Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has spoken with Jack Smith's team several times this year, and Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, sources say.

Former President Donald Trump’s final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith’s team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The sources said Meadows informed Smith’s team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump’s prolific rhetoric regarding the election.

  • memfree@beehaw.orgEnglish
    16·
    1 year ago

    Meadows has been creating chaos to fill his coffers for years now, so it hurts to hear he won’t face accountability for it.

    ABC News has identified several assertions in the book that appear to be contradicted by what Meadows allegedly told investigators behind closed doors.

    According to Meadows’ book, the election was “stolen” and “rigged” with help from “allies in the liberal media,” who ignored “actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze.”

    …

    “The people who rigged this election knew that eventually, these irregularities would come to light … [So] they conducted the operation, then attacked anyone who dared ask questions about what they had done,” his book says.

    Meadows went even further while promoting his book on right-wing media in November 2021. When asked by a podcast host if he believes the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent, Meadows responded, “I do believe that there are a number of fraudulent states … I’ve seen at least illegal activity in Pennsylvania [and] in Georgia” – referring to two key states that clinched the White House for Biden.

    Under the penalty of perjury, Meadows offered a vastly different assessment to Smith’s investigators, telling them he’s never seen any evidence of fraud that would undermine the election’s outcome, according to what sources told ABC News.

    So he BELIEVES there was fraud despite never seeing evidence – this side steps the actual proof of accurate counts (hand recounts and the like). He has seen evidence of honestly and he’s ignoring it. I guess the man does not believe in honesty.

    …

    Meadows has not been charged in Smith’s federal case, he has been charged – along with Trump, Giuliani and 16 others – by authorities in Georgia for allegedly trying to overturn the election results in that state. Four of those charged have already pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the prosecution, while the others, including Meadows, Trump and Giuliani, have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial.

    Meadows sought to have the Georgia case against him moved to federal court, but that effort was denied. He is now appealing that decision.

    From 2013 to 2020, Meadows represented North Carolina in Congress, where he also led the conservative House Freedom Caucus for two years.

    Under the immunity order from Smith’s team, the information Meadows provided to the grand jury earlier this year can’t be used against him in a federal prosecution.

    I do hope Georgia gets to prosecute him, and I hope the judge and jury see through his posturing about ‘belief’ in fraud despite evidence of a good count.

    • circularfish@beehaw.orgOPM
      6·
      1 year ago

      Too early to tell for sure, but Georgia is starting to look grim for Trump, Inc. The state RICO statute by its nature lends itself to rolling up these “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” type conspiracies that are hard to prove individually but taken together show a coordinated pattern of conduct. With every co-conspirator who rolls over and takes a plea deal in return for testimony, it gets easier to prove, and more worrisome for those left.

      Open question is whether the Fulton County DA can prove the requisite RICO predicate acts. I think they are trying to pin them on false statements and an unlawful attempt to influence an official, as well as the county election office interference, but it would be interesting to see a dispassionate analysis that evaluates the likelihood of success with those allegations.

      Also unclear is what impact Meadows’ testimony in the Federal case will have, if any, on the Georgia proceedings.