This week in the Georgia election-interference case, former President Trump surrendered to authorities on Thursday, a day after many of his co-defendants (including Rudy Giuliani). This is a staggering and historic event. Various co-defendants, including key figures from the U.S. Justice Department and the Georgia Republican Party, have initiated moves to transfer the case from state to federal court.
Meanwhile, the investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence has taken an unexpected turn. The government says a witness – a Mar-a-Lago employee – altered his grand jury testimony. Further complications have arisen, as well, because statements from former Vice President Mike Pence and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows contradict the former President’s defense.
Lastly, it was a dramatic week for Capitol Riot news. Trump’s recent comments on the event portrayed the day in starkly different terms than most narratives, and legal actions against the perpetrators of the attack picked up steam.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Georgia Election Interference Case: Motions Filed, Defendants Surrender, and FBI Investigates Threats
Developments in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and his allies are unfolding rapidly. Trump himself surrendered to Georgia authorities on Thursday. For the first time, police took mugshots. Trump was booked on a $200,000 bond. According to the Washington Post, “He arrived and departed through a back entrance of the facility where he did not interact with anyone in the jail population.”
Some of Trump’s co-defendants, such as Rudy Giuliani, surrendered in Atlanta on Wednesday. A number of other defendants, including fake electors and attorneys associated with Trump, have also surrendered. Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, who charged Trump with 13 counts, including racketeering and conspiring to impersonate a public officer, set noon on Friday as the deadline for surrendering. Willis has requested an October 23 trial date.
Others, including Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, and David Shafer, the former head of the Georgia Republican Party, have filed motions to move the case from state court to federal court. On Thursday, bonds were set for Clark and Mark Meadows for $100,000.
Meanwhile, the FBI has joined an investigation into threats against Fulton County officials, including the grand jury that voted to indict Trump and his allies. The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office is leading an investigation into these threats as well.
- Top point to make: The Georgia election interference case against former President Trump and his allies, including charges like racketeering and conspiring to impersonate a public officer, is an attempt to show that justice in this country is universal. The case reinforces the notion that accountability is for everyone, and that we all get equal treatment under the law. This treatment includes opportunities for legal defense, such as attempting to move the case to federal court. It also includes standard legal responsibilities, like taking a mugshot. Given how polarizing this case is, it is essential that it proceed smoothly. If a former president can be tried in a timely and lawful manner, it reinforces the idea that nobody is above the law, and backs up the claim that all citizens are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities within the legal system.
- If you read one thing: The Hill, 8/23/23: Fake electors, Trump attorneys surrender in Trump Georgia case: More defendants charged alongside former President Trump in Georgia are surrendering, including two of the three indicted fake electors and two Trump attorneys. David Shafer and Cathy Latham, both of whom signed documents purporting to be Georgia’s valid 2020 presidential electors, were booked early Wednesday morning before being released, jail records show. Ray Smith, a Georgia-based attorney who worked for Trump following the election, and Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney who helped devise the fake elector scheme, also surrendered Wednesday, according to the booking records. Six of the 19 co-defendants charged have now surrendered. Willis has given the defendants a deadline of noon on Friday to surrender.
2. Testimony Shift and High-Profile Contradictions Intensify Scrutiny in Trump’s Classified Documents Case
There have been several important developments in the case surrounding former President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. An employee at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, identified as Yuscil Taveras, changed his grand jury testimony after questions were raised about a conflict of interest involving his lawyer, Stanley Woodward. Woodward also represents other witnesses and a co-defendant.
Taveras originally told the grand jury he did not recall having any conversations regarding security footage from Mar-a-Lago that the government had subpoenaed in 2022 as part of its investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents. According to the government, this statement is false. In response to this shift in testimony, legal experts are calling for a hearing to discuss potential conflicts among the lawyers involved.
Meanwhile, former Vice President Mike Pence and ex-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows have contradicted Trump’s defense that he had issued a standing order to declassify documents, further complicating the former president’s position. Trump, who faces 40 felony counts including obstruction, continues to plead not guilty and deny any wrongdoing.
- Top point to make: The case surrounding the alleged mishandling of classified documents, including material related to national defense, is, of course, of serious concern. The government, therefore, needs to get this right. We need a commitment to transparency and the pursuit of truth. Fortunately, that appears to be what we are getting. By utilizing subpoenas for security footage and otherwise conducting a meticulous investigation, the government is demonstrating that it is committed to taking the case as seriously as is warranted. It must continue to do so. With a case as important as this one, there is no room for mistakes. This case is already getting enormous public scrutiny and will surely get much more going forward. A transparent examination of conflicts of interest seems appropriate.
- If you read one thing: The New York Times, 8/22/23: Witness in Trump Documents Case Changed Lawyers, and Then Testimony: An employee of former President Donald J. Trump changed his grand jury testimony in the documents case after the Justice Department raised questions about whether his lawyer had a conflict of interest in representing both the employee and a defendant in the case, prosecutors said in a court filing on Tuesday. The prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, had asked for a hearing to address the fact that the employee, who is a possible witness in the case, was represented by the lawyer Stanley Woodward. Mr. Woodward also represents two other possible witnesses and one of the co-defendants, Walt Nauta, a personal aide to Mr. Trump. The employee was not named in the court filings but was identified by people familiar with the matter as Yuscil Taveras, an information technology worker at Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, Mar-a-Lago.
