I don't understand Mark Meadow's testimony

August 28, 2023 6:20 PM

I was reading Mark Meadow's testimony today, and I have questions.

I was reading Mark Meadow's testimony today in the Georgia trial in which it is being decided whether or not to move his trial to federal court. This is my understanding of the testimony: he wants the trial moved to federal court because all of his actions were in his role as chief of staff, a federal job. The actions that he goes on to describe look like he is working for the campaign: i.e. going to a polling place in Georgia, a phone call with Georgia's Secretary of State etc.

So questions are:
1. How could you argue that these things are part of your job as chief of staff?
2. Isn't he confessing to working for the campaign by sharing openly what actions he took? And if so, isn't that illegal in his role as a federal employee? And if so, what are the consequences of that and is that part of this trial, or would be another trial?

posted by Toddles to Law & Government (6 answers total)

you can argue anything you want! there's no point trying to deny what he did, the state has basically infinity evidence of it, so the most he can do is spin it as hard as he can.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:28 PM on August 28, 2023 [1 favorite]

Best answer: Yes. Claiming campaign activities as employment activities is a violation (a pretty clear one) of the Hatch Act. It looks like DA Willis set him up with a "fork" trap where he is arguing the exact opposite set of circumstances in two different venues under oath. He's guilt of either Hatch act violations or conspiracy to interfere with the vote and his defense of one is proof of the other (or both really).
posted by Mitheral at 6:31 PM on August 28, 2023 [18 favorites]

Best answer: I think Meadows was making the argument that as Chief of Staff, it was part of his job to keep Trump secure in his job. I am not saying that is legally sound. But that's the gist I got from his testimony.
posted by Stuka at 7:25 PM on August 28, 2023

While there may be legal arguments he can make, they don't seem to me to be rational arguments. Willis has him outgunned and outflanked on at least this line of argument. Yes, everyone deserves a defense. Sometimes that means mitigating damage you cannot prevent.
posted by lhauser at 9:28 PM on August 28, 2023

Best answer: I was listening to the latest popehat podcast (called Serious Trouble) and they explain this. Those arguments are related to what is required to remove a trial from state to federal court, not about his innocence regarding his actions specifically.

There is a three-part test that requires the defendant to show they:

1. were an “officer, or any person acting under that officer, of the United States”
2. are facing criminal charges “for or relating to any act under color of such office”; and
3. have raised or will raise a “colorable federal defense.”

(Removal of criminal cases to federal court)

So he's trying to prove that he meets the first two criteria.
posted by misskaz at 5:09 AM on August 29, 2023 [3 favorites]

Meadows is arguing that the purpose of his involvement was to gather more information about potential fraud in a federal election. In the abstract this is certainly a plausible subject for the executive branch to concern itself with. Saying you talked to the secretary of state isn't the same as saying you lobbied them on behalf of the campaign--and, indeed, Raffensperger, still a Republican, testified that even though the claims of fraud were wrong he didn't consider the call "inappropriate."

Reading the details on his testimony it seems he handled a lot of the details he was asked about mind bogglingly poorly, which may be an indicator of living in Trump bubble-land too long, or perhaps of how bad his legal situation really is.
posted by mark k at 6:29 PM on August 29, 2023