Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
The big news of the week: Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison for his central role in organizing the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. This is the longest sentence yet issued for participation in the riot. This verdict serves as a potent reminder that individuals who undermine the democratic process will face serious consequences.
Meanwhile, redistricting disputes have arisen in several states, with important developments in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. Lastly, the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton began. He is being accused of abuse of office, bribery, and obstruction of justice.
Indictment updates continue to come in fast and frequent. In a court filing, Special Counsel, Jack Smith noted that Donald Trump is making ‘daily extrajudicial statements that threaten to prejudice the jury pool’ in the federal criminal case dealing with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The special counsel is also now looking at how money raised off baseless claims of voter fraud was used to fund attempts to breach voting equipment in several states won by President Joe Biden.
Additionally, former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro went on trial Tuesday as the second ex-aide to former President Donald Trump to be prosecuted for criminal contempt of Congress.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Proud Boys Ex-Leader Enrique Tarrio Sentenced to 22 Years in Jan. 6 Sedition Case
The sentencing of former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio to 22 years in prison and seditious conspiracy represents a significant milestone in accountability for the January 6th insurrection. Tarrio’s leadership position within the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, made him a central figure in the events leading up to the storming of the U.S. Capitol.
One noteworthy aspect of the case is that, while he played a pivotal role in organizing and inciting the violence, Tarrio was not physically present at the Capitol when the attack occurred. On January 6, he watched the insurrection unfold from a hotel in Baltimore. He was arrested in Washington, D.C., two days before the attack after admitting to tearing down and burning a Black Lives Matter flag during December riots. Tarrio’s verdict marked the first successful seditious conspiracy conviction against a January 6 defendant who was not physically at the Capitol that day
Tarrio’s sentence was the most severe penalty handed down so far to any of the more than 1,100 people charged in connection with the Capitol attack. It follows a series of long sentences for other Proud Boys: 17 years for Biggs, 18 for Ethan Nordean, 15 for Zachary Rehl, all of whom were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Dominic Pezzola, who was acquitted of sedition but convicted of six other felonies, received 10 years. In May, Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years for sedition, in his capacity as head of the Oath Keepers, another group involved in the insurrection.
- Top point to make: The significance of this sentence should not be underestimated. The sentencing of former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio represents a crucial step forward in protecting our democracy. First, it signifies that individuals will be held accountable for their actions related to the January 6 Capitol attack. Many people still doubt the importance, or even the reality, of the riot. This sentence affirms that it was indeed a grave matter. The length of the sentence also acts as a potent deterrent against potential future threats. By imposing significant consequences on individuals involved in seditious conspiracy or those who attempt to undermine our democracy, we reiterate that the United States is resolute in its commitment to the rule of law.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 9/5/23: Ex-Leader of Proud Boys Sentenced to 22 Years in Jan. 6 Sedition Case: “Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, was sentenced on Tuesday to 22 years in prison for the central role he played in organizing a gang of his pro-Trump followers to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power. Mr. Tarrio’s sentence, stemming from his conviction this spring on charges of seditious conspiracy, was the most severe penalty handed down so far to any of the more than 1,100 people charged in connection with the Capitol attack — and was likely to remain that way, given that no other defendants currently face accusations as serious as the ones he did.”
2. Legal Battles Over Congressional District Maps Heat Up Across Southern States
There have been a series of battles over redistricting and voting rights this week. In Alabama, a panel of federal judges rejected the state’s latest congressional district map, citing non-compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously upheld a lower court’s ruling that found Alabama had unlawfully diluted the political power of its Black residents in an initial map.
The federal judges had ordered the state to create a new map with districts in which Black voters could comprise a significant voting-age majority. Despite the Republican-controlled Alabama legislature approving a redrawn map with improved proportions in July, it still faced rejection by the federal court. The three-judge panel in Birmingham wrote that it saw little reason to give the state legislature a third chance. Instead, a court-appointed special master will create a new electoral map ahead of next year’s vote, the judges decided. This has led Alabama to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in Florida, a state judge ruled that the congressional district boundaries drawn by Governor DeSantis were unconstitutional. The judge argued they restricted the voting power of Black Floridians. He said state lawmakers must develop a “remedial map” to comply with the state’s constitution, and he retained control over the case to judge whether the new boundaries pass legal muster.
Lastly, in Georgia, a federal trial began to address challenges to the state’s congressional map. Multiple lawsuits argue that the map, drawn during a special session in late 2021, violates the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 by discriminating on the basis of race. The complex trial, which is expected to last through next week, focuses on a trio of challenges targeting the state’s congressional map – which helped Republicans gain a U.S. House seat last year – as well as district lines carving up the state Senate and House of Representatives.
