The publisher of Mark Meadows’ White House memoir is suing Donald Trump’s former chief of staff for allegedly publicly contradicting the main theme of his own book: that the 2020 election was stolen.
It comes after Meadows reportedly told the special counsel investigating Trump that he had warned the former president against making claims of fraud, and that neither he nor his boss actually believed the election had been stolen.
All Seasons Publishing (ASP) filed a lawsuit Friday in Sarasota County Court, Florida.
The company said it had pulled “The Chief’s Chief” from shelves a day earlier.
‘Meadows’ reported statements to the special counsel and/or his staff and his reported grand jury testimony directly contradict statements in his book, a central theme of which is that President Trump was the real winner of the 2020 presidential election and that that election was ‘stolen’ and ‘rigged’ with the help of ‘allies in the liberal media,’ who ‘ignored actual evidence of fraud, available for all to see,’ leading to the unlawful election of President Trump,” the complaint reads. .
Mark Meadows’ memoir, “The Chief’s Chief,” was published a year after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Now he is being sued by the publisher
‘The Chief’s Chief’ was published on December 7, 2021 by All Seasons Publishing
It’s even pointed out that one chapter begins with the line, “I KNEW HE DIDN’T LOSE.”
The publisher is suing Meadows for the return of a $350,000 advance and more than $1 million in costs and damages.
It’s just the latest twist in the legal fallout from Trump’s turbulent time in office.
Aides and advisers have been embroiled in expensive lawsuits, especially over Trump’s efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.
The ‘Chief’s Chief’ was published a year after Trump lost the election. And Meadows saw it as an opportunity to expose the truth about what happened.
“The sheer number of falsehoods published about the president’s time in the White House is astonishing,” he wrote. “I see this book as a small opportunity to correct the record.”
The lawsuit details how the alarm was raised in December 2021, just before publication, and the publisher contacted him with concerns that the book might contain “misstatements.”
It said it would continue publishing the book but withheld the final $116,666 tranche of its advance while it investigated.
Meadows responded through his son, who is a lawyer.
‘Mr. Meadows is aware of the misleading allegations published regarding a portion of the book that was taken out of context and which have already been discussed in multiple press releases by both Mr. Meadows and former President Trump,” Blake Meadows wrote, according the suit.
Meadows served as Trump’s last chief of staff, overseeing his final days in office and the president’s struggle to stay in power despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden
Meadows is also a defendant in a case brought by Georgia’s Fulton County district attorney over allegations he tried to overturn the state’s election results.
The timing suggests that exchange was prompted by leaks that the book contained the revelation that Trump tested positive for COVID-19 three days before last year’s first presidential debate and that Meadows and other White House staff covered it up so the confrontation could go ahead.
ASP said it went ahead with publication after repeated assurances from Meadows that the book’s contents were true.
But reports that Meadows could be a cooperating witness have hurt sales, according to the publisher.
“As a result, public interest in the book, the truth of which was increasingly doubted, suddenly waned, and ASP sold only approximately 60,000 of the 200,000 first printings of the book,” the lawsuit concludes.
Two weeks ago, ABC News revealed that Meadows had spoken multiple times to members of the special counsel’s team and appeared before a grand jury as part of an immunity deal.
“Obviously we didn’t win,” a source quoted Meadows telling special counsel Jack Smith’s team.
In a statement sent to CNBC On Monday, Meadow’s spokesperson said: “This is a lawsuit based on a publicly disputed, anonymously sourced news story. It should be treated as such.”