Chris Whipple, who wrote about
On Monday, Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff, testified in an effort to move the Georgia racketeering case against his former boss Donald Trump and co-defendants to federal court. On the stand, he said that he believed his actions regarding the 2020 election fell within the scope of his job as a federal official.
The courts will sort out his legal fate in this and other matters. If convicted and sentenced to prison, Mr. Meadows would be the second White House chief of staff, after Richard Nixon’s infamous H.R. Haldeman, to serve jail time.
But as a cautionary tale for American democracy and the conduct of its executive branch, Mr. Meadows is in a league of his own. By the standards of previous chiefs of staff, he was a uniquely dangerous failure — and he embodies a warning about the perils of a potential second Trump term.
Historically, a White House chief of staff is many things: the president’s gatekeeper, confidant, honest broker of information, “javelin catcher” and the person who oversees the execution of his agenda.
But the chief’s most important duty is to tell the president hard truths.
President Dwight Eisenhower’s Sherman Adams, a gruff, no-nonsense gatekeeper, was so famous for giving unvarnished advice that he was known as the “Abominable No Man.” In sharp contrast, when it came to Mr. Trump’s myriad schemes, Mr. Meadows was the Abominable Yes Man.
It was Mr. Meadows’s critical failure to tell the president what he didn’t want to hear that helped lead to the country’s greatest political scandal, and his own precipitous fall.
Donald Rumsfeld, who served as a chief of staff to Gerald Ford, understood the importance of talking to the boss “with the bark off.” The White House chief of staff “is the one person besides his wife,” he explained, “who can look him right in the eye and say, ‘This is not right. You simply can’t go down that road. Believe me, it’s not going to work.’” A good chief is on guard for even the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Rumsfeld once forbade Mr. Ford to attend a birthday party for the Democratic majority leader Tip O’Neill because it was being hosted by a foreign lobbyist with a checkered reputation.
There used to be stiff competition for the title of history’s worst White House chief of staff. Mr. Eisenhower’s chief Adams was driven from the job by a scandal involving a vicuna coat; Mr. Nixon’s Haldeman served 18 months in prison for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal; and George H.W. Bush’s John Sununu resigned under fire after using government transportation on personal trips.
But the crimes Mr. Meadows is accused of are orders of magnitude greater than those of his predecessors. Even Mr. Haldeman’s transgressions pale in comparison. Mr. Nixon’s chief covered up a botched attempt to bug the headquarters of the political opposition. Mr. Meadows is charged with racketeering — for his participation in a shakedown of a state official for nonexistent votes — and soliciting a violation of an oath by a public officer.
Mr. Meadows didn’t just act as a doormat to Mr. Trump; he seemed to let everyone have his or her way. Even as he tried to help Mr. Trump remain in office, Mr. Meadows agreed to give a deputy chief of staff, Chris Liddell, the go-ahead to carry out a stealth transition of power to Joe Biden. This made no sense, but it was just the way Mr. Meadows rolled. Mr. Trump’s chief is a world-class glad-hander and charmer.
As part of the efforts to subvert the 2020 election, Mr. Meadows paraded a cast of incompetent bootlickers into the Oval Office. This culminated in a wild meeting on the night of Dec. 18, 2020 — when Mr. Trump apparently considered ordering the U.S. military to seize state voting machines before backing down. (Even his servile sidekick Rudy Giuliani objected.) A few days later, Mr. Meadows traveled to Cobb County, Ga., where he tried to talk his way into an election audit meeting he had no right to attend, only to be barred at the door.
All the while, the indictment shows that Mr. Meadows was sharing lighthearted remarks about claims of widespread voter fraud. In an exchange of texts, Mr. Meadows told the White House lawyer Eric Herschmann that his son had been unable to find more than “12 obituaries and 6 other possibles” (dead Biden voters). Referring to Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Herschmann replied sarcastically: “That sounds more like it. Maybe he can help Rudy find the other 10k?” Mr. Meadows responded: “LOL.”
Mr. Meadows’s testimony this week that his actions were just part of his duties as White House chief of staff is a total misrepresentation of the position. In fact, an empowered chief can reel in a president when he’s headed toward the cliff — even a powerful, charismatic president like Ronald Reagan. One day in 1983, James A. Baker III, Mr. Reagan’s quintessential chief, got word that the president, enraged by a damaging leak, had ordered everyone who’d attended a national security meeting to undergo a lie-detector test. Mr. Baker barged into the Oval Office. “Mr. President,” he said, “this would be a terrible thing in my view for your administration. You can’t strap up to a polygraph the vice president of the United States. He was elected. He’s a constitutional officer.” Mr. Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz, who was dining with the president, chimed in, saying he’d take a polygraph but would then resign. Mr. Reagan rescinded the order that same day.
Why did Mr. Meadows squander his career, his reputation and possibly his liberty by casting his lot with Mr. Trump? He once seemed an unlikely casualty of Mr. Trump’s wrecking ball — he was a savvy politician who knew his way around the corridors of power. In fairness to Mr. Meadows, three of his predecessors also failed as Mr. Trump’s chief. “Anyone who goes into the orbit of the former president is virtually doomed,” said Jack Watson, Jimmy Carter’s former chief of staff. “Because saying no to Trump is like spitting into a raging headwind. It was not just Mission Impossible; it was Mission Self-Destruction. I don’t know why he chose to do it.”