- Top point to make: Gerrymandering to reduce the voting impact of marginalized communities is a gross perversion of the intent of our electoral system. Preventing such developments is critical. It continues to be a long and arduous process. It is encouraging to see that the courts are pushing back against such attempts. The only way for our system to work is for the rules governing our democracy to be applied fairly and openly.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 9/5/23: Alabama congressional map struck down again for diluting Black voting power: “A panel of three federal judges rejected Alabama’s latest version of its congressional map Tuesday, saying the state’s Republican-led legislature did not follow a court order backed by the U.S. Supreme Court to comply with the Voting Rights Act when it last redrew districts in July. The ruling — which Alabama is planning to appeal — further bolsters challenges of maps drawn by GOP-led legislatures in several other Southern states, where Democrats and civil rights groups have brought lawsuits arguing that Republicans are illegally diluting the power of Black voters. The outcomes of these challenges have the potential to shift the political makeup of federal and state legislative bodies, including which party controls Congress.”
3. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Faces Impeachment Trial Over Alleged Corruption
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton faces possible removal from office. He is the first statewide elected official in Texas to face such action in over a century. The impeachment articles accuse Paxton of abuse of office, bribery, and obstruction of justice. The charges stem from his agency’s request for $3.3 million to settle a lawsuit with ex-employees who reported him to the FBI for alleged corruption.
The Texas Senate, including most of its Republican members, voted against dismissing the articles of impeachment against him. Paxton pleaded not guilty to corruption allegations. Paxton’s defense team and the Texas House managers presented their cases during the proceedings, which are expected to last at least two weeks. A two-thirds majority vote is required to convict Paxton and remove him from office.
- Top point to make: In a democracy, the maintenance of public trust hinges on the assurance that elected officials are not above the law. Everyone, including an attorney general, must be answerable for their conduct. Accusations that include bribery and obstruction of justice demand an unflinching investigation. If substantiated, they mandate the application of serious consequences. Support for due process and the rule of law within the Texas Senate demonstrates the vitality of our process and institutions. Additionally, the fact that members from both sides of the political spectrum have engaged in this process proves that accountability can transcend partisan lines.
- If you read one thing: Dallas Morning News, 9/5/23: Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial begins after Texas Senate votes against dismissing charges: “Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday became the first statewide elected official in Texas to face removal from office in more than a century after the Texas Senate voted overwhelmingly against dismissing the articles of impeachment against him. After appearing in the morning and pleading not guilty to the corruption allegations against him, Paxton skipped the afternoon session of the proceedings that will determine his fate. State senators, including most of the 18 Republicans, could have halted the proceedings before they got underway. They instead rejected all of Paxton requests to toss the case against him. Paxton scored one win, when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick decided to leave it up to him whether he wanted to take the witness stand. Paxton’s lawyers have said he will not testify on his behalf. The proceedings are expected to last at least two weeks. On Tuesday, Paxton’s defense team and the House managers, who are prosecuting the case against him, laid out their cases.”
Expert Voices
Andrew Weissmann for Huffington Post on what the Proud Boys sentences may mean for Trump: “I think that the pressure that the judges will feel, who have seen so many people go to jail, rightly, for their participation on Jan. 6th, the idea that Donald Trump wouldn’t do at least as much time as the leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, to me, seems unimaginable. Because that’s what the rule of law would require…I think that this is a real sign of what’s to come if Donald Trump is convicted.”
Katherine Keneally for a BBC podcast on the Proud Boy sentences: “This is a huge step in accountability for the actions that occurred on January 6, it’s a huge step for accountability for extremist activities. But what we have seen is that while the Proud Boys are being held accountable and it has deterred another January 6-like action, it has not deterred the group from existing…What we have actually seen since January 6 is an increase in the number of people who were joining the Proud Boys. Rather than attacking the US government at the federal level, what we are now seeing is the Proud Boys are engaged in local activities. They are protesting at school boards, they are protesting LGBTQ+ people, and they are threatening our elected officials…They have certainly not gone away.”
Mark Joseph Stern for Slate, about gerrymandering in Alabama: “The state has pivoted to a strategy of bashing the very district court that a majority of justices already affirmed in full. It has turned this case into a referendum on the federal judiciary’s ability to enforce federal voting rights law—in essence, an assault on the Constitution’s supremacy clause itself. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and the liberals may not all agree on the precise contours of the Voting Rights Act. But they are united in their certainty that their decisions… are the law of the land.”
Fani Willis’ response to Congressman Jim Jordan’s attempt to intervene in the Georgia case: “As you know, Chairman Jordan, the congressional power of inquiry ‘is not unlimited.’ Congress is not ‘a law enforcement or trial agency’… [Moreover], ‘investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish those investigated are indefensible’… More fundamentally, ‘a congressional subpoena is valid only if it is related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress.’ Your letter offends each and every one of these settled principles. Its obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations.”
David Firestone for The New York Times: “…Alabama’s leaders knew exactly what they were doing. They all but asked for the decision, as a way to show that no judge, court or other arm of the federal government could push them around. And far from being ashamed, state officials remained obstinate after the decision was issued. The state attorney general’s office issued a statement saying Alabama was right all along, that the court’s decision was disappointing and that the state planned to appeal to the Supreme Court. In doing so, Alabama illustrated how contempt for the law — not to mention for equal representation and basic fairness — is an animating value in whole swaths of America. There are days when it feels as if defiance is defining large parts of the country, as represented by so many politicians who feel comfortable only when they are resisting someone else’s agenda rather than coming up with their own.”
