Meadows Just Complicated Donald Trump's Defense in the Classified Docs Case

[Kamaji]

Mark Meadows Just Complicated Donald Trump's Defense in the Classified Docs Case

By Bonchie
August 21, 2023

News of what Donald Trump's former chief of staff told special counsel Jack Smith regarding the classified documents case in Florida is spreading. According to reports, Mark Meadows testified that he was not aware of any standing order to declassify any materials that the former president took with him to Mar-a-Lago.

https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1693575173755039750

Appearing to contradict former President Donald Trump's primary public defense in the classified documents case, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has told special counsel Jack Smith's investigators that he could not recall Trump ever ordering, or even discussing, declassifying broad sets of classified materials before leaving the White House, nor was he aware of any "standing order" from Trump authorizing the automatic declassification of materials taken out of the Oval Office, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Trump's defense (at least publicly) has centered on an assertion that the former president gave a standing order to declassify materials taken from the White House to his Florida residence. Meadows is now allegedly telling the special counsel he wasn't aware of such an order. That was likely music to Smiths' ears because Meadows was chief of staff. The argument will be that if anyone would have known about such an order, it would have been Meadows.

Meadows also reportedly told investigators that he did not pack the boxes that ended up at Mar-a-Lago but that he did offer to go through them for Trump to remove any classified materials. That came after an official request was made for their return by NARA. Unfortunately, the former president did not take him up on his offer, a fact we've long known given they were still there when the FBI raided.

*  *  *

Source:  https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/08/21/mark-meadows-just-complicated-donald-trumps-defense-in-the-classified-docs-case-n2162849

[Maj. Bill Martin]

[According to reports, Mark Meadows testified that he was not aware of any standing order to declassify any materials that the former president took with him to Mar-a-Lago.

https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1693575173755039750

Trump's defense (at least publicly) has centered on an assertion that the former president gave a standing order to declassify materials taken from the White House to his Florida residence. Meadows is now allegedly telling the special counsel he wasn't aware of such an order.

I suspect that "standing declassification order" argument is something that may be made only to the public, and not as part of  Trump legal defense in those cases.

The first problem they have is the basic one of how they can even raise that issue in court in the first place.  Somebody would have to testify in court that Trump issued that standing order, and I certainly don't think his lawyers will want to put Trump himself.om the stand in that case.

Apart from that basic argument, I think a decent prosecutor would tear that argument to shreds.  Which is why I ultimately believe it won't be an argument at trial.

[libertybele]

What a nightmare.  I feel for Meadows. 

[Hoodat]

What a nightmare.  I feel for Meadows.

Mark Meadows is in the driver's seat here.  He has a special advantage here in that the prosecution's case against him rests solely upon the testimony of one Brad Raffensperger.  Meadows' crime?  He is charged with asking Raffensperger to commit a felony.  His lawyers should be salivating at the chance to ask Brad Raffensperger under oath to explain exactly what felony Meadows asked him to commit.

"So, Mr. Raffensperger, if someone asked you to put additional drop boxes in each county in violation of Georgia law, would that person be guilty of the crime the defendant is accused?  What if someone asked you to change voting machine software less than 30 days before an election without having it re-certified, would that qualify under the charges levied against my client?"

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Mark Meadows is in the driver's seat here.  He has a special advantage here in that the prosecution's case against him rests solely upon the testimony of one Brad Raffensperger.  Meadows' crime?  He is charged with asking Raffensperger to commit a felony.  His lawyers should be salivating at the chance to ask Brad Raffensperger under oath to explain exactly what felony Meadows asked him to commit.

"So, Mr. Raffensperger, if someone asked you to put additional drop boxes in each county in violation of Georgia law, would that person be guilty of the crime the defendant is accused?  What if someone asked you to change voting machine software less than 30 days before an election without having it re-certified, would that qualify under the charges levied against my client?"

Exactly.

