Former President Donald Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows filed on Saturday for the case against him as a co-defendant of Trump in a Georgia indictment for conspiracy and racketeering in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The filing comes less than a week after Trump and 18 others, including Meadows, were charged under the RICO Act, created to go after mobsters, and for conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election. They haven't even been arraigned yet, with some of the 18 turning themselves in to police today.

Meadows' motion to dismiss cites the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which states that federal employees have immunity from state charges when carrying out official duties for the federal government.

Meadows' legal team also said that his attempts to find out whether there was voter fraud in the state were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, related to freedom of speech and due process.

Can Trump use same arguments?

All of these arguments could easily be applied to Trump's actions in Georgia as well.

Is it now illegal to say that you think there was voter fraud in an election? How's that going to keep people free and elections fair, if no one can question it without being criminally charged?

It won't do for the U.S. to start prosecuting people for questioning the results of an election unless we want to become a banana republic.

It seems like some elements of our government in the Democrat party actually want chaos to result, based on their actions to spit on the Constitution and our freedoms by doing things like indicting Trump for speaking his mind.

Going after Trump

Furthermore, prosecutors going after Trump want to interpret his words and actions in the worst possible light.

Was he really asking Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to commit election fraud and find him votes that weren't really there?

Or was he asking Raffensberger to find votes that he thought were there, but were not being correctly counted?

And if we don't know, shouldn't we assume he was doing the latter unless we can prove otherwise rather than assume he's guilty even though we can't prove it, just because he's evil orange man Trump?

The justice system is getting further and further from fair with every Trump indictment, and there may be no way to put the genie back into the bottle when this is all over.

And the Democrats don't even realize, they're next.