Connect with us

News

‘Mark Meadows Has a Potential Perjury Problem’: Former Special Counsel

Published

on

Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, charged in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis‘ racketeering prosecution of Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, may have some challenges surrounding possible perjury, according to several legal experts.

“Mark Meadows has a potential perjury problem,” writes professor of law Ryan Goodman, a former U.S. Dept. of Defense Special Counsel. Goodman is referring to court documents filed Thursday by Willis arguing against allowing Meadows to move his case to federal court and severing it from his co-defendants.

District Attorney Fani Willis “puts it in understated terms in new brief,” Goodman says, adding that “Meadows’ testimony included [a] false statement – his lack of ‘any role’ in coordinating false electors. Was then forced to acknowledge it.”

Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann, pointing to Goodman’s comments, adds: “Meadows perjury in the removal hearing can be both separately prosecuted and be additional proof against him in the 1/6 case. Note: it can be used for both ends by Jack Smith.”

READ MORE: ‘Outstanding’: Judge Says All Court Proceedings in Trump RICO Case Will Be Live-Streamed on YouTube

“Fani Willis’s just-filed supplemental brief … as much as accuses Meadows of perjury,” writes professor of law, political commentator, and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman. “He’s in the soup.”

Professor of law and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance says, “Willis makes a compelling argument against permitting Meadows to remove his case to fed’l court simply because one or more overt acts involved his official position, pointing out he’s charged with a conspiracy to violate the RICO act & he must have a fed’l defense to that crime.”

Willis opens by writing: “The defendant’s prosecution was not commenced against him ‘for or related to any act’ under color of his office. The defendant’s prosecution commenced because he knowingly and willfully entered into an agreement to violate the Georgia RICO Act.”

READ MORE: ‘Morality Police’: Fox News Hosts Freak Out After Canada Warns LGBTQ Travelers About Dangers of Visiting US

As Lawfare’s Anna Bower points out, even in a footnote Willis makes a good case against allowing Meadows to move his case to federal court.

“In addition to the contradiction highlighted above, the defendant said repeatedly that he misused the pronoun ‘we,’ an assertion that would materially alter the plain meaning of several of his relevant statements. The defendant also repeatedly insisted he was merely ‘trying to land the plane’ and achieve ‘a peaceful transition of power,’ a statement clearly belied by his participation in the Trump campaign’s attempts to overturn the outcome of Georgia’s election.”

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Grave Concern’: Democrats Demand DHS Preserve All Corey Lewandowski Records

Published

on

Three top House Democrats have requested the Department of Homeland Security preserve all records concerning longtime Trump ally Corey Lewandowski, a DHS special adviser to outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem. The Democrats have also separately requested that the Inspector General open a review into Lewandowski.

Investigative reporter Scott MacFarlane reported in an exclusive that the three top Democrats on the House Homeland Security, Oversight, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees alleged Lewandowski, a Special Government Employee, served as a “shadow chief-of-staff” to Noem. They also “alleged Lewandowski might have violated rules and restrictions of designated Special Government Employees.”

“We write with grave concern regarding reports alleging serious misconduct at the highest levels of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),” reads the letter from the three ranking members to Secretary Noem’s office.

“At the center of these allegations sits Mr. Corey Lewandowski, who continues to use his access to DHS leadership to wield outsized and undue influence over the Department,” they charge. “We demand DHS preserve all communications and internal records concerning Mr. Lewandowski’s role within the Department, as well as the Department’s practices, policies, and procedures related to contracting, personnel, and the handling of classified materials.”

READ MORE: ‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

“Any deviation from standard record-keeping will be treated as an attempt to hide or destroy evidence,” they warned.

They also “alleged Lewandowski might have violated rules and restrictions of designated Special Government Employees,” MacFarlane reported.

The letter requests a broad range of records, including communications between Lewandowski and DHS personnel, contractors, and advisers regarding personnel, contracting, and other department operations, as well as “all communications between Mr. Lewandowski and personnel associated with the United States DOGE Service.”

Lawmakers are also seeking documents on Lewandowski’s finances, recusals due to potential conflicts of interest, and involvement in DHS decision-making.

READ MORE: White House Scrambles for Damage Control After National Security Official’s Abrupt Exit

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

Published

on

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s future in the Trump administration is being questioned after her top aide and “closest adviser,” Joe Kent — who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center — abruptly resigned in protest against the Iran war on Tuesday.