[Kamaji]

Mark Meadows is in the driver's seat here.  He has a special advantage here in that the prosecution's case against him rests solely upon the testimony of one Brad Raffensperger.  Meadows' crime?  He is charged with asking Raffensperger to commit a felony.  His lawyers should be salivating at the chance to ask Brad Raffensperger under oath to explain exactly what felony Meadows asked him to commit.

"So, Mr. Raffensperger, if someone asked you to put additional drop boxes in each county in violation of Georgia law, would that person be guilty of the crime the defendant is accused?  What if someone asked you to change voting machine software less than 30 days before an election without having it re-certified, would that qualify under the charges levied against my client?"

Hypotheticals and badgering the witness   Those questions would be shut down, and a corrective order issued to the jury.  That is not going to accomplish the end you want to achieve.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Hypotheticals and badgering the witness   Those questions would be shut down, and a corrective order issued to the jury.  That is not going to accomplish the end you want to achieve.

Fair point.  Especially with this judge.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This issue with Meadows illustrates the exact problem with this theory of "declassifying in my head" or whatever.   Absent some written or recorded record of Trump's actions while President, there isn't any truly objective evidence that it actually happened.

It's just a bad argument period.

[Hoodat]

Hypotheticals and badgering the witness   Those questions would be shut down, and a corrective order issued to the jury.  That is not going to accomplish the end you want to achieve.

Asking Raffensperger to name the felony that Meadows asked him to admit is not only allowable, it is relevant to the core of the case against him.  If Raffensperger answers 'yes', then it opens him up for more questioning.  If he says 'no', then there goes the prosecutor's case.

The phone recording cannot stand on its own.  Meadows has every right to put Raffensperger on the stand.

[Kamaji]

Asking Raffensperger to name the felony that Meadows asked him to admit is not only allowable, it is relevant to the core of the case against him.  If Raffensperger answers 'yes', then it opens him up for more questioning.  If he says 'no', then there goes the prosecutor's case.

The phone recording cannot stand on its own.  Meadows has every right to put Raffensperger on the stand.

No, it does not.  He will be asked what felony he believed Meadows asked him to commit, and he will answer that question.  And that will be the end of it.

If you want to engage in litigation strategy, then you ought to take a few courses in things like evidence and trial examination.

To start with, Raffensperger would be testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness, and therefore he could not be asked to answer hypothetical questions.  That calls for opinion, which can only be given by an expert witness, not a fact witness.

[Hoodat]

Raffensperger is an expert on what Meadows asked him to do.  You seem to believe that a judge won't allow Raffensperger to be cross-examined.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Raffensperger is an expert on what Meadows asked him to do.  You seem to believe that a judge won't allow Raffensperger to be cross-examined.

I think @Kamaji is right.  Yes, Raffensperger gets cross-examined, but generally, cross-examination is limited to the scope of direct examination, and Raffensperger on direct isn't going to be asked anything about those other type of crimes.

If there was evidence that the same course of conduct in which Meadows engaged was committed by someone else who was not prosecuted, and that Meadows was being singled out, then the argument would be stronger.  But those other alleged crimes, while arguably also violating the letter of the statute, were different from what Meadows is alleged to have done.  I just can't see a pro-prosecution judge letting that in, and it wouldn't constitute reversible error on appellate review.

Also, as @Kamaji said, it's a hypothetical, and Raffensberger is a fact witness, not an expert.  There is a hard distinction what the different kinds of witnesses can be asked.  And the defense absolutely won't be permitted to introduce evidence that those other "hypotheticals" actually happened.  That's usually excluded as a "mini-trial" on events not directly relevant to the elements of the crime.

[Kamaji]

Raffensperger is an expert on what Meadows asked him to do.  You seem to believe that a judge won't allow Raffensperger to be cross-examined.

Not for these purposes, he's not.  He's a fact witness, who is only allowed to testify to facts - what he saw, heard, smelled, felt, tasted - and not to his opinions.

