October 4, 2023

By Kate Brumback | Related Press

ATLANTA — Mark Meadows testified in court docket Monday that actions detailed in a sweeping indictment that accuses him of collaborating in an unlawful conspiracy to overturn then-President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss have been all a part of his job as White Home chief of workers.

The extraordinary testimony — from a former high presidential aide who now faces fees alongside his previous boss — got here within the first courtroom skirmish in a case that’s prone to have many. Meadows’ claims have been a part of his argument that the case must be moved from a state court docket to federal court docket. U.S. District Choose Steve Jones didn’t instantly rule.

As Trump was consumed by claims of widespread election fraud within the weeks after his 2020 loss, Meadows mentioned, it was troublesome to deal with the issues they wanted to be doing to wind down the presidency. In consequence, Meadows mentioned, he took actions to find out whether or not the allegations have been true, together with actions prosecutors allege have been improper.

Meadows mentioned he didn’t imagine he did something that was “outdoors my scope as chief of workers.”

Fulton County District Lawyer Fani Willis, who used Georgia’s racketeering regulation to convey the case, alleges that Trump, Meadows and 17 others participated in a wide-ranging conspiracy to attempt to hold the Republican president in energy illegally even after his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Willis’ staff argued that Meadows’ actions have been political in nature and never carried out as a part of his official duties.

It’s simply one in every of 4 legal instances Trump is presently dealing with. In Washington on Monday, a choose overseeing a federal case over fees that Trump sought to illegally subvert the outcomes of the 2020 election set a trial date for March 4, 2024, proper within the coronary heart of the presidential major calendar.

Through the Georgia listening to, Meadows lawyer George J. Terwilliger III known as his shopper to the stand and requested him about his duties as Trump’s chief of workers. The lawyer then walked him by means of the acts alleged within the indictment to ask if he had finished these as a part of his job. For many of the acts listed, Meadows mentioned he had carried out them as a part of his official duties.

Within the cross-examination, prosecutor Anna Cross ticked by means of the identical acts to ask Meadows what federal coverage was being superior in every of them. He mentioned repeatedly that the federal curiosity was in guaranteeing correct and honest elections, however she accused him a number of occasions of not answering her query.

Meadows spent almost 4 hours on the stand, typically struggling to recollect particulars of the occasions that unfolded over about two months following the election. However he remained upbeat, indulging in self-deprecation with a quip about how he typically forgets to take out the trash, smiling steadily and laughing on the choose’s jokes.

Prosecutor Donald Wakeford advised the choose throughout his closing argument that the regulation that enables a case to be moved from a state court docket to federal court docket is supposed to guard federal authority. However he argued that there isn’t a federal authority to guard on this case as a result of Meadows’ actions have been explicitly political and meant to maintain Trump in energy, making them unlawful below the Hatch Act, which restricts partisan political exercise by federal staff.

Terwilliger contended that the state can’t use an indictment to have an effect on what a chief of workers does in his job. Even a mistake on Meadows’ half wouldn’t be grounds to maintain from shifting the case to federal court docket “until it was malicious and finished willfully,” he mentioned.

The allegations in opposition to Meadows embrace collaborating, together with Trump and others, in conferences or communications with state lawmakers that have been meant to advance the alleged unlawful scheme to maintain Trump in energy; touring to Atlanta’s suburbs, the place a poll envelope signature audit was taking place; arranging a telephone name between Trump and a Georgia secretary of state investigator; and collaborating in a January 2021 telephone name between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger throughout which Trump advised Raffensperger might assist “discover 11,780 votes” wanted for him to win Georgia.

Known as as a witness by prosecutors, Raffensperger mentioned in response to the efforts by Trump and his allies within the weeks following the election that “outreach to this extent was extraordinary.” However below questioning by Meadows’ lawyer Michael Francisco, he mentioned Meadows himself didn’t ask him to do something he thought was inappropriate.

The choose mentioned that he would attempt to rule as shortly as potential however that there isn’t a variety of relative case regulation and he wants to provide the matter “thorough consideration.” Within the meantime, the case continues to progress in Fulton County Superior Courtroom, and the choose mentioned Meadows should honor a Sept. 6 arraignment if he hasn’t dominated by then.

If Meadows succeeds in shifting his case to federal court docket, it could imply a jury pool that features a broader space than simply overwhelmingly Democratic Fulton County. It will additionally imply a trial that may not be photographed or televised, as cameras are usually not allowed inside. But it surely doesn’t open the door for Trump, if he’s reelected in 2024, or one other president to pardon anybody as a result of any convictions would nonetheless occur below state regulation.

Not less than 4 others charged within the indictment are additionally searching for to maneuver their instances to federal court docket, and there’s hypothesis that Trump will attempt to do the identical. Trump attorneys Steve Sadow and Jennifer Little listened attentively within the courtroom to the Meadows listening to Monday, together with legal professionals for a number of the different defendants.