Mark Meadows’ attorney now claims he hasn’t cut an immunity deal – but it’s clear that Meadows did testify against Donald Trump

Important Note: Palmer Report is moving to a reader-supported format with a significantly reduced number of ads so we can reach a broader audience at this crucial time for our democracy. Support us via PayPal and GoFundMe.
–––––

Yesterday ABC News and the New York Times reported that Mark Meadows had testified against Donald Trump to the grand jury. This was widely misinterpreted as Meadows just now testifying. But the reporting made clear that the testimony actually took place at some unspecified point in the past.

At the time, I stressed that this didn’t tell us anything about whether Meadows had cut a deal or not. After all, the U.S. Court of Appeals had already ordered him to testify to the grand jury about certain aspects of Trump’s actions, and that testimony was going to happen whether Meadows cut a deal or not. A deal would merely open the door for Meadows’ testimony to go beyond what the law was already forcing him to testify about.

Today the Independent reported that Meadows did in fact cut a limited immunity deal with the DOJ. Now Meadows’ attorney is telling the Daily Beast that no such immunity deal has happened. We’re not quite sure what to make of this. He could be lying, to try to keep Trump from figuring out that Meadows sold him out. He could be telling the truth and Meadows didn’t cut a deal.

But here’s the thing. Meadows’ attorney is not denying that Meadows has testified. That’s a de facto confirmation that Meadows has testified. Even if it’s true that Meadows hasn’t cut a deal, he still gave up Trump to the grand jury in accordance with the appeals court order. Either way this is terrible news for Trump.

Important Note: Palmer Report is moving to a reader-supported format with a significantly reduced number of ads so we can reach a broader audience at this crucial time for our democracy. Support us via PayPal and GoFundMe.