"High-risk gamble": Experts warn Mark Meadows' surprise testimony could blow up in his face

Ex-prosecutors predicted Meadows wouldn't testify before the risks on cross-examination "would simply be too great"

By Gabriella Ferrigine

Published August 28, 2023 1:37PM (EDT)

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows walks along the South Lawn before President Donald Trump departs from the White House on October 30, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows walks along the South Lawn before President Donald Trump departs from the White House on October 30, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows made a surprise appearance on the witness stand Monday as he seeks to move his Fulton County charges to federal court, according to The Wall Street Journal. Meadows testified during an evidentiary hearing that his actions following the 2020 election were part of his official White House duties. At one point Meadows said he didn't want to reveal any classified information during his testimony. "I'm in enough trouble as it is," he said.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin pointed out that most former prosecutors did not expect Meadows to testify because the risks on cross-examination "would simply be too great." That Meadows' experienced attorney, George Twelliger, allowed his client to testify shows that "Meadows and his team believe moving his case to federal court is so critical that it's worth the risk of his being cross-examined" and that they've concluded that "they had no other way of shouldering their burden of proof that he was acting as a federal officer beyond Meadows's own testimony," she wrote on X, formerly Twitter. That suggests that Meadows' team was unable to convince any of his allies to testify on his behalf "or that because of the secrecy with which they operated, no such witnesses exist. Either one is not a good look," she added.

"Why did all the lawyer commentators get it wrong predicting Meadows wouldn't testify? Because the risks of cross-examination are huge. Why did Meadows decide to testify? Because they've concluded the consequences of trial in Georgia are more huge," agreed former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. New York University Law Prof. Ryan Goodman called the move a "high-risk gamble," noting that Meadows during his testimony also admitted he had "no reason to doubt" former Attorney General Bill Barr's conclusion that Trump's fraud claims were baseless. "I have long said Meadows in some respects has even more criminal exposure than Trump," he wrote. "That's because Meadows confided in people he knew the election was lost. Now he has admitted in testimony he had no reason to doubt Barr's assessment."