WATCH: Former federal prosecutor explains why she thinks the DOJ will indict Mark Meadows
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was voted in contempt of Congress in the Jan. 6 select committee Monday evening, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Justice Department will indict him.
According to former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance, however, the DOJ is likely to move forward with the indictment.
"It's hard to get into Mark Meadows' mind, and I'm sure we jump into speculation. What is the impact that he stopped cooperation?" asked Vance. "I think this is Liz Cheney's analysis from last night where she was clearly making an argument not just to hurt fellow members of Congress, but also to the Justice Department about why they should ultimately indict Mark Meadows."
It all hinges on the fact that Meadows stopped cooperating. Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) said Tuesday that Meadows turned over thousands of documents and that the Jan. 6 committee is "quibbling" over a few things. Vance explained that Cheney's analysis is more sophisticated, saying Meadows only turned over documents he conceded weren't privileged. Now he's refusing to testify about those documents.
MSNBC host Katy Tur noted that the Meadows case isn't the same as Steve Bannon. In Meadows' case, he was a White House staffer at the time, where Bannon was not. Meadows has documents that likely do fall under executive privilege, however, President Joe Biden has waived that privilege.
"You'll recall that DOJ and the Bannon indictment references repeatedly the fact that Bannon did absolutely nothing to comply with the subpoena," Vance continued. "Ultimately I think that Meadows does end up getting indicted and here's the reason. I think even if DOJ concedes that in all the cases where Meadows asserts a privilege that they won't look at those any further, you know, Katy, in many of those instances, the way he suggests that the documents are privileged is very speculative and he's probably wrong in many cases, especially about executive privilege."
She explained that in this universe, where Meadows has agreed no privilege exists, there is no reason he should refuse to testify.
"And, in fact, you can't just say I have executive privilege and not show up," she told Tur. "You have to appear when you're asked to testify. You have to listen to each question, and for each question consider whether you can answer it or whether it's privileged. It's Meadows' failure to participate and play by the rules that ultimately means, at least in my judgment, that DOJ will perhaps, after a great deal more time than with Bannon and a lot more angst, decide he should be prosecuted."
See the discussion below:
Riot committee: Mark Meadows already facing legal jeopardy no matter what else turns up in his phone recordsMark Meadows could be facing legal jeopardy over his phone records regardless of what turns up.
The former White House chief of staff is refusing to turn over some personal emails, text messages and encrypted chats by arguing Donald Trump still maintains executive privilege over those communications, but the House select committee believes those should have already been turned over to the National Archives, reported The Daily Beast.
“It appears that Mr. Meadows may not have complied with legal requirements to retain or archive documents under the Presidential Records Act,” the panel said in its report, which noted concerns that some of those materials may already be lost.
Congressional investigators are especially interested in the former presidential staffer's use of personal devices to coordinate challenges to Trump's election loss, including a Jan. 2 phone call to Georgia's secretary of state that's under criminal investigation in that state and the Jan. 6 protest that turned into the U.S. Capitol riot.
"Had Mr. Meadows been deposed under oath, the committee would have asked him about his handling official government records, a topic that is not subject to any conceivable legal privilege,” said Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL) said during the contempt vote meeting.
Congress will vote Tuesday whether to hold Meadows in contempt, but investigators will likely look at whether he violated federal records laws.
“Mr. Meadows’ production of documents shows that he used the Gmail accounts and his personal cellular phone for official business related to his service as White House chief of staff,” the committee said in its latest report. “Given that fact, we would ask Mr. Meadows about his efforts to preserve those documents and provide them to the National Archives.”
It should not matter who paid for Meadows' phone service, according to a former national archivist.
Don W. Wilson, who served as the nation’s archivist from 1987 until 1993, told The Daily Beast that there’s little wiggle room here.
“If it’s official business, then it’s a record," said Don W. Wilson, who served as the nation’s archivist from 1987 until 1993, "and by the nature of his role and his office, there’s not much unofficial. He shouldn’t have been using his personal cellphone… and if he was, there should have been some sort of transfer to the National Archives.”
Wilson believes Meadows' reluctance to turning over the communications should be a red flag in itself.
“What were the texts? What were the phone calls? If they can’t even get the logs for the official phone calls, that’s pretty revealing,” he said. “It’s going to come out eventually. But what it’s doing to the country right now is a travesty.”
https://www.rawstory.com/mark-meadows-phone-records/A federal judge has already made the legal connection to Trump's accountability over Jan 6: columnist
In her Tuesday column, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin cited a federal judge who has already made a case for holding former President Donald Trump accountable.
According to the Washington Post column, U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled last week that it's illegal to interrupt the counting of electoral votes, even if it was not "specifically contemplated." Meaning, it doesn't matter whether it was premeditated or not. Leading a crowd to the U.S. Capitol to interrupt an election's counting, she ruled, is illegal.
“There is a presiding officer, a process by which objections can be heard, debated, and ruled upon, and a decision — the certification of the results — that must be reached before the session can be adjourned," wrote Judge Friedrich. Indeed, the certificates of electoral results are akin to records or documents that are produced during judicial proceedings, and any objections to these certificates can be analogized to evidentiary objections.”
The judge went on to say that the Jan. 6 attackers not only acted "corruptly," but those who planned the attack to stop the counting fits the bill for the accused.
"In this sense, the plain meaning of 'corruptly' encompasses both corrupt (improper) means and corrupt (morally debased) purposes," the decision also said … "The Court agrees that § 1512(c)’s proscription of knowing conduct undertaken with the specific intent to obstruct, impede, or influence the proceeding provides a clear standard to which the defendant can conform his behavior."
Rubin then cited former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, who has been making a similar argument, citing those laws for months.
"Judge Friedrich’s decision means the prosecutors don’t have to show someone intended violence for it to be a crime," he told Rubin. "So long as the intent was to influence and disrupt the congressional function of counting the votes, that is sufficient — so long as it was done ‘corruptly.'"
He also explained that Judge Friedrich referenced a previous ruling by the conservative Judge Laurence Silberman, who ruled that the "corruptly" piece of the law meant "doing something by unlawful means."
It only adds to the other problems that Trump faces, like election fraud in Georgia and financial issues in New York.
"Too many people have let themselves be sidetracked into looking for a connection between Trump and the violence of Jan. 6. But that evidence is unnecessary because the crime here is the end result — the intended disruption of the House electoral vote-counting. And from every document, news report or tell-all book we have seen, that is precisely what Trump tried to do. Simply because he told the world about his corrupt intent does not make it any less illegal," Rubin closed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/14/federal-court-has-ruled-that-obstructing-electoral-vote-count-is-illegal-trump-should-panic/Jen Psaki shames Fox News hosts for privately condemning MAGA riot -- then 'spreading lies' about it anywayWhite House Press Secretary Jen Psaki had some tough words for Fox News hosts who knew that former President Donald Trump's supporters were responsible for the January 6th riots, but then chose to blame the riots on Antifa anyway.
After being asked about the bombshell text messages revealed on Monday night by the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol riots, Psaki didn't waste time slamming Fox News personalities such as Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity for expressing concern about the riots in private while brushing them off to their viewers that very same day.
"It's disappointing, and unfortunately not surprising, that some of the very same individuals who were willing to mourn, condemn, and express horror over what happened on January 6 in private, were totally silent in public," she said. "Or, even worse, were spreading lies and conspiracy theories, and have continued to since that time."
The text messages, all of which were sent to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, asked him to get Trump to publicly come out and call off his supporters at the Capitol.
Despite their pleas, however, Trump would not act to tell the rioters to go home for more than three hours.
Watch the video below:
