The classified documents case against former President Trump dominated the news this week, and deservedly so. Former President Donald J. Trump’s plea of not guilty to charges of willfully retaining national security secrets and obstruction has sparked intense interest and scrutiny. This landmark case, being the first time federal charges have been filed against a former president, carries immense gravity and complexity. Alongside the legal proceedings, concerns have been raised about Judge Aileen Cannon’s possible bias due to her past rulings favoring Trump and her ties to him as his own appointee. This has prompted calls for her recusal to ensure fairness. The indictment has also fueled fear and vigilance with Trump’s far-right supporters issuing threats of violence and some even calling for civil war.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Former President Trump Pleads Not Guilty to Historic Charges of Willfully Retaining Classified Documents and Obstruction
The criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump is garnering significant attention as it enters a traditional trajectory following his plea of not guilty at the arraignment in Miami. With the defense and prosecution preparing their strategies, the next steps in the case are eagerly anticipated. One key development will be Walt Nauta, Trump’s co-defendant and personal aide, entering his plea at the upcoming hearing on June 27. Throughout this legal battle, Trump’s approach has been marked by defiant speeches attacking law enforcement and a torrent of false and misleading claims regarding the case. Prior to his court appearance, he posted a video on Truth Social, complaining about persecution and reiterating baseless assertions of winning the 2020 election and labeling investigations into his conduct as “hoaxes and scams.” The former president has also labeled Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith a “Trump hater” and “deranged.”
- Top point to make: The classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump holds immense significance for our nation as it represents an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the principles we espouse: accountability and the rule of law. This case – where a grand jury of Florida citizens approved the indictment – serves as a powerful statement that no individual, not even a former president, is above the law. It is crucial that we recognize the gravity of this moment and remain steadfast in upholding the integrity of our justice system. As we have observed in the past, Trump’s typical approach in legal challenges has been to be combative and employ diversionary tactics to deflect attention from the facts of the case. It’s imperative that supporters and critics of the former president allow the case peacefully to run its course, ensuring a thorough and impartial examination of the facts.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 6/15/23: Trump rejected lawyers’ efforts to avoid classified documents indictment: One of Donald Trump’s new attorneys proposed an idea in the fall of 2022: The former president’s team could try to arrange a settlement with the Justice Department. The attorney, Christopher Kise, wanted to quietly approach Justice to see if he could negotiate a settlement that would preclude charges, hoping Attorney General Merrick Garland and the department would want an exit ramp to avoid prosecuting a former president. Kise would hopefully “take the temperature down,” he told others, by promising a professional approach and the return of all documents. But Trump was not interested after listening to other lawyers who urged a more pugilistic approach, so Kise never approached prosecutors, three people briefed on the matter said. A special counsel was appointed months later.
2. Judge Aileen Cannon’s Possible Bias, Limited Criminal Trial Experience Raises Concerns in Trump Documents Case
Judge Aileen Cannon’s appointment as the presiding judge in Donald Trump’s classified documents case, especially considering her ties to Trump as his own appointee, has come under scrutiny, raising concerns about her impartiality. Some legal analysts are questioning her readiness and experience to handle what is arguably one of the most explosive cases to be tried in the Southern District of Florida. Cannon’s previous favorable rulings in favor of Trump, including a decision to appoint a special master that was later overturned, and assertions of special treatment under the law, have further fueled calls for recusal.
- Top point to make: The situation surrounding Judge Aileen Cannon’s involvement in Donald Trump’s classified documents case is undoubtedly complex. Her past rulings and apparent ties to Trump have notably raised legitimate concerns from some legal scholars about a potential conflict of interest that could favor the former president. While it is true that our legal system entrusts judges with the power to make determinations on matters like admissibility of evidence and jury-selection procedures, it is crucial to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the justice system. If reasonable evidence of bias does emerge, it is incumbent upon Judge Cannon to recuse herself in order to preserve the fairness and credibility of the proceedings. Recognizing our inherent biases is a crucial step in upholding the principles of justice, particularly in a case as significant as this. It is our hope that Judge Cannon approaches this highly consequential case with the utmost care, ensuring that her actions reflect the essential values of fairness and impartiality that are essential to our justice system.
- If you read one thing: Wall Street Journal, 6/14/23: Trump’s Case Puts Judge Aileen Cannon in the Spotlight: Shortly after Donald Trump became the first former president to face federal charges late last week, a random assignment process in a South Florida court directed his case to one of his last judicial appointees, Judge Aileen Cannon. It will now fall to her to make key decisions about the pace and extent of a court battle with possibly seismic consequences for American politics and for Trump personally. Trump and his allies greeted Cannon’s appointment as an early stroke of luck in his defense against a 37-count indictment, according to people familiar with their reaction. The federal judge had ruled in the former president’s favor in a lawsuit he brought last year objecting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in South Florida.