Trump White House reporter Jake Lahut commented that Kent’s resignation “puts Tulsi in an even more precarious position.”

“Embarrassing for Tulsi,” remarked Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark.

Gabbard’s standing in the administration has at times appeared tenuous, and has been questioned before, including over Iran — the reason Kent quit.

As The Hill reported last June, Gabbard’s “strength and standing within the Trump administration” were coming under question “after the president twice publicly brushed off her testimony that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon, and amid reports of tensions between the two.”

Gabbard’s “anti-war stance” at the time fit in with the “MAGA movement’s aversion to getting the U.S. sucked into foreign conflicts,” although now Trump voters largely support his Iran war.

Gabbard was told by the White House to fire Kent for being a “known leaker,” but “she never did,” according to Fox News’ Aishah Hasnie, citing a senior Trump administration official. Hasnie also reported that Kent “was cut out of” the president’s intelligence briefings “months ago,” and that Kent “has not been part of any Iran planning discussions or briefings at all.”

MS NOW national security contributor Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer, called Kent’s resignation a “nuke from a true MAGA member,” and commented, the “big question, is Tulsi next?”

Michael V. Hayden Center director Larry Pfeiffer asked, “Over/under on how quickly Gabbard throws Kent under the bus at the hearing tomorrow?” Last year, Pfeiffer called Gabbard “the perfectly dangerous mix of incompetence, narcissism, sycophancy, and malign intent.”

Gabbard is slated to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday and before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

Republican former U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock summed it up, asking, Gabbard “kept on a known leaker in a national security position?”

“Let’s face it,” she added, “Tulsi has been cut out too because she agrees with Kent – or at least always did before Trump flipped his position.”

Far-right political activist Laura Loomer, who at times has had the ear of President Trump, responded to Kent’s resignation by predicting that Gabbard “will resign next.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

White House Scrambles for Damage Control After National Security Official’s Abrupt Exit

Published

on

The Trump White House is scrambling to contain fallout after Tuesday’s sudden, very public, and high-profile resignation of its top counterterrorism official — the first senior departure linked to the Iran war.

Joe Kent, who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in a letter to President Trump that he posted to social media.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” wrote Kent, whose wife was killed by ISIS. “Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly pushed back on Kent’s resignation, declaring that there are “many false claims” in his letter, including, she said, that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

Leavitt charged that this claim “is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over and over.”

READ MORE: ‘Clear All Along’: Backlash Grows as Trump Aide Shrugs Off Consumer Pain From Iran War

“As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first.”

Just five days ago, Leavitt reportedly “declared that Iran poses no threat to the United States,” as The Daily Beast reported.

“TO BE CLEAR: No such threat from Iran to our homeland exists, and it never did,” she wrote.

On Tuesday, multiple high-profile social media accounts mocked the Press Secretary over those very remarks.

According to a New York Times report two weeks ago, Trump’s “decision to order the attack on Iran, he said, was mostly a matter of gut instinct about Iranian intentions.”

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he said. “I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen.”

The Times added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “had offered the opposite explanation the previous day, telling reporters that because Israel was going to act, Mr. Trump had no choice but to join what he called a ‘pre-emptive’ strike before Iran counterattacked U.S. bases and allies.”

But according to Leavitt on Tuesday, Trump’s decision to go to war against Iran was based on evidence that “was compiled from many sources and factors. President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum.”

Leavitt appeared to dismiss any other interpretations of what constitutes a threat to the nation.

READ MORE: ‘Sick, Demented, or Deranged’: Trump Issues Harshest Threat Yet Over Voter ID Bill

“The Commander-in-Chief determines what does and does not constitute a threat, because he is the one constitutionally empowered to do so – and because the American people went to the ballot box and entrusted him and him alone to make such final judgments,” she wrote.

Leavitt denounced what she called the “absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries,” calling it “both insulting and laughable,” despite what Secretary Rubio had said earlier.

She lashed out at Kent’s allegation that “it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” remarks that have been derided by both sides of the aisle.

Heath Mayo, founder of the pro-democracy center-right group Principles First, on social media on Tuesday warned his followers to not hold Kent up “as some paragon of principle.” He urged them to “recall this is the same man who flunked his congressional bid for his outspoken anti-Semitism, his ties to Nick Fuentes, and his insistence that the 2020 election was rigged.”

READ MORE: ‘He Was the Only One’: Trump Mocked for Declaring Iran’s Moves ‘Shocked’ Him

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.