Mark Meadows pretty much just threw Trump under the bus.https://t.co/QWhJZtmquo
— Raw Story (@RawStory) August 28, 2023
Mark Meadows was questioned by a prosecutor with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ office about then-President Donald Trump’s January 2021 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
In the call, which is included in the Fulton County indictment, Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” enough votes for Trump to win Georgia.
Meadows said that Trump had “a concern” about potential fraud in Atlanta and was hoping to figure out "a less-litigious way of resolving” his issues with the election results in Georgia.
At this point Trump had lost 60+ cases alleging fraud. "Less-litigious" here doesn't mean more reasonable; it's means "extra-legal," at best, or flat out "illegal," at worse. Brad Raffensperger reportedly thought it was the latter, and I understand he's present to testify today.
Let's see if he does.
Willis’ prosecutors have repeatedly highlighted that Meadows included outside, pro-Trump lawyers on that call – people who were not federal employees and didn’t work at the Department of Justice, for instance.
Meadows said multiple times that he could not recall all of the outreach he did to set up the call.
“I don’t recall. I’ve tried to recall a number of times,” Meadows said when asked who he reached out to among attorneys who took part on the call on Trump’s side.
Meadows said he didn’t recall a specific conversation with Cleta Mitchell, a private attorney assisting Trump, to get her on the call with Raffensperger. He said he also couldn’t recall looping in members of Trump’s campaign to the call.
Meadows grew somewhat exasperated as the prosecutor questioned why his role would include setting up a call to settle private litigation. Meadows pointed to Trump’s needs as he perceived them.
“I dealt with the president’s personal position on a number of things. It’s still a part of my job to make sure the president is safe and secure and able to perform his job,” Meadows said. “Serving the president of the United States is what I do, to be clear.”
I don't know what the judge thinks, but this doesn't help his "course and scope" argument to get this case removed to federal court.
Prosecutors asked Meadows why he wanted them on the call. Meadows responded: “My understanding was that the president wanted signature verification.”
Meadows is continuing to distance his politically adjacent activity while he was chief of staff from Trump’s campaign. Instead, Meadows is trying to connect these post-election actions to his official-government job.
“There is a role for the chief of staff to make sure those campaign goals and objectives are implemented at the federal level,” Meadows argued.
In one instance, Meadows was pressed about a text message he sent to a Georgia election official where he asked if the ballot signature-matching process could be sped up if the Trump campaign paid for it.
Meadows testified that he made that offer without discussing it with the Trump campaign, and claimed he was trying to learn about the election process so he could advise Trump about the speed of the process.
In other words, even though the outcome Meadows was seeking would have benefited candidate Trump, Meadows is arguing that he was asking about the signature matching to advise Trump as president.
Again, not damning nor decisive on the point Meadows needs to make; but it underscores the problem he had in bringing this motion to remove. He has little evidence to offer besides his own testimony (else why risk waiving his 5th Amendment rights to trial later? Odds of a dismissal are even lower than for removal.) and even that isn't helping him all that much.
I'm not so sure Meadows didn't throw himself under that bus, too. Either way, expect this headline a lot going forward and 19 defendants crawl over each other to escape the sinking ship and find a life boat.
No comments:
Post a Comment