Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows was decidedly bland during his surprise appearance on the witness stand this week, supporting a motion to drop Georgia’s racketeering charges in federal court. Meadows described the conduct charged in the indictment in anonymous terms, such as organizing meetings and coordinating phone calls, including then-President Trump’s infamous Jan. 2, 2021 conversation with Georgian Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

But Meadows was forced to deviate from that script and his ingenious demeanor in a few critical moments that revealed the length of the game he’s been playing.

Prosecutor Anna Cross urged Meadows to identify the federal interest or policy promoted by his actions. Meadows tried to keep it boring and favored safe responses, such as managing the president’s time. But when Cross asked him to identify the federal purpose of participating in meetings and calls that questioned election results, Meadows replied that it was to ensure that free and fair elections would take place in the US.

Hey?

Prosecutors could have a nice day with such a ridiculous reaction at trial. It defies credulity to claim that Meadows was inspired by a Boy Scout’s sense of electoral integrity to support Trump’s effort to reverse Biden’s victories in Georgia and other states.

But Meadows had to resort to this far-fetched response because his real goal isn’t so much removal from federal court as immunity from prosecution. That’s the only way to understand the huge risks Meadows was taking by testing, which most commentators (myself included) predicted he wouldn’t.

Removal would simply transfer state costs to federal court. the

August,

cameraless federal court environment and a slightly more favorable jury combine the advantages commonly cited in trying to explain that Meadows decision to testify would do little to protect him from Fulton County Dist. atty Fani accuses Willis.

However, removal is only the first part of Meadows’ two-part strategy. The second, decisive step will likely be an attempt at immunity under the Supremacy Clause, which identifies the U.S. Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land. The argument is that no matter how offensive

to the state

Meadows’ behavior might be

to the state

the supremacy of federal law prevents charging

it is him metas

a crime in Georgia. We can be sure that Meadows will enthusiastically file the motion if his case is referred to federal court, and if he succeeds, the whole case against him will go away.

While such a request can be made in state court, an experienced litigator will likely prefer to take it to a more federally friendly U.S. court.

This is the problem for Meadows. To receive immunity, he would have to show that his conduct served an actual purpose of the US government, which the state could declare null and void under the Supremacy Clause. It’s not enough that Meadows claims he mentored a rogue president; he must demonstrate a legitimate federal purpose.

Meadows and his lawyers, who are as skilled as anyone in the entire Trump litigation circus, have undoubtedly thought this through. A different answer to the prosecution’s question might have helped Meadows face the prospect of removal and held up better in subsequent proceedings, but they have their eyes on the price of immunity.

That could also explain why, to our knowledge, Meadows has not signed a cooperation agreement with Federal Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. He’s playing for the jackpot of roaming free. If he loses his immunity, as he should, he can try to make a deal with Smith (and Willis) instead.

The immunity

play game

could also explain Meadows’ flat denial

during the examination of evidence

of the charge that he commissioned a memo to Vice President Mike Pence on how to delay election certification. Denying the charge without knowing the state’s evidence puts Meadows in a precarious position if Willis has the goods. But because there is no plausible federal target for such a memo, he had to drop the charges to keep his immunity prospects alive.

Meadows will nevertheless be saddled with these dubious claims in future litigation, both state and federal, and will need to frame his future testimony around them. That is one of the main drawbacks of his position Monday.

Until now, Meadows has been the quietest and arguably the most successful of Trump’s constellation of suspected criminals. He dodged a bullet when the Justice Department refused to file the contempt charges recommended by the House of Representatives Committee on Jan. 6 over his refusal to cooperate. He apparently evaded a new case through his limited cooperation with Smith in the January 6 federal case, giving testimony that he had no choice but to stop making a deal; he does not appear to be among the six co-conspirators in the federal indictment.

However, we have to hope that Meadows’ luck has run out. A wealth of evidence suggests he was integral to the plan to overturn the election, beginning with the commission’s damning revelations; Remember when his assistant Cassidy Hutchinson gave his warning that things could get really, really bad? Like everyone but Trump, Meadows deserves to be held accountable by the courts.

Harry Litman is the host of the

Talking Feds Podcast

.

@harrylitman