JUST IN: Mark Meadows’ Georgia Testimony Shocks The Legal Community

Mark Meadows, former chief of staff under the Trump administration, testified for five hours before a court about his role in the 2020 election contests. Mr. Meadows was advancing the theory that he was a federal officer at the time acting under the color of that office and as such the case against him should be moved to federal court. This move by the defendant sparked controversy among the legal community that generally would advise their client to not testify if they do not have to, as it opens them up to cross-examination.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case against Meadows revolves around him setting up calls between the former president and state legislatures. Meadows’s attorneys argued that this was not a criminal act and that Meadows was simply doing his job as chief of staff by petitioning the government on the president’s behalf. “Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se… This is precisely the kind of state interference in a federal official’s duties that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits, and that the removal statute shields against,” noted George Terwilliger and Joseph Englert, Meadows’ attorneys.

Georgia’s prosecutors cross-examined the former chief of staff and argued that if he was truly acting in his official capacity then this would open him up to Hatch Act violations given that “[f]ederal law prohibits employees of the executive branch from engaging in political activity in the course of their work.” When they challenged Mr. Meadows on what situation would arise that he would consider to be outside his scope of official duties, Mr. Meadows only proffered one. He said that campaign events would fall outside such legitimate scope of his office.

Meadows argued that the federal government had a legitimate interest in “accurate and fair elections” and referenced election-related activities by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security as evidence of that. Since the federal government has a legitimate role in ensuring quality elections, Meadows argued that his election-related acts fell under his legitimate scope of authority.

A former federal prosecutor who goes under the online alias of Shipwreckedcrew argued that a White House chief of staff is exempt from the Hatch Act. He wrote, “The statute recognizes that being Chief Of Staff is a 24/7 job and your responsibilities can still exist regardless of where you are. In other words, you are not an employee with set work hours and a set work location. Federal employees CAN engage in campaign activities — they just can’t do it at work. Meadows fits into the exception referenced in this statute because of the nature of his job. This exception is EXPRESSLY applicable to employees of the Executive Office of the President — which the Chief of Staff is a part of.”

Legal Beagles watching Meadows:
What does this language in the this provision of the Hatch Act mean?

(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 28, 2023