Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff of the White House, testified for approximately four hours on Monday in an attempt to transfer his allegations from Fulton County to federal court.

During an evidentiary hearing before U.S. District Judge Scott Jones, Meadows testified that his post-election efforts in support of Trump were within the scope of his official responsibilities, in what experts have termed a “high-risk gamble.” Meadows is attempting to have the case transferred to a federal court, where he may find a more favorable judge and jury pool. In addition, he intends to argue that he is immune from state-level accusations if his conduct occurred within the scope of his official responsibilities. According to District Attorney Fani Willis, Meadows’ actions violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity. Willis’s argument undermines Meadows’s position.

According to CNN, Meadows testified that assuming the position of chief of staff required a constant commitment, arguing that his involvement in election-related activities was directly related to his duties as President Trump’s chief advisor.

In his analysis, Professor Ryan Goodman from the New York University School of Law provided an exhaustive overview of the most important aspects of Meadows’ evidence, cautioning that certain statements made by Meadows during his hearing could be construed as self-incriminating.

During his testimony, Meadows stated that he advised Trump to contact Frances Watson, the Georgia Secretary of State’s office’s chief investigator. Trump subsequently claimed falsely that he had won the state by “hundreds of thousands of votes.”

According to Goodman’s statement on X, formerly known as Twitter, the individual’s own comments could be interpreted as an admission that they suggested Trump contact Watson, a crucial element of the alleged conspiracy.

Meadows recognized, however, that he had no grounds to contest the conclusion reached by then-Attorney General Bill Barr, who deemed the fraud allegations to be without merit.

“Meadows adds that he believed at the time ‘further investigation’ was still warranted. That’s not enough to help him,” Goodman wrote, arguing that he believes “Meadows in some respects has even more criminal exposure than Trump.”

3. More trouble for Meadows.

He admits he "had no reason to doubt Mr. Barr's" assessment that the fraud allegations were meritless.

Meadows adds that he believed at the time “further investigation” was still warranted. That's not enough to help him.https://t.co/BSeoC1IPnE

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 28, 2023

Later, Meadows testified that he arranged for Cleta Mitchell and two other Trump campaign attorneys to be on the infamous call that Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in an attempt to find a “less litigious way of resolving” the concerns of voter fraud. However, Meadows claimed he could not recall the specifics of how he arranged the contact.

“I think he is toast,” Goodman declared.

9. Meadows who has testified he was the gatekeeper now says he can't recall details of arranging for Cleta Mitchell and two other Trump Campaign lawyers to be on the Raffensperger call.👇

I think he is toast tbh.https://t.co/WexpJod3Jj pic.twitter.com/MJj6MgSWsC

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) August 28, 2023