On Tuesday, October 24 2023, two more actors in the Trump election fraud saga reached plea deals. Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty to charges in the Georgia State case and escaped with probation, fines and an essay assignment. Mark Meadows reached an agreement in the federal case regarding January 6 with Jack Smith and escaped prosecution entirely in exchange for testimony against Trump.
This daily drip, drip, drip between the Georgia case and the federal case is likely to be driving Trump further into a pit of despair and rage which may trigger other outbursts or public comments that could further cement his conviction. That's all good.
However, it is growing more disconcerting by the day to see each additional actor scoring nearly painless sentences or complete immunity as with Meadows. This need to offer this level of plea deal continues to puzzle. These cases are as air-tight as any blockbuster case in recent history. Having Meadows testify that he told Trump multiple times over multiple days and in multiple private/group contexts that Trump DID lose the election and the fraud claims were FALSE helps eliminate any doubt that Trump was correctly informed by advisors about the election. If Meadows has additional testimony showing Trump ALSO admitted actual defeat and ACTUAL understanding that his fraud charges were false, that's great but if Meadows is the only corroberating testimony to these facts, it is still "he said/he said." Maybe there's one other defendant who can also corroberate Trump's understanding over multiple days (what Trump was told AND what Trump himself believed). If so that will further cement charges against Trump.
But that's where the cost/benefit tradeoff goes astray. A criminal conviction requires
- proof of the actual act (actus reus)
- proof the defendant at the time of the act understood the act was a crime and intended to commit it (mens rea)
The actual facts around the EVENTS of this case are crystal clear. The net signal from these initial deals is that prosecutors in both the Georgia and federal cases are LASER focused on exhaustively proving the mental state of Trump -- what he was TOLD by others, what he BELIEVED internally, what he CONVEYED to others about his internal beliefs and whether he understood the actions he was taking were illegal -- and Trump alone. That is dangerous.
Given the overall crime involved -- conspiring to ALTER the (electoral) votes of MILLIONS of Americans in multiple states AND / OR simply scare the crap out of Congress in an attempt to spook them into IGNORING selected electoral votes -- it makes sense in isolation to nail any President who led or played a part in such a conspiracy. On the other hand, a President cannot implement a scam like this single-handedly. A President REQUIRES participation from a wide variety of "professionals" in multiple disciplines in multiple areas of government to pull it off. In this case, the President DID direct his subordinates to create this web of players to make the attempt.
At some point, when a defendant is a perpetual liar like Trump, it isn't clear anyone else's testimony about what Trump told them about what Trump was thinking means anything. The FACTS are that Trump led an effort over multiple MONTHS involving multiple acts his official White House counsel immediately declared to be illegal. Trump was kept informed on a nearly daily basis and added additional tactics as others hit dead ends. If that doesn't prove pre-meditation and conscious planning of a crime, I don't know what would ever satisfy that requirement.
The unique nature of this crime merits nearly EVERY participant in the crime doing SERIOUS jail time. Many of these players have access to PAC money which can cushion any financial penalty. They are all already ipso facto morally and ethically bankrupt so professional de-certification and shame means nothing. No one is going to hire these losers in their professional roles. The only thing that will get their attention and the attention of similar individuals who might participate in a future conspiracy is PRISON TIME.
Mark Meadows may have told Trump in private that Trump lost and that there was no election fraud. But he continued serving as his Chief of Staff -- SILENTLY -- for two months while agreeing to "schedule the meetings" and ordering pizza for the after-hours Oval Office meetings in which blatantly criminal plots were devised and tracked. If for no other actions, Mark Meadows deserves prison time for his conduct DURING the Capital riot, when Trump was hiding from his own staff to avoid being pressured to respond publicly to quell the violence. Meadows also couldn't be bothered to make another attempt to prod Trump to break out of his pout and act. It could be EASILY argued that Meadows did that because the longer the violence continued, the stronger the effect of fear would be on Congress which WOULD aid the goal of the plot. And whether Meadows understood the actual election result and whether vote fraud claims were bogus, no one has claimed Meadows still didn't want Trump to remain in office and that he resisted any of the tactics adopted to support that aim.
Also remember that Meadows burned documents in his White House office fireplace nearly every day from January 7 through to his last day in the West Wing. Those documents obviously weren't grocery lists and Christmas lists.
Maybe prosecutors will nail the big fish and at least that part of this endeavor will end well. To date, the results are less than satisfying.
WTH
