Donald Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, secured an immunity deal with special counsel Jack Smith's team to testify under oath about efforts by the former president to overturn the 2020 election results, ABC News reported this week. At least three times this year, Meadows reportedly testified before a federal grand jury after he was granted immunity – which compels witnesses to testify with the assurance that their statements or the information stemming from their statements won't be used against them. "His cooperation," legal experts tell Salon "is a very big deal.”
Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks following the 2020 presidential election that the claims of substantial voter fraud lacked merit, marking a notable departure from Trump's extensive rhetoric on the election, sources told ABC. The former White House chief of staff also informed federal investigators that Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he declared victory on election night hours after polls closed, according to sources.
ABC News has identified apparent contradictions between Meadows' 2021 book and what he allegedly told investigators this year. His book alleges that the election was "stolen" and "rigged" in part due to media complicity, but in private conversations, Meadows told investigators that he hasn't seen evidence to dispute Biden's victory and agrees with the government’s assessment that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history.
However, this contradiction is not an “unusual problem” in criminal prosecution, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, told Salon. Very often, a criminal associate will deny allegations initially and then change their story later. “If Meadows testifies favorably for the government at a trial against Trump, certainly his prior inconsistent statements would be used by the defense to undermine his credibility,” McQuade said.
She explained that Meadows would need to explain why he has made conflicting statements and the prosecution would also need to “bolster his credibility” by corroborating it with the testimony of other witnesses or exhibits. “Prosecutors would use his testimony, only if they believe they can successfully demonstrate to a jury witness’s truthfulness,” she added.
Meadows' testimony is unlikely to significantly impact Trump's defense since the ex-president has maintained that some of his advisers believed the election was fraudulent, while others did not, and he aligned himself closely with those who persisted the existence of election fraud.
We need your help to stay independent
Still, Meadows is one of the “most subtly powerful figures in Washington, DC,” James Sample, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law, told Salon.
“To borrow a line from ‘Hamilton,’ the chief of staff is figuratively in the room when it happens - and quite often they are literally in the room as well,” Sample said. “To carry the ‘Hamilton’ metaphor forward, Mark Meadows was literally and figuratively in the room when the efforts to overturn the election happened. Accordingly, his cooperation is a very big deal.”
On top of this, Meadows had direct access to Trump and “controlled” who else had access to his and therefore “is a direct eyewitness to critical events and key junctures between election day and January 6,” Sample explained.
Public testimony reveals that in the weeks following the election, Meadows helped Trump in assessing fraud claims coming from key allies like Rudy Giuliani. But, by mid-December, Meadows said that he privately informed Trump that Giuliani had not provided evidence for the numerous allegations he had been making, ABC reported.
Additionally, former Attorney General Bill Barr stated in congressional testimony that allegations of election fraud were not substantiated, which he had conveyed to Trump and Meadows during an Oval Office meeting.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
"Defense attorneys are adept at using prior inconsistent statements to undermine the credibility of witnesses,” V. James DeSimone, a California civil rights attorney, told Salon. “But here the proof is in the pudding. While initially Meadows may have had a good faith belief in the election fraud theory, it became increasingly clear that there was no evidence to support this view and the repeated public statements to the contrary while pulling out all stops to prevent our democracy from functioning will corroborate Meadows’ statements to investigators and prosecutors. If they are granting him immunity, what he has to say must be valuable to the prosecution."
The contradictions between Meadows’ book and his alleged testimony certainly raise some credibility questions, Sample added. But just as is true of Michael Cohen’s testimony in the New York civil fraud case against Trump or of the organized crime cases, getting "at the whole truth" requires the testimony of “some imperfect witnesses.”
“Prosecutors can reinforce the credibility of such witnesses with corroborating evidence and surely they will seek to do so with Meadows,” Sample said.
While Meadows wasn't indicted in Washington, he was charged alongside Trump and other key associates in mid-August. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis brought RICO and conspiracy charges related to their alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.
“With multiple of the former president’s attorneys, and now his former chief of staff agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors, Donald Trump will surely publicly project confidence, but will just as surely know that the walls are closing in on him,” Sample said.
Shares