Mark Meadows was granted immunity by Biden’s hack special prosecutor Jack Smith in exchange for his testimony, under oath, in regards to Trump and the 2020 election.
According to the report, Meadows said the 2020 election was the most secure in American history and that he advised Trump the fraud claims were baseless:
“Meadows told prosecutors he he agreed the 2020 election was the most secure in American history and that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were turning out to be baseless.”
Here’s more on this from ABC News:
Former President Donald Trump’s final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith’s team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith’s team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump’s prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being “dishonest” with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in.
“Obviously we didn’t win,” a source quoted Meadows as telling Smith’s team in hindsight.
Trump has called Meadows, one of the former president’s closest and highest-ranking aides in the White House, a “special friend” and “a great chief of staff — as good as it gets.”
The descriptions of what Meadows allegedly told investigators shed further light on the evidence Smith’s team has amassed as it prosecutes Trump for allegedly trying to unlawfully retain power and “spread lies” about the 2020 election. The descriptions also expose how far Trump loyalists like Meadows have gone to support and defend Trump.
Sources told ABC News that Smith’s investigators were keenly interested in questioning Meadows about election-related conversations he had with Trump during his final months in office, and whether Meadows actually believed some of the claims he included in a book he published after Trump left office — a book that promised to “correct the record” on Trump.
What I find so objectionable about this case is that they accuse Trump of “trying to unlawfully retain power”, which is a load of manure. He NEVER did that. Say what you will about the fraud claims, but Trump complied with the president-elect’s transition team and left the White House when his term was up. The alternate electors plan was just something Congress would allow or reject. It was another option for lawmakers, if you will. It was not a plan of subversion and not a plan to unlawfully retain power.
At the end of the day all of this intrigue doesn’t matter one bit if the core allegation is garbage, and it is. Completely and utterly without merit.
[UPDATE]
Here’s something from Catherine Herridge:
NEW: “I told ABC that their story was largely inaccurate. People will have to judge for themselves the decision to run it anyway.” George Terwilliger, Mark Meadows lawyer, to CBS News, responding to new reporting “Ex-Chief of Staff granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources”