Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff, throughout the America First Policy Institute’s America First Agenda summit in Washington, D.C., on Monday, July 25, 2022.
Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows asked a South Carolina judge to dam a subpoena demanding his testimony before a Georgia grand jury investigating possible criminal interference within the 2020 presidential election.
Meadows’ request Monday afternoon got here hours after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas temporarily delayed an identical subpoena that the identical grand jury issued to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
The grand jury is probing former President Donald Trump and others for possible crimes related to efforts to get Georgia election officials to effectively reverse President Joe Biden’s victory within the state’s 2020 race.
Meadows was on the phone during a January 2021 call when Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” Trump enough votes to win the state.
A spokesman for the district attorney’s office in Georgia’s Fulton County, which is overseeing evidence presented to the grand jury, said a prosecutor from that office will address Meadows’ effort during a hearing Wednesday in Pickens County court in South Carolina.
Meadows, a former Republican congressman, resides in South Carolina. Georgia authorities needed to file a petition in South Carolina’s Court of Common Pleas searching for to compel him to go to Atlanta to comply with the subpoena.
In a filing Monday within the court’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Meadows’ lawyer James Bannister opposed that petition for several reasons.
Bannister said the subpoena was moot since it had required Meadows’ appearance before the grand jury on Sept. 27.
Nevertheless, a Fulton County prosecutor said a “scheduling conflict” delayed Meadows’ testimony date, based on an affidavit filed Tuesday. Prosecutors suggested rescheduling the looks until Nov. 9, 15 or 30.
Bannister also wrote that South Carolina law related to securing the attendance of witnesses for an additional state in a criminal proceeding “doesn’t apply to a subpoena” just like the one issued for Meadows under a Georgia civil statute.
The grand jury on this case doesn’t have the ability to criminally charge individuals but can recommend charges.
Bannister also wrote that Meadows will not be a “material witness” under South Carolina law because in a pending federal court case, he asserted the claim of executive privilege in arguing he mustn’t be compelled to testify to the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot by Trump supporters.
The lawyer also wrote that Meadows “reserves the best to present further information crucial to a just determination of the problems before the court.”
Bannister didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.
A spokesman for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis declined to comment.
The Trump ally Graham last week lost a bid on the federal eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to temporarily block his own subpoena from the grand jury, which had ordered him to look to testify on Nov. 17.
On Friday, Graham asked Thomas to delay execution of the subpoena as he awaits the end result of his appeal of its legality.
Thomas, who has authority over emergency applications from the eleventh Circuit, granted the request Monday. The order delaying the subpoena will not be a final ruling on its legality.
Graham has argued that he mustn’t be compelled to testify on the grand jury because it will violate the Structure’s speech and debate clause, which protects members of Congress from legal risk from their comments related to legislative business.
A federal district court judge rejected that argument. The judge at the identical time ordered that Willis’ prosecutors couldn’t query Graham about portions of a call he made after Election Day 2020 to Raffensperger which may qualify as legislative activity.
The appeals court, in upholding the judge’s ruling, noted “there is critical dispute about whether [Graham’s] phone calls with Georgia election officials were legislative investigations in any respect.”
