Posted on 09/05/2023 9:40:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Is Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, about to sing like a canary against his former boss? Politico writes that he “signaled that his defense is likely to include blaming the former president as the primary driver of the effort.”
Granted, it’s Politico, and they are not fans of Trump World. The online site relishes stories that pit the various players against each other. But, in this case, it is entirely plausible. Why would Meadows do time for Trump if he can strike a deal? Meadows has proven himself a political opportunist, in my opinion. He seems to be developing a storyline that he just went along with whatever Trump wanted. There was one story published that stated that Meadows went along with Trump because he didn’t want Trump to yell at him. Yikes. That’s not much of a profile in courage.
It’s not uncommon for co-defendants facing serious prison time to point fingers at each other to make themselves look less culpable to an eventual jury. But rarely has it played out in such an extraordinary fashion, where the alleged ringleader is a former president.
During a hearing in Atlanta, a defense attorney for Meadows called attention to Trump’s prominent role in what is certain to be a crucial element of prosecutors’ case there: the infamous Jan. 2, 2021, phone call in which Trump demanded that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, “find” enough votes to declare Trump the winner.
Meadows arranged that pivotal call. But after prosecutors played audio of the call in the courtroom, an attorney for Meadows emphasized that his client’s part in the actual discussion was both more minor and less provocative than Trump’s.
“There’s a lot of statements by Mr. Trump. Mr. Meadows’ speaking roles were quite limited,” Meadows’ lawyer, Michael Francisco, observed as he cross-examined Raffensperger, who was called to testify by prosecutors.
“He didn’t make a request that you change the vote totals — Mr. Meadows, himself?” Francisco continued.
“Correct,” Raffensperger replied.
Sounds like Raffensperger is his wingman.
The false electors figure prominently in the Georgia case. Meadows was clear in his testimony last week that Trump viewed the false electors as a significant part of his strategy to stay in power. Meadows sent an email pushing the campaign to put together those slates because, otherwise, he feared Trump would yell at him. In case the campaign won in its court actions, he wanted the slates ready to go.
There are indications that Trump will assert broad presidential immunity. The other co-defendants have already begun working their own advantages.
Many of the defendants in the Georgia case have already begun maneuvering for individual advantage. Chesebro’s lawyers demanded that his trial begin next month, which could have the effect of separating his trial from other big players like Trump or Rudy Giuliani. Others have asked to be tried alone, which could complicate their ability to point the finger at Trump but would also mean their jury wouldn’t hear from anyone specifically defending the former president.
Meadows pleaded not guilty and waived his arraignment. He avoided an appearance that will be broadcast live on TV in doing so. Meadows is asking to be tried in federal court, as he was a federal employee. Meadows is free on $100,000 bond. Meadows’ legal team doesn’t think he can get a fair trial in Fulton County.
It will be interesting to see how Meadows’ proceeds. Many of the other co-defendants are complaining that Trump isn’t helping with legal bills, which have to be devastating for most of them. Trump has shown this loyalty only goes one way – to himself – especially since he left office. Now he may reap some of what he has sown. We’ll have to stay tuned to see how it all shakes out. The Georgia trial will be televised. It will be must-see tv.
p
I don't know why this would be a surprise. The legal argument for moving his case to the Federal courts is that he was functioning as an executive branch official -- which means (by definition) that he was answering to the President at the time.
The answer is NO.
To hell with the Trump haters at Hot Air. May they be totally deflated and swept into the dustbin of history. A pox on their organization.
Only the DNC would consider questioning a questionable election is a criminal event. Never mind the 1st Amendment in this Turd World judiciary.
>> Politico writes that he bla bla bla
POLITICO? Anything that puke-bag Politico “writes” is highly suspect. Reader beware.
Another couple of candidates who could flip are Jenna Ellis who represented Trump in a couple of the post election cases and later decided to support DeSantis, the Trump campaign has refused to help her with her legal bills and the other big name to potentially flip is Rudy Giuliani his legal bills are also not being paid
Listen to the tape, or read the transcript. Trump said clearly "I need to find 11,780 votes". He did not say "Brad, you need to find 11,780 votes" or "Brad, I direct you to find 11,780 votes" or "Brad I direct you to fabricate 11,780 votes".
Words have meaning. Some schmuck taped that call, probably Raffensperger's staff, probably in an effort to sandbag Trump. Since we have the tape, why can't we listen to it, or read an accurate transcription of it and move on from there? Why do "journalists" keep fabricating this "I need you to find these votes" crap?
eff this cr@phole banana republic that we live in.
Ellis and Rudy would never lie under oath. There is nothing honest they could say to help the political persecutors.
Same thing goes for many Republicans, in their zeal to make Tramp and MAGA "go away".
"The Democrats will go back to sharing power with us after all this unpleasantness is over," said the naive RepubTard or conservaTard.
Thank you for pointing that out.
I can always tell the uneducated from the crowd. They think Trump demanded that Raffenberger manufacture votes and that Palin claimed she could see Russia from her porch.
Neither is true.
Trump clearly believed that there was fraud. His team was telling them there was. He offered several examples of fraud. He asked Raffenberger to look into the fraud because they would clearly find the votes for Trump to win.
“Many of the other co-defendants are complaining that Trump isn’t helping with legal bills”
Oh, so he isn’t setting himself up for another azz rape charge based on his “paying co-defendants to not testify against him”?
Childish analysis.
If he pays their legal bills now, that would instantly be used as proof that he was buying their loyalty. There would probably be new charges coming out of such a payment.
there is nothing illegal about alternative electors
raffenberger has already said that Trump did not ask him to do anything illegal
would paying co-defendant legal bills be considered witness tampering?
Probably, nearly every other former Trump appoint he has turn on him.
Exactly what it is now. As far as I’m concerned, our government is under enemy occupation. The leader of Proud boys got 22 years yesterday in Federal prison and he wasn’t even in DC on Jan.6th.
Meanwhile the founder of BLM Patrisse Cullors who organized and encouraged riots nationwide causing billions in damages, lives lost, countless injured over 4 years, goes and buys mansions with the BLM donations and now she’s living like royalty without one single solitary investigation against her. Not even the family of George Floyd got a dime from her. She doesnt even get arrested and this guy who wasn’t even in DC Jan. 6th gets 22 years.
If he got 22 years imagine what they will give Trump
I don’t know why anyone would expect Trump to pay their legal bills in this case. Paying their legal bills would be compelling evidence against all of them for conspiracy and racketeering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.