[DefiantMassRINO]

In Government, they usually like to put things in writing for propriety and posterity.

Unless there is an offiicial document, or writing on a KFC paper napkin, there was never such an order.

 

Government does not operate on telekinesis.

[Hoodat]

Not for these purposes, he's not.  He's a fact witness, who is only allowed to testify to facts - what he saw, heard, smelled, felt, tasted - and not to his opinions.

The very foundation of this case is based upon opinions.  Raffensperger has made no secret of his.  He is a hostile witness.

Trump and his 'co-conspirators' have two angles of defense.  Either prove that they believed the election was crooked, or prove that it actually was crooked.  Raffensperger is a key witness to the latter.

[Hoodat]

But those other alleged crimes, while arguably also violating the letter of the statute, were different from what Meadows is alleged to have done.

What is it exactly that Meadows is alleged to have done?  He is accused of pressuring Raffensperger to commit a felony, but without naming an actual felony.  Raffensperger is the prosecution's witness.  So you can bet your sweet ass that he can be asked his opinion on what that felony was.  And it is going to help the defense's case when Raffensperger can't answer that question.

[Kamaji]

The very foundation of this case is based upon opinions.  Raffensperger has made no secret of his.  He is a hostile witness.

Trump and his 'co-conspirators' have two angles of defense.  Either prove that they believed the election was crooked, or prove that it actually was crooked.  Raffensperger is a key witness to the latter.

Go take a course in evidence and in witness presentation.  You don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What is it exactly that Meadows is alleged to have done?  He is accused of pressuring Raffensperger to commit a felony, but without naming an actual felony.  Raffensperger is the prosecution's witness.  So you can bet your sweet ass that he can be asked his opinion on what that felony was.  And it is going to help the defense's case when Raffensperger can't answer that question.

It isn't Raffensperger's responsibility to identify the felony Trump committed.  He's not testifying as a legal expert.  It's the job of the prosecutor to identify the specific felony, and then ask the witnesses factual questions to support the conclusions he is asking the jury to reach.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Kamaji

The very foundation of this case is based upon opinions.  Raffensperger has made no secret of his.  He is a hostile witness.

Trump and his 'co-conspirators' have two angles of defense.  Either prove that they believed the election was crooked, or prove that it actually was crooked.  Raffensperger is a key witness to the latter.

Okay, let's go down this road a bit because I do see your point.  Trump is going to be accused of improperly pressuring Raffensperger to "find" votes".  Either Trump himself, or more likely a defense witness will say "Wait a minute.  We believed there was evidence of all sorts of illegal conduct going on, and what we were really requesting was for him to invalidate illegal votes."  They'll then offer evidence of the illegal voting that they will claim occurred, or at least what they reasonably believed may have occurred."

I think if the judge doesn't let the defense offer evidence as to what Trump's state of mind was, and the basis for it being reasonable, that's reversible error.  Doesn't mean this judge won't exclude it anyway, but I do think it would be reversible.

So the question is, how (and with what witness) does the state respond in rebuttal when Trump offers that?  If the state calls Raffensperger, then how he testifies in his direct will determine whether or not the questions @Hoodat says he should be asked will be permitted.

There is a really technical question here that is probably relevant to the scope of Raffensberger's potential testimony.  I just checked Georgia law, and there's nothing that says anything like that the Secretary of State "is responsible for ensuring elections comply with Georgia law", etc..  He has some very specific responsibilities, but ultimate responsibility is not one of them.  It seems a lot of that is delegated to the counties.  Here's a link to an article that explains all that, including the statutory listing of Raffensberger's responsibilities in terms of elections:

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/georgia-elections-how-they-actually-work-whos-responsible-for-what/85-de1989cc-62e7-4435-a9c9-f3892c7932bd

So, I think @Kamaji is right that Raffensberger actually isn't the right guy to answer questions about shenanigans that may have happened in some counties.  It's not within the scope of his job duties, and he hasn't been qualified as an expert.