To get away from the Atlanta judge and jury, former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (as opposed to the other three chiefs of staff under Trump) argued that whatever happened with regard to his conduct in and relating to the Georgia 2020 vote, it was part of the job. In an opinion by a well-respected conservative, Chief Judge William Pryor, for a unanimous court, Meadows got one hell of a spanking for his efforts.
At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate.
With one swipe, Judge Pryor bitch-slapped both Meadows and Trump, the “altering valid election results” clearing up any lingering doubts as to the merit of the Trump delusion that the election was stolen and that he was just a pathetic loser.
But what the decision does not state is what the job of a president’s chief of staff is. At a hearing, Meadows testified that he was on duty 24/7 to “oversee all the federal operations” and “be aware of everything that was going on.” Not terribly specific. The chief of staff is a unique position in the federal hierarchy, a cabinet-level position chosen exclusively by the president without need for senate advice and consent. The job duties posted by the Clinton administration weren’t much more help.
CHIEF OF STAFF
The Office of the Chief of Staff is responsible for directing, managing and overseeing all policy development, daily operations, and staff activities for the President. This office coordinates and communicates with all departments and agencies of the Administration.
To a large extent, the job is to do whatever the president wants or needs a chief of staff to do. If the president tells the CoS to set up and listen in to a telephone call where he asks the Georgia secretary of state to find him enough votes to win the state, is that beyond the scope? If the president tells him to figure out a way to claim votes were stolen, is that beyond the scope?
Obviously, if a CoS believes that he’s being asked to perform unlawful acts, he can resign. But can he do as directed by the president for no better reason than the president said so, and his job is to do whatever the president tells him to do?
When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
–Richard Milhous Nixon to David Frost, 1977
It may be the Trump believed, facts notwithstanding, that the election was stolen. It may be that Meadows believed it as well. Or it may be that Meadows knew it was baseless, but that his job was to serve a president who believed otherwise. Was it the role of the CoS to refuse to do president’s bidding? While it may well be argued that it’s the chief’s role to tell the president that he’s wrong, or that what he’s doing is wrong, what is the job when the president decides not to heed the chief?
It may seem abundantly clear that whatever was happening with regard to Georgia was beyond the pale, beyond legality, and that Meadows should have refused to be party to a disgraced loser who couldn’t accept the humiliation of being an abject failure. But where is the line? Judge Pryor had no problem finding this conduct was beyond the scope of his duties as the president’s chief of staff, but it fails to answer the question of what those duties are and how a CoS would know when his service to the president could put him in the dock.
*Tuesday Talk rules apply within reason.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hasn’t “Vee vere chust follovink orduhs” been discredited as a valid legal defense?
When I joined the Navy and got my commission, I took the oath to “…preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the US…” The oath has nothing in it about “loyalty”. I took the same oath when I became a federal bureaucrat. The US military had it beaten into them, after the My Lai event in Vietnam, that everyone was required to oppose any illegal orders given by superior officers. When I taught people how to operate reactors, we beat it into the lowest level people that if an officer ordered them to do something stupid or dangerous, they had an obligation to raise an objection, directly. If the officer disagreed, then the operator was required to log his disagreement. Unfortunately, some in the military seem to have forgotten that lesson when they went into Iraq, but I think it was again beaten into everyone after the photos from Abu Graib (sp?) came out.
In a large getting-to-know-you meeting for a new senior manager when I was in the government, he gave a rousing rah-rah speech about how he expected all of us to be loyal to him, and support him. I felt very uncomfortable during this meeting, and later events proved me right – he was all in it for himself, not to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. He was lucky. Nothing blew up on his watch, even though he tried. His failures just cost some utilities a lot of money.
Trump comes from private business, where loyalty is a big thing. That is all he knew. And he seems to have hired staff directly from business. But government is not a business. Which is something that many people learn the hard way. You cannot just follow orders. The rules of physics in government are different from those in business.
Not many comments, and it’s already
Having some ambiguity as to the full scope of the Chief of Staff’s duties is likely a feature, not a bug. In today’s hyper-partisan world, that could (an would) be so easily abused by the opposing party that it could effectively neuter a position that is actually quite important. I’m fine with that ambiguity, as long as there are guardrails. The Hatch Act seems to be one set of guardrails, though it’d be nice to see other ones, such as “don’t do illegal shit.”
Here, the Court seems to have done a fine job saying that what Meadows did was so plainly outside the bounds of any reasonable role, so it might be the best we can get. Then again, it’d be nice if we didn’t have to worry about a President being so venal as to expect his Chief of Staff to do such things…
The legality of the actions of Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, et al, has not been adjudicated, plea bargains notwithstanding. That is the purpose of the forthcoming trial.
For the purpose of perspective, I recall a candidate for federal office who, in the state of Florida, worked with his attorneys and numerous others, for five straight weeks, in a coordinated effort to troll for votes only in counties and precincts where he was most likely to find them. His opponent said no, that to be fair, all the votes should be recounted, or the counting should stop. His opponent obtained a favorable ruling to have the counting stopped. The vote troller and his supporters said the election was stolen. His supporters said that allowing a court to stop the process was undemocratic. The vote troller ultimately conceded.
Nuance is important, but generally, Trump’s actions mirror those of the vote troller pretty well. Nobody, then or ever since, accused the vote troller of breaking the law or engaging in Racketeering. They still can’t even acknowledge the comparison.