Judge Orders Mark Meadows To Testify Before Georgia Prosecutors

A judge this week ordered Donald Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to testify in front of the special grand jury in Georgia. Meadows' legal team says that they are going to appeal the decision, claiming that the grand jury isn't actually a "criminal" grand jury, and therefore they can't compel the testimony. Others have already tried this legal argument and it didn't work out well for them, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

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

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:

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

Yesterday a judge ruled that Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's former chief of staff, needs to get his butt down to Georgia and testify in front of that special grand jury. And immediately, of course, after this decision was handed down, Meadow's lawyer said, Yep, we're totally gonna appeal this. So it's probably gonna be put on hold at least until the appeals process finishes. But as of right now, uh, Mark Meadows has of course been told, Get to Georgia. Now, this is important of course, because Mark Meadows was the guy at the center of the entire, uh, you know, uh, scheme to overturn the election results, whether it was, you know, getting them to find the votes in Georgia, whether it was the fake elector scheme, whether it was pressuring Mike Pence to do this or that. Mark Meadows was the guy that was basically in charge of it all on Trump's order.

So yes, it makes sense for this special grand jury in Georgia to wanna talk to Mark Meadows, and he likely wouldn't be able to claim executive privilege over any of this information that he has, or Donald Trump couldn't claim it, one, because he's not the president anymore. And Biden could just say, No, it's not privileged. But two, because these were actions done on behalf of the Trump campaign, not the Trump administration. So even if he were able to claim executive privilege and try to avoid testimony that way, it's not gonna work no matter which way you slice it. Which of course is why his lawyer is not trying to claim executive privilege. Instead, his lawyer is going to an argument that so far is not working out super well, that this grand jury is kind of not legitimate. Here's what it means. Right now, this special grand jury, and I know you've heard, you've heard me say special grand jury many times in Georgia is not a regular grand jury.

They cannot issue criminal indictments. And because they cannot issue criminal indictments, you've got people that have been subpoenaed and asked to testify. They're now challenging it in court saying, Hey, if this isn't criminal, they don't have the power to do this. I don't have to go and testify. And there was actually a, a circuit, uh, court over in Texas that did agree with that argument, but there's been other courts that have laughed that argument right out the courthouse door because a judge in Georgia, the one overseeing it, Judge McBurney, he said, Listen, yeah, they can't issue criminal indictments, but they can recommend them. And therefore this is actually a criminal investigation. The grand jury is criminal in their nature in base. Doesn't mean they're

Criminal, it means the nature of the investigation they're conducting is criminal. So the judge overseeing it has already said that argument's garbage. I'm the guy who put this together and I'm the guy who's telling you, yes, it is criminal in nature. So that argument doesn't work, but we'll see. That is what, uh, uh, Mark Meadow's lawyer is gonna go to court and argue, but it's gonna be hard for any judge to overturn what that judge has already deemed to be real and accurate, Right? It's not like this was a court ruling that they can just overturn and say, Oh no, you did it wrong. This is a declaration by a judge. And we have already seen, by the way, several other judges say, Listen, I can't overturn what that judge did. So if you wanna go that route, Mark Meadows, if that's what you really wanna argue in court, then have at it.