How Meadows’ testimony in Georgia could help shape case against Trump

Geoff Bennett:

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows took a major gamble with his opening move in the Fulton County election interference case. Meadows took the stand himself.

For nearly four hours yesterday, he testified he was just following orders from Donald Trump in helping to orchestrate efforts to investigate alleged fraud in the 2020 election, actions that prosecutors described as part of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election results.

Meadows took the stand to argue that the criminal case against him should be moved to federal court.

For insight, we turn now to former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg.

Chuck, it's always great to see you.

And as you well know, it's a real risk for a defendant to take the stand at any point, especially during pretrial motions. Was testifying Mark Meadows' only chance to get this case moved?

Chuck Rosenberg, Former U.S. Attorney:

No. He had options.

And you're right, Geoff. It is a risk. He is still a defendant in a criminal case. So, anything he said in this particular hearing could be used against him by prosecutors in a trial? Did he have to testify? No, there are other ways for his team to have adduced the evidence that they wanted to use to show that he was a federal official and acting within the scope of his duty in his efforts to get his case removed to federal court.

They must have made a calculation that the best way to do that would be for him to testify.

Geoff Bennett:

So what is the benefit for Mark Meadows if this case is moved from Fulton County to a federal court?

Chuck Rosenberg:

That's a great question.

So, if he succeeds and gets the case removed, then he can raise a defense in federal court, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. He could argue that, because he was a federal official acting in — within the scope of his federal duty, the case against him ought to be dismissed.

So what you should expect, if he succeeds in getting the case removed, is that he would then move the federal court to dismiss the indictment against him.

Geoff Bennett:

Meadows' testimony was contradicted immediately on the stand from testimony from Brad Raffensperger, the top Republican in Georgia who oversees that state's elections.

And whereas Meadows was saying, I was just doing my job, Raffensperger said — quote — he didn't think it was "appropriate" to talk to Meadows while Donald Trump condemned contesting the state's results. He initially tried to avoid that phone call. He characterized it as a campaign call. And he also said — quote — "Outreach to this extent was extraordinary."

How might a judge weigh those competing and conflicting testimonies?

Chuck Rosenberg:

Well, that gets to the crux of Meadows' argument.

If, in fact, he was not acting within the scope of his duties as a federal official as the White House chief of staff, it's going to be very hard for him to get his case removed.

I am sure, from Mr. Raffensperger's point of view, he had never seen anything quite like it. By the way, witnesses do contradict one another. That happens. It's not unusual. It doesn't mean that either is lying. They certainly have a different perspective on what happened. But this is the key to Mr. Meadows efforts to get the case removed, that he was acting within the scope of his duties.

And Mr. Raffensperger was saying, not in my opinion. It seemed to be far outside of his lane.

Geoff Bennett:

If the judge in this case says this case will remain in Fulton County, Georgia, could the Meadows team appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court?

Is delay part of the strategy here?

Chuck Rosenberg:

Well, delay always inures to the benefit of defendants. It's sort of a universal truth.

So, if Mr. Meadows loses his motion to remove his case to federal court, he can take an appeal. It doesn't have to take a long time. The record in this case is going to be relatively small. It's that one day of testimony and the pleadings that each side filed. I imagined the 11th Circuit, the federal circuit that sits over the Atlanta federal courts, could hear this and decide this relatively quickly.

Geoff Bennett:

There were conservative commentators today making the case that the DA, Fani Willis, overplayed her hand in charging Meadows because it creates this potential path for removal.

Do you see it that way? And could she have brought this sweeping racketeering charge without including Mark Meadows?

Chuck Rosenberg:

Well, if you include federal defendants in the state case, you ought to expect this sort of motion.

Did she overplay her hand? Too early to tell. We have to see what the trial looks like when evidence is adduced at the trial and ultimately what a jury does with the case before it. It's a broad case. You can contrast it, Geoff, of course, to the case that Jack Smith, the special counsel, brought against Mr. Trump in federal court in Washington, D.C., four counts, one defendant.

That's a streamlined case. Look, I can argue the pros and cons of the either, but whether or not she overplayed her hand, I guess I would say, to be determined.

Geoff Bennett:

And the judge in this case made the point that it will continue as he makes this decision about removal. Is that right?

Chuck Rosenberg:

That's right.

He told everyone to continue as if they're in state court. And they are. Should he decide to remove it, and he might, then that's a different matter. It's a different book with a whole different story. There will be a different procedural posture.

But, right now, they're in state court. They're defendants in a criminal case in state court in Fulton County, Georgia. And they have to attend to that until otherwise.

Geoff Bennett:

Chuck Rosenberg, you make everything so much clearer.

(laughter)

Chuck Rosenberg:

Only occasionally.

(laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

Thanks for coming in.

Chuck Rosenberg:

Yes, sir.