3. Capitol Riot Fallout: Trump Calls Jan 6 a Day of “Love and Unity” in New Interview, DOJ Acts on Officer’s Death, and Proud Boys Face Legal Reckoning
The shadow cast by the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021 continues to be felt as summer, 2023 draws to a close. In an interview with Tucker Carlson posted on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump drew a comparison between the current political climate and the emotions seen on Jan. 6th. “There’s a level of passion that I’ve never seen. There’s a level of hatred that I’ve never seen,” he said. He declined to go into detail about this, despite much prompting from Carlson. Trump, however, did reiterate his defense of his supporters’ actions on that day. “People in that crowd said it was the most beautiful day they ever experienced.There was love and unity,” claimed the former president.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice designated the suicide of D.C. police officer Jeffrey Smith as a line-of-duty death.
The search for accountability for participants continues. Law enforcement officials announced they are seeking Christopher Worrell, a Proud Boys member who missed his sentencing for Jan. 6th-related crimes, while a federal appeals court ordered a new sentence for James Little, a ruling that may impact many other low-level Capitol riot cases. Additionally, prosecutors are seeking a 33-year prison sentence for former Proud Boys chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio.
- Top point to make: The characterization by former President Trump of the Capitol Riot as a day filled with “love and unity” is a stark departure from the violence and chaos that transpired. It does us no favors as a nation if influential individuals cannot acknowledge the danger we were in that day. The continued legal actions against Proud Boys members and others involved in the riot, on the other hand, demonstrate the principle of accountability and a dedication to upholding the rule of law. These prosecutions reinforce the resilience and integrity of the democratic system, emphasizing that unlawful actions threatening democracy will be met with just legal consequences.
- If you read one thing: ABC, 8/18/23: Court tosses Jan. 6 sentence in ruling that could impact other low-level Capitol riot cases: A federal appeals court on Friday ordered a new sentence for a North Carolina man who pleaded guilty to a petty offense in the Capitol riot — a ruling that could impact dozens of low-level cases in the massive Jan. 6, 2021 prosecution. The appeals court in Washington said James Little was wrongly sentenced for his conviction on a misdemeanor offense to both prison time and probation, which is court-ordered monitoring of defendants who are not behind bars. Little, who entered the Capitol but didn’t join in any destruction or violence, pleaded guilty in 2021 to a charge that carries up to six months behind bars. He was sentenced last year to 60 days in prison followed by three years of probation. But the 2-1 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that probation and imprisonment “may not be imposed as a single sentence” for a petty offense, adding “there are separate options on the menu.” Judge Robert Wilkins, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, dissented. The decision could invalidate the sentences of dozens of Jan. 6 defendants who received what is known as a “split sentence” for a petty offense.
Expert Voices
Mike Podhorzer: “On December 19, 2020, Trump tweeted “Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild.” But on January 2, 2021, by dramatically announcing that they would be challenging the Electoral College outcome, Senators Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, and Braun, and Senators-elect Lummis, Marshall, Hagerty and Tuberville, altered the meaning of January 6th. Especially in what they said outside of the mainstream media (on Fox et al, as well as in social media and fundraising appeals), they created the illusion that coming to Washington on January 6th could actually overturn the results of the 2020 elections. In the fantasy world these Republicans breathed life into, those coming to Washington could easily imagine that they would soon be seen as patriotic heroes. Without that permission structure, it’s easy to imagine January 6th looking more like the sparsely-attended protests outside courthouses this year following each new Trump indictment.”
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket: “These indictments are critical to our system of justice and the rule of law. But they cover only a fraction of the damage Trump and his allies have done to our system of elections. The indictments only cover a snapshot in time. To present their cases to a jury, prosecutors need to tell a story of criminality with a beginning and an end.”
Pete Simi and Seamus Hughes in NCITE Report: Understanding Threats to Public Officials: “Threats against public officials are ticking up, a disturbing trend that NCITE researchers are charting in a 10-year examination of federally investigated threats. Threats were most commonly made against members of the criminal justice system, from law enforcement officers to judges. Elected officials and those who run or manage elections comprised the second most-targeted category. Educators and healthcare workers also received threats.The research team is examining the extent to which that reflects a growing public acceptance of and tolerance for political violence — attitudes that threaten U.S. institutions and weaken democracy.”
Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann for The Atlantic: “The federal January 6 case going to trial within the timeframe the government proposes (or slightly beyond that) follows standard operating procedure in criminal cases, and is by no means undue… An important consideration—to be balanced against a concern about a hasty prosecution—is a right to a speedy trial. This right does not belong exclusively to the defense or the prosecution—it belongs to the public. The government’s response, filed yesterday, convincingly demonstrates the lengths it has taken to ensure that Trump and his lawyers have sufficient time to mount a vigorous defense, while also fulfilling the public’s right to a speedy trial. And what could be more in the public interest than this case, whatever the result, getting to trial expeditiously?”
