No. of Recommendations: 7
Harry Litman (former federal prosecutor, now member of the pod-casting commentariat) posted a short commentary on the Meadows deal news that broke when he was on vacation. His theory is probably the only one that makes sense at this moment, given everything known and unknown at this point.
I'll try to bulletize it for easier comprehension.
* prosecutors likely have very strong evidence incriminating Meadows
* absent extenuating circumstances, such information could have / would have been used to indict and prosecute him
* the PRIMARY goal for prosecutors is to FIRST convict TRUMP for January 6 activities
* that is why the January 6 indictment only identifies co-conspirators but doesn't include indictments for them
* to convict Trump, prosecutors need testimony about certain facts from Meadows
* Meadows knows those same facts support charges / convictions against Meadows
* therefore, he is obviously unwilling to cooperate with prosecutors
Normally, at this point with these conditions, prosecutors would NOT grant him immunity (cuz they KNOW they can convict him with the information they have in hand AND cuz evidence against Trump is also strong) and would instead back-burner him while returning to focus on Trump. Again, the evidence against Trump is also likely airtight but some facts are better than others at quickly conveying the core of the criminality to a jury and SPEED is the second most important goal of the prosecutors, behind an actual conviction.
Doing WITHOUT specific testimony from Meadows will likely result in a more complex presentation of the case with more facts and witnesses, generating more opportunities for motions and delay from Trump, thwarting the goal of speed. Attempting to call Meadows to testify without granting immunity would result in Meadows filing motions ad infinitumm to protect himself in his future indictment and trial. Thus, forcing Meadows to testify is almost as bad as not having his testimony from a speed standpoint.
It's quite the deal with a devil. I'm not convinced other forces won't pop up to trigger delays without Meadows being the cause. At this point, one can only hope prosecutors are reading the tea leaves correctly and can keep the January 6 trial on track for resolution in March / April 2024. The only other hope for meaningful justice and punishment for Meadows will have to hinge upon the Georgia state case. Immunity deals are not transitive between federal and state levels, there's no sign Meadows has a deal with Fani Willis and no public signs Willis and Smith are coordinating plea arrangements and carrots/sticks. It could be that Meadows is betting information provided at the federal level is orthogonal to his charges at the state level and won't worsen his plight there. It isn't clear how that would be true with a racketeering charge when Meadow's key role was coordinating meetings and approving visitor passes to the West Wing.
WTH
