Schiff needs to get a life.
Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, expressed his astonishment at Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff for President Trump, choosing to testify in the Georgia 2020 election case. Schiff characterized Meadows’ testimony as a desperate attempt to evade potential conviction, labeling it a “Hail Mary” move.
According to The Hill, during an interview on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki,” Schiff emphasized the substantial risk associated with taking the witness stand. He suggested that Meadows must be feeling a strong need to avoid conviction by resorting to such a bold strategy.
When asked about his surprise regarding Meadows’ testimony, Schiff clarified that it wasn’t the content of the testimony that surprised him as much as the fact that Meadows had taken the risk of testifying at all. According to Schiff, this decision by Meadows indicated his belief that he needed a last-ditch effort to escape conviction, and also hinted at his desire to move the case to federal court, where he could argue immunity.
Schiff stated, “I think it’s an indication both of the fact that he feels he needs to make some kind of Hail Mary move to avoid potential conviction and that, if successful in transferring the case to federal court, he could potentially have it dismissed by claiming immunity.”
He continued, “But I believe he considers it necessary to take such a substantial risk with this testimony.”
In the sprawling Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act case, Meadows, along with Trump and 17 other co-defendants, was charged with being involved in a scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election to keep Trump in power. All defendants faced a racketeering charge and at least one additional charge.
Meadows aimed to move his case to federal court to argue for immunity, contending that he acted within the scope of his role as a federal officer. He testified that he was uncertain if he had engaged in any actions beyond his duties as chief of staff.
Schiff, in the Sunday interview, criticized Meadows’ argument, deeming it weak. He said, “Listening to that testimony and reviewing his statements, I find his case for removal and immunity to be very feeble.”
Schiff concluded by emphasizing the importance of not interpreting the Constitution in such a way that would allow a chief of staff to subvert an election, overturn election results, or violate state laws. He referenced Justice Robert Jackson’s famous dissent, highlighting that the Constitution should not be interpreted in a manner that undermines its own principles.