Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
It was a busy week for the Georgia case against former President Donald Trump and his allies. Prosecutors argued that all defendants should be tried together for efficiency and fairness. The judge appears to have rejected this request and agreed to try some of the defendants separately. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team filed motions to dismiss most of the 13 charges against him. The other cases against Trump were quieter this week, though Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over the documents case, said that Trump would indeed need to use a secure facility to review the sensitive records on Wednesday.
In other news: In Wisconsin, newly-elected Justice Protasiewicz faces impeachment threats from Republican lawmakers. In addition, two men, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, are seeking Supreme Court intervention to dismiss January 6 charges. The cases revolve around the application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a 2002 law originating from the Enron scandal.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. The Fulton County, Georgia Case: A Joint Trial Request, Dismissal Demands, and More
Of the many cases involving the former president, the most legal maneuvering occurred in the Georgia case this week. Prosecutors, who have accused Trump and 18 others of participating in an illegal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia, say that all the defendants should be tried together. This is the efficient and fair approach, they claim. The same witnesses and evidence will be used in these trials, they wrote, because the case was brought under the state’s anti-racketeering law. Holding several lengthy trials instead would ‘create an enormous strain on the judicial resources’ of the county superior court. Trump has responded to this request by waiving his right to seek a speedy trial. Reports on Thursday suggested that some of the cases will indeed be tried separately.
For good measure, Trump asked that most of the 13 charges against him be thrown out. A flurry of one-page motions from Trump’s Georgia lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, echoed recent motions by some of the other 18 defendants in the case, including one filed on behalf of the lawyer Ray Smith III. That motion gave a detailed critique of the 98-page indictment, arguing that its ‘defects’ are ‘voluminous,’ and that it is legally unsound
Other defendants are also trying to extricate themselves. Last Friday, the court rejected a request from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to move his Fulton County election interference case to U.S. District Court in Atlanta. In a 49-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones said Meadows did not meet the legal burden for demonstrating the case should be removed. Attorney Kenneth Chesebro, meanwhile, filed a motion on Tuesday to dismiss the charges against him, as well. He is arguing that his actions were ‘justified’ because he was acting ‘within his capacity as a lawyer’ for the Trump campaign.
Finally, we learned from a report released on Friday that the Georgia-based special grand jury initially recommended indicting more than three dozen people.Twenty-one of those recommendations have not yet been followed. Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-SC); former Sens. David Perdue (R-GA), and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA)., and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn were among those whom the panel recommended for indictment, but were not ultimately charged. Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn was also on the list recommended for indictment.
- Top point to make: As usual, this case is touching on numerous points important for our nation and legal system. For instance, the question of whether to try all defendants together is, at heart, about balancing efficiency and fairness. Trying the defendants together could streamline the legal process and ensure that justice is served efficiently. We must also consider whether every individual defendant receives due attention and consideration. We urge the court to continue to weigh these demands carefully, and to do so with full transparency. Regarding Chesebro’s claims, we should be wary of attempts to claim that actions taken in the capacity of an office can ever be beyond accountability. “Just following orders” is not a suitable excuse for attempting to subvert a legitimate election. It should not be accepted as one. As for the special grand jury’s indictments: we hope that anyone who played a role in trying to overturn the 2020 election is pursued with charges. No one, no matter their name or title, is above the law.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 9/11/23: Trump Moves to Quash Most Charges Against Him in Georgia: “Former President Donald J. Trump asked a judge on Monday to throw out most of the 13 charges against him in the wide-ranging election interference indictment handed up by a grand jury last month in Georgia. A flurry of one-page motions from Mr. Trump’s Georgia lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, piggyback off more expansive recent motions by some of the other 18 defendants in the case, including one filed on behalf of the lawyer Ray Smith III. That motion gives a detailed critique of the 98-page indictment, arguing that its ‘defects’ are ‘voluminous,’ and that it is legally unsound. Among other things, Mr. Smith’s motion says that the charge of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — which all 19 defendants face — seeks to ‘punish protected First Amendment activity’ and fails to ‘sufficiently allege the existence’ of a racketeering enterprise whose goal was to overturn Mr. Trump’s narrow 2020 election loss in the state.”
2. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Faces Impeachment Threats Over Campaign Remarks
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz is wrongly facing impeachment threats from Republican lawmakers over comments she made during her campaign about abortion and redistricting. An impeachment criteria panel has been created to investigate.
This week, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking impeachment. He claims that impeachment would violate the state constitution and “nullify the vote” of more than one million residents. Impeachment would require a simple majority in the Assembly and a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Critics argue that the impeachment threats against Protasiewicz represent selective outrage. Both conservative and liberal justices in Wisconsin have voiced their opinions on contentious issues before, both on and off the campaign trail.
Some officials, including Governor Evers, are claiming the impeachment threat is a part of broader efforts by Republicans to circumvent the will of the people. Republican lawmakers voted to remove the state’s top elections official, Meagan Wolfe, on Thursday.
The moves by the GOP in Wisconsin parallel maneuvers in Florida, where Ron DeSantis suspended two Democratic prosecutors. In Georgia, Republican legislators have said they will pursue unseating Fani Willis.
- Top point to make: The impeachment threats are concerning. Removing an elected official is, and should be, a serious matter. Any attempt to undermine the integrity of the judiciary, especially a politically motivated threat, is potentially a threat against democratic institutions. Voters who participate in the democratic process should know that their choices matter. If they believe that the candidates they elect will be removed due to bias, they may wonder about the legitimacy of the process. That would be a devastating development for our nation. Finally, states, of course, should abide by their own laws. But these laws must be applied consistently. If publicly discussing political issues publicly is not allowed, Wisconsin lawmakers need to enforce this universally.
