Curious case of Mark Meadows trumping the truth in his new book
Mark Meadows is not quite a household name in America, but all that could change in about a week, give or take a few days.
The former Chief of Staff for President Donald Trump knew the White House ballgame when he walked though the revolving door in March 2020, the fourth for the 45th President of the United States.
With an administration still in absolute denial about the coronavirus and the commander-in-chief dabbling with whacky ideas and theories, Meadows would seem to give the impression that he was dumbfounded when the Chief Physician was called in to prevent the President from flying out for a campaign stop because he had tested positive.
This was on September 26, 2020, or three days before the first Presidential Debate with challenger Joseph Biden at Cleveland, Ohio.
All this is not some fantasy reading but straight out of the forthcoming book by Meadows, The Chief’s Chief, first reported by The Guardian.
“Stop the President from leaving. He just tested positive for COVID,” White House doctor Sean Conley told Meadows as Marine One was getting ready for take-off from the lawns of the White House – a message that was relayed to the President when he called from Air Force One.
The response from Trump was along expected lines – expletives. But the President was also assured that a second and a more updated test was in the works, the result of which later showed a negative, much to the relief of all.
The point of contention is not what Meadows has put down in his book, an advance copy of which The Guardian was reporting from. It is in the fact that for a full three days, the White House did not reveal that one of the tests done on President Trump did indeed show a positive result; and as Trump showed up to the debate hall rather late, the organisers went on the “honor system”.
And it took a full six or seven days – October 1 and 2 – before Trump tweeted that he and his wife had tested positive with the President treated at the Walter Reed Medical Hospital. What the White House did not say all along was that the President tested both positive and negative, conveniently using the latter result to conceal the former.
True to his nature, Trump was all over Meadows on the contents of his book that only earlier he had lavishly praised and urged conservatives to book an advance copy.
“If you want to learn about politics, truth, our great administration, and exciting achievements that took place in government, pre-order your copy now,” Trump had said.
But in the aftermath of The Guardian report, media reports speak of close aides of Trump saying that he is “furious” and that the report is “Fake” news.
“The story of me having COVID prior to, or during, the first debate is fake news. In fact, a test revealed that I did not have COVID prior to the debate,” Trump said in a statement.
But the real humour does not stop here. For reasons only known to himself, Meadows also echoed his President, that The Guardian – that was reporting straight out of his book – was into Fake News.
“The President’s right. It’s fake news,” Meadows quipped cleverly without getting into which one of the reports he was talking about. “If you actually read the book, the context of it, that story outlined a false positive. He literally had a test, he had two other tests after that that showed he didn’t have COVID during the debate, and yet the way that the media wants to spin it is certainly to be as negative about Donald Trump as they can possibly can, while giving Joe Biden a pass.”
Also read: To stand up to ‘big-tech tyranny,’ Trump announces social media site
Meadows, and quite naturally Trump, clearly evaded the first test that came out positive and now what people are questioning is the time lapse between the positive and negative tests.
The Guardian, it is being pointed out, did not say or suggest that President Trump walked into the debate with a COVID infection. In fact, some in the President’s inner circle, including his Chief of Staff, were worried about the health of Trump.
On the evening of the first debate, Meadows recalls: “His face, for the most part at least, had regained its usual light bronze hue, and the gravel in his voice was gone. But the dark circles under his eyes had deepened. As we walked into the venue around five o’clock in the evening, I could tell that he was moving more slowly than usual. He walked like he was carrying a little extra weight on his back.”
The biggest takeaway from the Cleveland debate was Biden’s sharp comeback to Trump’s constant hectoring, “Shut up, Man”.
The telling commentary on what Meadows has up his sleeves will come soon when he is going to have a session with the House Committee investigating the Capitol Hill riots of January 6 that the former President sees as a clear attempt on the part of Democrats to malign him and the Presidency, and hence pressuring or even bullying those served subpoenas to disregard them.
Some of Trump’s allies have been charged with contempt; but House investigators are hopeful that Meadows will throw some light even if every now and then he could fall back on Executive Privilege.
Frequently, the former President keeps talking that the only reason he is fighting a battle to prevent archives from handing over material on the January 6 riot logs is with a view to “saving” future Presidents.
The whole world knows that the only thing that Trump likes to save is himself; and with friends and trusted lieutenants like Mark Meadows anxious to mark time, House investigators will find it difficult to nail the culprits in real time.
The writer was a former senior journalist in Washington DC for about 15 years covering North America and the United Nations.