In their motion to remove the Fulton County case to federal court, the lawyers for Mr. Meadows addressed Mr. Trump’s now infamous Jan. 2, 2021, call with Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger — during which Mr. Meadows rode shotgun as the president cut to the chase: “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes ….” Addressing Mr. Meadows’s role, his lawyers wrote: “One would expect a chief of staff to the president of the United States to do these sorts of things.”
Actually, any competent White House chief of staff would have thrown his body in front of that call. Any chief worth his salt would have said: “Mr. President, we’re not going to do that. And if you insist, you’re going to make that call yourself. And when you’re through, you’ll find my resignation letter on your desk.”
Mr. Meadows failed as Mr. Trump’s chief because he was unable to check the president’s worst impulses. But the bigger problem for our country is that his failure is a template for the inevitable disasters in a potential second Trump administration.
Mr. Trump’s final days as president could be a preview. He ran the White House his way — right off the rails. He fired his defense secretary, Mark Esper, replacing him with his counterterrorism chief, Chris Miller, and tried but failed to install lackeys in other positions of power: an environmental lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, as attorney general and a partisan apparatchik, Kash Patel, as deputy C.I.A. director.
Mr. Trump has already signaled that in a second term, his department heads and cabinet officers would be expected to blindly obey orders. His director of national intelligence would tell him only what he wants to hear, and his attorney general would prosecute Mr. Trump’s political foes.
For Mr. Meadows, his place in history is secure as a primary enabler of a president who tried to overthrow democracy. But his example should serve as a warning of what will happen if Mr. Trump regains the White House. All guardrails will be gone.
Chris Whipple is the author of “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency” and, most recently, “The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden’s White House.”

“Donald Rumsfeld, who served as a chief of staff to Gerald Ford, understood the importance of talking to the boss “with the bark off.”
For someone who understood the importance of talking to the boss “with the bark off”, Rumsfeld sure did his share of barking over his long career:
“We know where they [Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat”
LikeLike
Rumsfeld: the man who cried “woof”
LikeLike
Not incidentally, Rumsfeld said in his memoirs that he “misspoke” when he claimed not just that “Saddam has WMD” but that “We know where they were.”
It’s not “misspeaking” when you claim to know something that you know damned well that you do not know. (The “known unknowns”, as Rumsfeld himself categorized them)
There is a word for what Rumsfeld did and though it’s something he had a propensity for doing, it’s not something he would ever admit to having done.
LikeLike
Ever have admitted.
He’d never admit anything now cuz he’s dead.
LikeLike
Although he might try to deny even that.
LikeLike
Murderous bastard. If there were any justice in the world, he would have stood in the dock at the International Court of Criminal Justice, charged with War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. A despicable, murderous liar.
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane. 🙏👍👌
LikeLike
Trump does not want to be surrounded by those that will advise and counsel. He wants to be surrounded by morally compromised lackeys that are obedient and easily manipulated, much like any boss of a crime network. Trump seeks out placeholders that will be loyal and do his bidding. When accountability is demanded, Trump will stand by and let them take the fall as he did with Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg.
LikeLike
Trump doesn’t know what he wants. The man (using the word loosely) is so breathtakingly stupid, that he thinks that the way you choose someone for a roll is by seeing if they look as though they were “right out of central casting.” Thus the fact that he had the highest turnover of any president ever. He’s an utter moron.
LikeLike
cx: if he or she, not they, ofc
LikeLike
“Turnover Trump” should be his nickname cuz he turns over everything he touches.
LikeLike
cx: for a role, ofc
LikeLike
It’s s real problem if the chief of staff is advising the president on policy matters — period.
That’s supposed to be the job of cabinet secretaries.
The latter must be confirmed by the Senate precisely because of their job as adviser to the president.
There is no requirement for confirmation of White House chief of staff.The President is free to hire any nitwit and/or political hack he wants to hire for the job.
These people should NOT be advising the president on any important policy matter.
It’s actually bizarre that a person who wrote a book about White House chiefs of staff believes otherwise.
LikeLike
How did things get so messed up that many people now actually believe that some political appointee is qualified to act as an adviser to the president on critical policy matters?
LikeLike
There is better vetting of McDonalds burger flippers than there is for many of the people we have running the White House.
LikeLike
Much better, in fact.
LikeLike
How did things get so messed up that many people now actually believe that some political appointee is qualified to act as an adviser to the president on critical policy matters?
Exactly. But then, look at the presidency itself. We are more careful about vetting the person who will run the local gas station than we are about vetting the one who will sit in the Oval Office. Look at the morons we’ve had there. Breathtaking. Bottom of the barrel.
LikeLike
Bob: it is tempting to have some non-partisan vetting of a candidate for high office, but it would have to be a very transparent process. Otherwise it would become someone’s personal power play, like Leo and the Federalists (sounds like a 60s rock band).
