Former President Donald Trump's one-time White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows fought hard on Monday in court to try to convince a federal judge his trial in the Georgia election racketeering case should be moved from state court to federal court — but in doing so, he actually weakened any possible defense he may have had for his actions, argued Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin.
"He is so desperate, he waived his Fifth Amendment rights, testified at length in federal court at Monday’s hearing on removal of his case and seemed to leave himself wide open to prosecution for his involvement in the phony-elector scheme," wrote Rubin, a former conservative columnist turned against the GOP by Trump. "The first question is why he so fears state court" — since even if he succeeds, he still gets tried under state charges, and still can't be pardoned if convicted.
The best theory, Rubin said, is one hinted at by other legal experts: he hopes he'll draw a more conservative judge who will find in favor of his argument that he is immune from prosecution because he was acting in an official capacity when he pushed to overturn elections based on conspiracy theories.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
The problem for Meadows, Rubin continued, is that he is actually admitting to much of what the prosecution alleges in his testimony to try to get the case removed.
"In testifying for several hours and submitting himself to cross-examination, Meadows let on how closely he was involved in Trump’s shenanigans, revealed that he had no reason to doubt then-Attorney General William P. Barr’s assessment that there was no fraud, and made clear that a good deal of what he did was political," wrote Rubin. This means that "whether he winds up in federal or state court, he has admitted to facts that might well seal his prosecution if the immunity defense fails." Meadows also blundered, she added, by claiming campaign activities are part of his official federal duties — which is explicitly illegal under the Hatch Act. And he admitted to several conversations about the plot to overturn the election.
"Instead of sparing himself from prosecution, he might have given Willis all the material she needs to get him convicted," Rubin concluded.
