Of all people, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is commenting on politicians going to jail.
He is arguably the most dishonest person in Congress today.
Unfortunately, his old buddy Jen Psaki gave him a platform, and he used it to talk smack about Trump’s former Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows.
Big Risk
The thing that surprised Schiff was that Meadows dared to take the stand, which is generally not the norm in a criminal trial.
The difference here, however, is that Meadows believes he did nothing wrong and that he was only doing his duties as the Chief of Staff of the president.
Schiff stated, “I think it’s an indication both of the fact that he feels he needs to some kind of a Hail Mary to escape a potential conviction, but also that if he were successful in moving the case to federal court, he has the potential to knock it out completely by arguing immunity.
“But I think he feels it necessary to take such a profound risk with this testimony.”
On the testimony itself, Schiff stated, “Listening to that testimony, reading what he had to say, I think it’s a very weak case both for removal but also for immunity,” reported The Hill.
Meadows joins Trump and 17 other defendants in the Georgia election cause.
DA Fani Willis did the all-in approach to this indictment, hitting Trump with everything they had, including RICO charges.
Every defendant in the case is facing a RICO charge and at least one additional charge.
Meadows is trying to get his case assigned to a federal court, at which point he would immediately go for a dismissal.
Trump has also filed to sever the case from the defendants who have not waived their right to a speedy trial.
Trump’s attorneys are hoping to get their case delayed on the premise that the 98—page indictment and mountain of evidence are far too much to process by the October 23 court date.
Trump does not have a friendly judge in this case, so we are not expecting too many of his motions to be successful.
Having said that, the case, if Trump loses, is destined for appeal, so the judges in all of these cases better be following the law to the letter to ensure that if a conviction is made, it will stand up under scrutiny.