LikeLike
Meadows is a good old boy who is a product of the Florida swamps. He thinks ethics are for all those ‘liberal elites.’
LikeLike
Roy, this is something the Founders never envisioned. They lived in a time when only well-educated persons became involved in politics. They never imagined an utterly ignorant doofus like Trump, supported by a whole party of utterly ignorant doofuses (doffusi?).
Otherwise, they would have added to the Constitution some provisions to ensure that people holding high office were reasonably well educated. And clearly, given that Trump graduated from Wharton, it couldn’t be simply a college degree. I think that there should be a vetting process that involves candidates doing original writing (a thesis of some kind) and then submitting to a defense of this and additional questioning ON MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE, OF FACTUAL KNOWEDGE, related to the position, by members of both major parties. We shouldn’t have morons running for president who think that other countries pay the tariffs that we put on their goods and don’t know what the nuclear triad is–people like Trump. Almost everyone who ever worked for Trump has later said that he hasn’t the knowledge of a sixth grader–that he is PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING. The Founders never envisioned that such people would stand for office. This was a huge mistake. It’s a glaring problem at the heart of our system of governance.
LikeLike
“there should be a vetting process that involves candidates doing original writing (a thesis of some kind) and then submitting to a defense of this and additional questioning ON MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE, OF FACTUAL KNOWEDGE, related to the position, by members of both major parties.”
Necessary but not sufficient.
ChatGPT would pass with flying colors but there is no real understanding there and no compassion.
LikeLike
There are many (probably fatal) flaws in the system that the Founding fathers came up with.
And they should certainly have seen them, given that they had just fought a war to escape the arbitrary rule of a King.
It’s actually rather amazing that they didn’t understand the problem with effectively vesting so much power in a single individual by placing so few restrictions on the president.
LikeLike
Many of the Kings of England were doofuses, so assuming that a doofus would never be ruler was just the height of naïveté.
LikeLike
There might be a companion question: is it possible to do the job required by the presidency without an organizer. I consider Col. House under Wilson, or Francis Blair, under Andrew Jackson.
LikeLike
Of course. That’s what the Chief of Staff is supposed to be. An organizer. The keeper of the President’s schedule.
LikeLike
I think some people have confused organizer with orangutan
LikeLike
Or an orangizer in Trumps case.
To look into the oranges of the Mueller investigation.
LikeLike
I think some people have confused organizer with orangutan
haaaaa!
LikeLike
“Anyone who goes into the orbit of the former president is virtually doomed,” said Jack Watson, Jimmy Carter’s former chief of staff. “Because saying no to Trump is like spitting into a raging headwind. It was not just Mission Impossible; it was Mission Self-Destruction. I don’t know why he chose to do it.”
That pull quote sums up Traitor Trump in a gold-plated toilet bowl.
Decades of Trump’s business history has been revealed by an endless list of former employees, that he has been and will always be a super-micromanager. No one does anything, even ordering the drapes for one of his hotel rooms, without his okay.
His crime family (three of his four adult children) have been quoted saying that even they have failed repeatedly to change his mind two-thirds of the time when they thought what he wanted to do would be a crime and a mistake. And many times, when he agreed with their suggestions, he’d change his mind after they left and do what he wanted anyway.
LikeLike
Trump did not want a strong WH chief of staff. For anyone who has read the books written by Bob Woodward and others about Trump’s term in office , Trump does not want people who will speak uncomfortable truths to him. He wants Yes men and women.
Meadows made a conscious choice to work for Trump. He probably thought that having this job on his resume would be a plus. More fool he.
LikeLike
EVERYONE FAILED IN THIS CLOWN ADMIN! YOU ARE ALL CRAZY TO THINK THIS ADMIN IS ANYTHING BUT THE WORST!!!!!
LUCKY NEWS DOES NOT REPORT ON ANYTHING, TRUMO THEY WILL TELL YOU ABOUT DIET COKES AND EVERYTHING
LikeLike
So, do they allow cell phones or tablets on the ward, DEMS STINK? I guess they do.
LikeLike
If you’re Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, Mark Meadows was a raging success. “Every GOP Pres. since Ronald Reagan has looked mostly to conservative Catholics, rather than mainline or evangelical protestants in choosing candidates for court appointments.” Trump appointed three.
The opportunity Dems had- Garland who is Jewish- fell victim to a Republican Senate.
Worth a read about truth in American history- Cushwa Center, the story of American Catholicism, “The pervasive institution: Slavery and its legacies in US Catholicism.” “The Catholic Church was the first and largest corporate slaveholder in the Americas.”
Isolating to geographic regions, “Catholic bishops were some of the largest slaveholders… Before abolition, it was a greater anomaly for a religious order not to hold people in slavery. ..Catholic religious regularly inflicted physical violence on enslaved people.”
Neither DeSantis nor Abbott are a surprise. Nor, is it a surprise that Georgetown didn’t admit its first Black student until 1953. And, it not a surprise that Georgetown Law hired the Koch network’s Ilya Shapiro.
LikeLike