FILE – White House chief of staff Mark Meadows speaks with reporters outside the White House, Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows hit back at the publisher of his book in a court filing seeking to dispel allegations he made contradictory comments about the winner of the 2020 election in print and in a closed-door hearing with special counsel Jack Smith.
In November 2023, All Seasons Press, a conservative publishing house, filed a lawsuit alleging Meadows engaged in “a clear and direct breach” of his contract by including Trumpworld allegations about electoral fraud in his memoir, “The Chief’s Chief,” which was released in December 2021. Under the terms of his book contract, Meadows made warranties that “all statements contained in the [Book] are true and based on reasonable research for accuracy,” the lawsuit notes.
In October 2023, an ABC News report citing anonymous sources claimed Meadows told Smith: “we didn’t win,” and otherwise agreed the 2020 presidential election was not fraudulent, and in fact the most secure in U.S. history, throughout at least three meetings, in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution.
In a motion to dismiss filed late last week, Meadows said the basis of the lawsuit is “conjecture” that does not meet pleading standards.
“With the Complaint based on conjecture, Plaintiff claims that it is due substantial sums of money,” the motion reads. “Under Florida law, only properly pleaded material breaches of contract that go to the essence of the contract can give rise to a cause of action. The courts do not exist so that mere conjecture over trivialities can be resolved to satisfy disgruntled investors. Faced with such speculative claims, the proper response by this Court is dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
After a series of highly public spats over concerns about the accuracy of the book, hand-wringing, lawyer letters, and threatened litigation, Meadows was finally paid his promised $350,000 advance.
The lawsuit seeks a jury trial on their breach of contract claim. The plaintiffs hope to recoup the substantial advance and then some including more than $1 million in lost profits, “out-of-pocket” damages to the tune of $600,000-plus, and “incidental damages” to the publisher’s reputation exceeding $1 million.
Meadows, in his motion to dismiss, claims the lawsuit is simply a money grab because the book didn’t move as many units as expected.
“Plaintiff’s lawsuit is an unveiled attempt to utilize the court system to recover investment funds on a book deal that was not as profitable as hoped,” the motion reads. “Courts are not the proper forum for disgruntled investors to try to recover funds on business deals that do not go as planned.”
The onetime North Carolina congressman’s motion to dismiss also takes aim at the substance of the breach of contract claim.
“Plaintiff’s Complaint, labeled a claim for breach of contract, is based on nothing more than hearsay media reports — unsubstantiated and disputed media reports — which speculate that Defendant, in a confidential hearing, may have testified in such a way that allegedly conflicts with isolated statements in a book published two years prior to the confidential hearing,” the motion continues. “The essence of Plaintiff’s pleadings is that rumors and news reports exist which speculate on the content of sealed testimony.”
And, the motion argues, the breach of contract lawsuit simply references the media report about Meadows’ interactions with the special counsel’s office without making any claims about their veracity.
“Plaintiff does not allege that the reports are true,” the motion reads. “Plaintiff does not allege any of the underlying facts contained in the reports.”
Meadows says this combination — simply mentioning the existence of the report while not explicitly endorsing the report’s accuracy — has resulted in a “fatal flaw” for the publisher’s lawsuit.
“The Complaint requires the Court treat speculative, contested, and unsubstantiated rumors and media reports as true without Plaintiff pleading the underlying facts of such rumors and reports,” the filing goes on. “Put another way, Plaintiff is not permitted to treat a series of hearsay statements as true statements of fact or having the effect thereof without alleging the underlying facts contained in the hearsay statements.”
The motion to dismiss stresses the point as follows:
Plaintiff is asking the court to not only accept that such reports exist, but also to take an extra step and assume the truth of those hearsay rumors and reports. Plaintiff does this without having to take responsibility for pleading the underlying facts of the reports or the truth of such reports. Plaintiff never reached out to Defendant itself for confirmation or to disavow of such rumors. Plaintiff seemingly intentionally neglected to plead the underlying facts in such rumors, potentially due to the fact that Plaintiff is wary of taking a position on such facts because, to do so, may open Plaintiff up to liability. References to third party hearsay — as opposed to pleading factual allegations — is improper pleading and the Complaint which is based on such pleadings should be dismissed.
And, in a footnote, Meadows’ motion points out that All Seasons’ lawsuit does not even reference the actual report in particular — or the media outlet that reported on the allegations.
Moreover, Meadows argues in the motion, the publisher’s own arguments and timeline about book sales don’t make any sense — because his book was never selling very well in the first place.
“[T]he Complaint actually alleges the illogical inference that a media report, released more than twenty-two (22) months and three (3) weeks after the Book was published, is responsible for more than twenty-two (22) months and three (3) weeks of poor sales,” the motion reads. “Poor sales cannot be attributed to the 2023 rumors or reports because Plaintiff stopped selling the book shortly after the report.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
