Former Aide Says Mark Meadows DEFINITELY Destroyed Evidence

A former aide to Mark Meadows claimed during a recent interview that she has firsthand knowledge about Mark Meadows destroying documents related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This is certainly relevant information, and if evidence emerges (stronger than just testimony) that Meadows destroyed evidence then he could easily be prosecuted for doing so. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Find our merchandise at Teespring

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

Follow more of our stories at

Subscribe to our podcast

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

During a recent appearance on CNN, a top former aid to vice president, Mike Pence, Alyssa Farra, Griffin said that she has firsthand knowledge to corroborate the stories that Mark Meadows did. In fact, destroy documents after meeting with people about overturning the 20, 20 election. Now, if you're not familiar with that story, it came out about a week or two ago, maybe two, three weeks. I don't remember at this point, everything kind of comes and goes so quickly, but either way, the story came out that Mark Meadows had burned documents in his office, following a meeting with Scott Perry, the head of the freedom caucus, where the two of them allegedly discussed how best to overturn the 20, 20 election Perry left. Uh, uh, Mark Meadows took the documents, lit him on fire again, allegedly in his own office and then went about his day. And now his top aid says, yes, I heard from other people in the office at the time that this did in fact happen now to be clear, she's like, I didn't see it myself, so, okay.

It's firsthand, but not, you know, first person knowledge. So I guess you gotta take it with a tiny bit of grain of salt, right. But here's the thing. If Mark Meadows did, in fact destroy these documents first and foremost, you're gonna need more than just people saying, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. He totally did that. You're gonna have to come with hard evidence. Otherwise it's just hearsay. You're not gonna get anywhere in a criminal trial with this. Second of all, supposing you do get the evidence and you're able to prove he destroyed documents. The question is, was it a crime? Cuz their in lies the problem, there was not an active criminal investigation at the time. So if the two of them were just discussing ways they could overturn the election, burning those documents wouldn't necessarily or destroying them. However he destroyed them wouldn't necessarily be illegal.

Right? They weren't told to preserve evidence. There wasn't an active trial or investigation, like I said, so he was really free to do with what he wanted, unless less, unless the president of the United States at the time, Donald J. Trump was either mentioned or was somebody that was going to basically be receiving any of the information those two discussed at that point, those documents that Meadows allegedly destroyed would fall under the presidential records act. And it would be illegal to destroy them at that point. Now, unfortunately, the penalties for violating the presidential records act are not exactly that severe. Yeah. In the most extreme cases, you could end up with a very light prison sentence, but probably, you know, whatever. Uh, but it may be the only way to actually go after Mark Meadows, criminally for the document destruction.

So that could be a lesser charge that maybe gets rolled into other bigger charges remains to be seen. But obviously Mark Meadows is at the heart of everything that happened on January 6th. So if he is gonna get hit with criminal charges, they'll probably rope in the presidential records act as well. But if they have nothing else to get 'em on, then they're probably not gonna care too much about the documents.