What are we to make of Donald Trump’s surprising recent decision not to attempt to move Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis case against him in federal court?

Most observers, including myself, expected Trump to try to get the case in court in Georgia, and not simply because this is a standard move for a former federal official.

The federal venue would have given Trump a more favorable jury pool, drawn from more rural areas. It would also have been arguably more sympathetic to a claim of immunity from state charges based on the constitutional supremacy of federal law. Unlike the state court, it would not have allowed cameras, making the trial less visible. And seeking removal would have served Trump’s broader strategy of delay, because the motion would have been entitled to automatic appeal and possible review by the Supreme Court.

Trump’s lawyers had suggested to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee that he try to throw out the case. But on Thursday, the last possible day, they filed an updated notice that he plans to remain in the state forum. His team unnecessarily added that the decision was based on Trump’s well-founded confidence that this Honorable Court intends to fully and completely protect his constitutional right to a fair trial and guarantee him due process.

So what has changed? A number of observers pointed out that two of Trump’s co-defendants in the racketeering prosecution, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former aide Atty. Gen. Jeffrey Clark has had a rough ride in pursuing their own removal bids. Trump may have calculated that his chances were even and not worth the risk.

The problem with this theory is that Trump has not hesitated to pursue other legal longshots. Even if he loses, the efforts provide more opportunities for reprieve and more talking points for his refrain that the system is stacked against him. And while his alleged criminal conduct represented an egregious dereliction of duty, there could be a chance that the Supreme Court would rule that the President of the United States cannot be required to respond to virtually any state charge.

Other commentators suggested that Trump decided he could ride the coattails of Meadows, who may have the strongest removal case among the 19 defendants. Although U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones denied Meadows’ motion last month, he could still prevail on appeal, and the possibility exists that most other defendants would then follow him to federal court.

But if Trump’s real preference were in federal court, there would be no reason for him not to press his own claim. It’s true that advocating for removal would require Trump to reveal some of his strategy, but no more than he has already done. His lawyers have made clear that his federal defense, like Meadows, will pursue an immunity claim.

What Trump’s latest record suggests is that he has determined that state court is better for him than federal court. This means that all the factors that could have encouraged removal were nullified in his mind.

Could it be, as some have suggested, that Trump wants the events to be televised to serve his insatiable need for spectacle?

Not likely: the TV factor was already on the table when Trump leaned the other way. And the task of a defendant during the trial is to sit unmoved all day every day, which is not among the former president’s talents. Trump couldn’t resist the occasional grimace or flash of anger that would be on all the evening news programs. And the damning evidence against him will be more dramatic on television, especially after Trump inevitably decides not to attend the trial.

That leaves one most likely explanation for Trump’s decision: the judges involved.

Jones, the judge who heard the removal requests, would preside over a trial in federal court. He is a veteran African-American lawyer who was appointed by a former Democratic governor in Georgia before President Obama nominated him to federal court in 2011. And he has spoken out decisively and consistently against the takedown requests in this case.

The judge in Georgia, McAfee, is a white former member of the conservative Federalist Society. He was recently appointed by Georgia’s current Republican governor, Brian Kemp, and is up for re-election in 2024.

In Trump’s Manichaean way of dividing the world between his perceived friends and enemies, his prospects for charming and cajoling McAfee are far greater than with Jones, whose biography evokes his detested predecessor in the White House.

It is important to note that McAfee has been an exemplary judge in this case thus far: well prepared, impartial and decisive. Nevertheless, his profile will no doubt reflexively appeal to Trump

are

the former president’s cynical view of the justice system and the world.

We must hope that Trump’s crude reading of the judge, along with his general view that any court ruling can be predicted based on party affiliation, is wrong. I suspect so.

Harry Litman is the host of the

Talking Feds Podcast

.

@harrylitman