In case you were still wondering, this is Mark Meadows’ strategy: 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. I had been under the impression until this week that only state law would apply to a case that had been “removed” to federal court. But no. The Supremacy Clause immunity is the big enchilada. The author of that paragraph Anna Bower of Lawfare was in the courtroom and ran down the entire proceeding. It’s quite interesting. Perhaps the most important part is the fact that Meadows’ defense is now right out in the open and it isn’t all that great for Donald Trump. He’s trying to save his own bacon so he’s saying he was just following orders, doing mundane tasks leaving all the important stuff in Trump’s lap. Let’s just say he didn’t offer a rousing defense of the Big Lie or his Dear Leader. If Meadows gets off the hook with the Supremacy Clause,…