It’s a big gamble, but it could pay off.
Former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows made a surprise move on Monday and took the stand in his bid to move the Georgia state prosecution against him to federal court, testifying for hours in federal court about his role in Trump’s effort to reverse his loss in the 2020 election.
“Less litigious” as in “extrajudicial” as in “illegal.”
I have a feeling this won’t work out for anyone but the Willis team.
Does a chief of staff have a job description? What evidence did he have for his claim that Trump was the victim of wide spread voter fraud, not just in Georgia but anywhere? Was his concern about voter fraud feigned to support Trumps baseless assertions? Is it feigned now to get to Federal Court? What gives them the idea they are going to get the case dismissed if it gets to Federal Court? Do they have a deal with Jack Smith?
IANAL, but I don’t think this is going to work out the way that Marky-Mark and his “expert” (WTAF AYKM??!?) lawyers think it will:
There is no federal election. Only multiple state and local elections.
Where does the CoS in a federal position have a claim on what any state does?
… something about the 10th Amendment?
If Meadows manages to remove himself from the GA criminal case entirely, given that he’s not charged in any of the federal litigation (or even referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator), doesn’t this mean that he loses his ability to plead the Fifth Amendment if called by Fani Willis as a witness against the other GA defendants?
I was not robbing a bank, it was just a less litigious way to award my self damages.
Mark Meadows revealed everything one needed to know about him long, long ago. He is a dickhead, as evidenced by:
M[quote=“discobot, post:1, topic:239502, full:true”]
It’s a big gamble, but it could pay off.
Former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows made a surprise move on Monday and took the stand in his bid to move the Georgia state prosecution against him to federal court, testifying for hours in federal court about his role in Trump’s effort to reverse his loss in the 2020 election.
There are aspects of Meadow’s claims that requure a willing suspension of disbelief:
My job as chief of staff was to set up calls for the President. How was I to know that he would and did use them to commit crimes outside the scope of his duties? Yeah sure he called Raffensberger to find him some votes. Nothing wrong with that that I could see.
Sorta like Al Capone’s secretary arguing that his job was to type for the boss so how was he supposed to realize he was typing an extortion threat?
So he’s opened it and removed all doubt?
Hey Meadow Muffins, how is involving yourself in the 2020 Georgia election results part of the WH Chief of Staff which, by law, is not supposed to be involved in campaigning?
This hearing is only for removal into federal court with a federal judge in a wider jury pool. It will still be prosecuted under GA law with Fulton County prosecutors. Meadows would have to get either a GA or federal court to dismiss the indictment against him, which does not seem likely.
If he was acting in his role as a federal official then he’ll need to bend over for the Hatch Act. To me it’s fairly obvious that he was acting as a PO1135804 campaign offical.
As a private citizen I do not pay for dweebs like Meadows to interfere with our elections.
Bend over and grab yer ankles Makie boi…
I suspect Meadows is trying to make the argument that setting up and being on a call between PotUS and the Governor of Georgia was part of his job as CoS and that, while he was present, his actions were solely related to the CoS’s role in overseeing the daily operations of the White House. This isn’t a terrible argument in the sense that the CoS would normally be involved in such a call so that they can then coordinate the outcome of the call with the rest of the White House staff.
If Meadows can convince the court that he wasn’t actively participating Trump’s efforts and instead just observing and/or otherwise acting as the CoS would act in the administration of any previous President then this could work out for him. It also opens up the opportunity to him be called as a witness by the prosecution or have his testimony in this matter used against the other defendants.
Courts in the east should be shutting down for the day.
Does anyone know where I can find a summary of how Meadows’ cross-examination went?
Why do I suspect that overturning an election is among the official duties of zero federal officials?
“Meadows reportedly said that Trump was searching for “a less-litigious way of resolving” his supposed concerns about voting fraud.”
Sure, and when Don Corleone’s enemies hid out in the tollbooth with machine guns they were looking for a ‘less litigious’ way of resolving their concerns about Sonny Corleone.
Actually if he can establish that he was acting as a Federal officer, so that the case is removed then it’s a lot likelier that he can get the case dismissed because a Federal officer can’t be charged with a crime for undertaking their duties in that capacity.
He said he had no position with the campaign and was not paid by the campaign. Does that strengthen his position that he was not acting politically? His boss was doing both, clearly… acting ‘under color of his office’ and as a candidate for re-election. Shouldn’t let the chief of staff off scott free, should it.