Meadows said most of the meeting “had to do with allegations of potential (election) fraud” and Trump “had a personal interest in the election in Michigan,” Jones noted. More from the ruling: In his 49-page ruling, Jones also highlighted Meadows’ testimony about a December 2020 meeting with state lawmakers from Michigan. Remember: The distinction between government and political work is key because the effort to move Meadows' case to federal court was motivated by seeking a type of immunity sometimes extended to people who are prosecuted for conduct tied to their US government roles. Jones also cited Meadows’ acknowledgment that the lawyers he included in an infamous 2021 phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state were working for Trump or his campaign - not the government. “When questioned about the scope of his authority, Meadows was unable to explain the limits of his authority, other than his inability to stump for the President or work on behalf of the campaign,” Jones wrote, saying he would give Meadows’ testimony on that topic “less weight” than the other evidence. US District Court Judge Steve Jones concluded that some of Mark Meadows’ high-stakes testimony on the witness stand last month was lacking – and even used some of the former Trump chief of staff's testimony against him. Follow the l atest political news here, or scroll below for Friday's updates on the Fulton County investigation. Over live coverage has ended for the day.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |