that occurred in the course of official duties," the court documents read.

Meadows has argued that his case belongs in federal court because he was working as a federal employee at the time he committed the actions.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

The legal argument has drawn criticism from former prosecutors who have argued if it was any other crime, such as robbing a bank, being a federal employee wouldn't matter.

Speaking to CNN on Sunday, Jeffrey Jacobovitz explained to host Fredricka Whitfield that he doesn't think that Meadows' efforts will be successful based on who the judge is.

"The judge appointed was a very good judge; a [Barack] Obama appointee," said Jacobovitz. "He has to show his working in his capacity as a federal officer, and the elector behavior really has nothing to do with what his duties were as a federal officer. And there are two decisions already by two prominent D.C. federal judges about what constitutes immunity, and what doesn't constitute immunity and I think Mark Meadows' chances are very slim."

Legal analyst Allison Gill explained that by the nature of the RICO law, "the person who conspired to join the enterprise doesn’t have to commit or agree to commit two acts of racketeering activity himself."

"While Georgia RICO, unlike federal RICO, requires that one of the conspirators commit an overt act, there is no requirement that the defendant himself commit an overt act because 'each actor in a conspiracy is responsible for the overt actions undertaken by all the other co-conspirators," she said.

Meadows must then prove he did “no more than what was necessary and proper." If any of his acts fell outside of the official duties it would mean the supremacy clause immunity couldn't apply, Gill also said.

Read the full filing here.