3. Threats of Violence Escalate Amid Trump’s Indictment and Defense
The indictment of former President Donald Trump has ignited a disturbing wave of violent rhetoric and threats, with some even calling for a civil war. The atmosphere surrounding Trump’s case has been marked by a deepening divide, as many Republicans seek to discredit federal agencies and portray the indictment as politically motivated. Close allies of Trump, including a member of Congress, have painted him as a victim and called for retribution, amplifying the dangerous rhetoric. In contrast, other conservatives like Mitt Romney, former Vice President Mike Pence, and Chris Christie have acknowledged the gravity of the allegations if true.
- Top point to make: The legal battles surrounding Donald Trump have laid bare deeply troubling undercurrents within our nation. Calls for “civil war” and retribution from some of Trump’s most ardent supporters and election deniers this past week follows a flurry of lies about the 2020 and 2022 elections as well as violent efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power on January 6. Attempts to disregard or dismantle deliberate outcomes of our legal and electoral systems goes against the very essence of America. The United States is built upon the principle that we all operate within a unified system of laws that apply equally to every individual. We cannot succumb to intimidation by those who reject our system and seek to dismantle it. It is imperative that we remain steadfast in upholding the values of democracy, justice, and the rule of law, and not allow ourselves to be swayed by individuals who undermine these fundamental principles.
- If you read one thing: Vice, 6/9/23: ‘We Need to Start Killing’: Trump’s Far-Right Supporters Are Threatening Civil War: In what is becoming a now all-too-familiar trend, former President Donald Trump’s far-right supporters have threatened civil war after news broke Thursday that the former president was indicted for allegedly taking classified documents from the White House without permission. “We need to start killing these traitorous fuckstains,” wrote one Trump supporter on The Donald, a rabidly pro-Trump message board that played a key role in planning the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Another user added: “It’s not gonna stop until bodies start stacking up. We are not civilly represented anymore and they’ll come for us next. Some of us, they already have.”
Expert Voices
VIDEO: Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University: “If one man is above the law, then there really isn’t any law.” CNN Amanpour
Robert A. Pape, professor of political science and director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats: “As of now, while there is real risk of protest crowds escalating into riotous mobs given Trump’s calls for protest with “strength,” the main concern is lone-wolf violence a la the Trump supporters who attacked the FBI building in Cincinnati or Paul Pelosi in San Francisco. Law enforcement is prepared for crowd control in Miami, since any protests there would occur at predictable times and locations. Lone-wolf violence is more challenging for law enforcement because it could occur in locations not directly related to the trial site in Miami and could occur at any time over the coming months.” Boston Globe Op-Ed
Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “One reason for the absence of conflict in Miami, Ms. Kleinfeld wrote in an email, was that the prosecutions of Jan. 6 protesters — which now amount to more than 1,000 criminal cases — have had ‘a real deterrent effect’ on those who might have once considered violence. She also said that many people remain “angry at Trump for failing to provide monetary support for those jailed on his behalf after Jan. 6. Other people, Ms. Kleinfeld went on, seemed to have stayed away from pro-Trump protests, including those this week, fearing that they might become entrapped in what they believe to be ‘false flag operations’ by the F.B.I…Indeed, Ms. Kleinfeld said that elected officials or figures in the media who use violent language should be called out for their statements, but that a sense of balance was needed so critics were not crying wolf about events that did not present a genuine peril. ‘Americans won’t believe real threats,’ she said, ‘if false ones are treated as serious.’” New York Times
Joyce Vance, former US attorney in the Northern District of Alabama: “Allen v. Milligen was the gerrymandering case from Alabama. (It’s a consolidated case, sometimes referred to previously as Merrick v. Milligen.)…That means Section II of the Voting Rights Act, which most observers thought was doomed after oral argument, is still alive. It can be used to prohibit states like Alabama from drawing maps with districts configured along lines designed to prevent Black voters from electing a number of representatives consistent with their numbers in the state…But, don’t hold your breath for it to be long-lived. Justice Kavanaugh, the necessary fifth vote to salvage Section II doesn’t seem to be in it for the long haul; he implied he’s open to a future challenge to the law for different reasons. And there is no explanation for Justice Roberts’ change of heart. He delivered the coup de grace to Section V of the Voting Rights Act in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision because ‘things have changed dramatically’ over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, which argued that gutting Section V because it was working was like throwing away your umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm, since you were still dry.” Civil Discourse
