Could a Prosecution for Perjury Flip Mark Meadows Against Trump?
Fani Willis intimates that an inconsistency on the stand will not be swept under the judicial rug.

The possibility that President Trumpâs former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, perjured himself could have far-reaching ramifications for not only himself, but also the man at whose pleasure he once served.
The crucial moment came during a hearing to determine if the criminal case against Mr. Meadows would be heard in Georgia state court, as District Attorney Fani Willis would have it, or at a federal venue, as Mr. Meadows desires. That Mr. Meadows even took the stand â always a risky strategy â suggests that the question of forum is a priority for him.
It now appears that the hearing deepened Mr. Meadowsâs legal exposure, which could in turn wreak havoc on Ms. Willisâs sprawling racketeering case, encompassing 19 defendants and dozens of charges. It could be a costly misstep for the former chief of staff, who evaded indictment in the January 6 case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
A new filing from Ms. Willis, though, suggests that Mr. Meadows could get the federal trial he wanted â but in addition to his state one, not in its stead. She writes that âafter insisting that he did not play âany roleâ in the coordination of slates of âfake electorsâ throughout several states,â Mr. Meadows was âforced to acknowledge under cross-examination that he had in fact given direction to a campaign official in this regard.â

The word âacknowledgeâ indicates that Mr. Meadows said one thing on direct examination, when he was questioned by his own counsel, and another when he came under scrutiny by prosecutors. Both of those interactions were under oath, and penalty of perjury. In a footnote, Ms. Willis posits that âthe Court has ample basis not to credit some or all of the defendantâs testimony,â furthering the impression that Mr. Meadowsâs credibility is set to emerge as an issue at trial.
The issue of âfakeâ or alternate electors is at the heart of what Ms. Willis has termed the âcriminal enterpriseâ allegedly undertaken by all 19 defendants to keep Mr. Trump in the White House. A misrepresentation by Mr. Meadows of his role with respect to that element is likely to suggest to the prosecutorsâ office that the former chief of staff, who faces only racketeering and solicitation of oath accusations, is possibly in line for further charges.
Even if Mr. Meadows is not charged further, though, the threat of perjury could wreak havoc on the sprawling case. Federal law punishes as a perjurer anyone who under oath âstates or subscribes to any material matter which he does not believe to be true,â with a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The specter of that sentence could alter Mr. Meadowsâs calculus, especially if his bid for removal to federal court fails. The federal district court judge in whose court Mr. Meadows made his case for that transfer, Steve Jones, asked for further briefing on that question after the hearing, indicating that he is mulling the issue.
Mr. Meadowsâs considerations could be just as uncertain. Given his proximity to Mr. Trump and some of the other defendants in the days after the 2020 election, the testimony of the former chief of staff would likely be of great interest to Ms. Willis, who might now be eager to hear more from Mr. Meadows.