Mark Meadows Might Have Just Perjured Himself

Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's former chief of staff, may have created a new legal issue for himself while testifying in an attempt to get his Georgia election interference case moved to a federal court, according to legal experts.

Former Pentagon special counsel Ryan Goodman suggested that Meadows has a "potential perjury problem" after he initially denied having a role in the fake electors' scheme to falsely declare Trump had beaten Joe Biden in Georgia and other states at the 2020 election, but later acknowledged a part in the plot while under oath.

Meadows has been charged, along with Trump and 17 other suspects, under Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' sprawling Georgia election interference case, with each suspect facing a charge of violating the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Meadows testified on August 28 as part of his bid to have his Georgia case moved to a federal court. Meadows says that his actions in and around the 2020 election were under his capacity as a federal officer and wants the case switched to federal court, where he would argue that he is entitled to immunity from prosecution.

While sharing extracts of Willis' brief on Meadows' testimony on X, formerly Twitter, Goodman suggested Meadows may have incriminated himself while discussing his role in arranging the January 2021 phone call between Trump and Brad Raffensperger, in which the former president asked the Georgia secretary of state to "find" the 11,870 votes needed to beat Biden in the state at the last election, which triggered Willis' criminal inquiry.

"Earlier, the defendant contacted another Secretary of State official and inquired whether the Trump campaign could 'speed up' a signature audit by providing funding directly to the State," Willis wrote.

"And after insisting that he did not play 'any role' in the coordination of slates of 'fake electors' throughout several states, the defendant was forced to acknowledge under cross-examination that he had in fact given direction to a campaign official in this regard.

"Specifically, the defendant wrote an email, State's Exhibit 1, in which he said, 'We just need to have someone coordinating the electors for the states' and attached a memorandum written by co-defendant Kenneth Chesebro recommending the organization of slates of presidential electors to meet and cast votes for Mr. Trump in states Mr. Trump had lost."

Discussing the details in Willis' brief, Goodman wrote: "Mark Meadows has a potential perjury problem.

"Fulton County DA puts it in understated terms in new brief. (DA uses it just for credibility.) Meadows' testimony included false statement—his lack of 'any role' in coordinating false electors. Was then forced to acknowledge it," Goodman added.

Former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann posted on X: "Meadows perjury in the removal hearing can be both separately prosecuted and be additional proof against him in the 1/6 case. Note: it can be used for both ends by Jack Smith."

Meadows has not been charged in the Special Counsel's federal investigation into the events leading up to the January 6 attack, where Trump has pleaded not guilty to four offenses.

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman also suggested that Meadows is "in the soup" after Willis "as much as accuses Meadows of perjury" in her latest court brief.

Meadows' legal team has been contacted for comment via email.

Writing for the Los Angeles Times, Litman added that Meadows' demand for his Georgia case to be moved to a federal court is part of a wider plan to have the charges against him dropped while citing immunity under the Supremacy Clause as the charges against him involve his time as Trump's White House chief of staff.

"The argument is that no matter how offensive Meadows' conduct might have been to the state, the supremacy of federal law prevents charging him with a Georgia crime," Litman wrote.

"We can be sure Meadows will bring the motion with alacrity if his case is moved to federal court, and if he succeeds, it will make the whole case against him go away.

"Here's the rub for Meadows," Litman added. "To obtain immunity, he would need to show that his conduct served some actual U.S. government purpose that the Supremacy Clause would forbid the state from annulling. It's not enough for Meadows to argue that he was chaperoning a rogue president; he has to demonstrate a legitimate federal goal."