- If you read one thing: Wisconsin Public Radio, 9/12/23: Lawsuit filed to block potential impeachment of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz: “A former candidate for the state’s highest court filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking Republican lawmakers from impeaching liberal Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, claiming impeachment would violate the state constitution and ‘nullify the vote’ of more than one million residents. Attorney Timothy Burns lost a 2018 state Supreme Court primary to fellow candidate Michael Screnock and current liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet. He is asking the court to issue an injunction blocking Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and other Assembly lawmakers from voting to impeach Protasiewicz or any other justice unless a majority of the court rules constitutional standards have been met. The suit, filed on behalf of two Protasiewicz voters, is in response to comments made by Vos and other Republican legislators signaling that impeachment could be on the table if the justice doesn’t recuse herself from two redistricting lawsuits before the court because of comments she made on the campaign trail calling GOP-drawn voting maps ‘rigged.’”
3. Capitol Riot Fallout: Sentences, Plea Deals, and Supreme Court Challenge Unfold
As discussed last week, former Proud Boys leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years. This week, he revealed that he had considered a plea deal. However, he says prosecutors pushed him to implicate President Donald Trump’s involvement in the Capitol attack. Tarrio claims he did not do so.
InfoWars host Owen Shroyer, meanwhile, was sentenced to 60 days in prison for breaching a restricted area on Jan. 6, 2021, per U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly. Kelly handed down the sentence after contending that Shroyer played a role in “amping up”the mob at a sensitive moment during the riot. Active-duty US Marine Dodge Hellonen, too, was sentenced for his role this week. He received probation and 279 hours of community service. Notably, the judge said the 279 hours of community service was “one hour for every marine who was killed or wounded fighting in the American civil war.”
Finally, the first January 6 cases have reached the Supreme Court. Two men, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, seek Supreme Court intervention to dismiss Capitol breach obstruction charges. The cases revolve around the application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a 2002 law that grew out of the collapse of Enron Corp. At issue is whether a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act can be applied to the Capitol rioters who interrupted congressional proceedings, or whether the statute is confined to the destruction of documents or other evidence.
- Top point to make: Accountability for the January 6 riot is a positive step for protecting our democracy, as long as trials and sentences remain fair and transparent. Legal action against people who incited or participated in the attack on the Capitol, such as InfoWars host Owen Shroyer, is, after all, appropriate, just, and overdue. Extremist groups like the Proud Boys threatened our peace, security, and the legitimacy of our political process on January 6. Our courts are fully justified in curbing their influence and in working to ensure it never happens again.
- If you read one thing: Bloomberg Law, 9/13/23: First Cases From Jan. 6 Capitol Riot Reach US Supreme Court: “Two men want the US Supreme Court to nix Capitol breach obstruction charges against them in the first Jan. 6 cases to reach the justices. Edward Lang and Garrett Miller allegedly entered the Capitol grounds and wrestled police in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden, the Justice Department says. The cases are among more than 200 in which the government is using an Enron-era statute to punish rioters, according to an amicus brief urging the justices to take up their claims. At issue is whether a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the 2002 law that grew out of the collapse of Enron Corp. and other corporate scandals, can be applied to the Capitol rioters who interrupted congressional proceedings, or whether the statute is confined to the destruction of documents or other evidence.”
Expert Voices
Mark Elias for Democracy Docket: “If those who believe in free and fair elections want to stop them, they must act now. States need to act urgently to enact clear laws that forbid private voter challenges. There is no reason for any citizen to have their right to vote challenged or taken away based on a spreadsheet submitted by someone they don’t know and have never met. States should similarly prohibit in person challenges at the polls and ensure partisan observers do not disrupt the voting process. States must also review the open record laws that govern who can obtain state voter file records and what uses can be made of the information… Finally, state and federal prosecutors need to investigate and prosecute schemes to disenfranchise voters. While private plaintiffs currently carry much of the burden for civil litigation protecting voting rights, only government prosecutors can use the criminal laws to ensure free and fair elections. The 2024 election is a little more than a year away. Protecting voting rights is always important. Right now it is urgent.”
Joyce Vance on the classified documents case via Substack: “The situation with Yuscil Taveras helps to make out the case for, at a minimum, holding a hearing to learn more about the conflicts that Nauta and De Oliveira’s lawyers may have, if not having those defendants consult with a neutral lawyer about their situation, as Taveras did. The longer the question goes unanswered, the more potential compromise of those defendants’ rights may occur.”
Robert Yablon, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and co-director of the State Democracy Research Initiative, as quoted in Mother Jones: “I’m not aware of any other judicial impeachment anywhere in the country that was premised on a non-recusal from a case involving campaign supporters or campaign statements… It starts to get into constitutional crisis kind of territory… There’s a major irony here. The only reason that they are in a position to potentially impeach her is because of the maps that they now fear are going to be in jeopardy if she hears the redistricting case. It’s just a vivid illustration of the insidious nature of gerrymandering.”
Katya Jestin, Marcus A.R. Childress and Caroline M. Darmody, to Ken Chesebro, for Just Security: “While you may insist that your memos were at worst a good faith, misguided academic or theoretical exercise in stretching statutory interpretation to its legitimate outer limits, your actions as outlined in the indictment in furtherance of the conspiracy appear to belie such an assertion. Similarly, claims to have been simply acting as a zealous lawyer will likely fall flat with the Georgia and DC jurors. Your own writings appear to suggest that you are someone who was swept up in advocacy for a cause, not a client; the Trump Campaign attorneys have testified that they had disavowed your tactics by the time the false electors met… your presence alongside Alex Jones at the Capitol on January 6th, and your late December email to John Eastman saying ‘odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the [Supreme Court] justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way’ — all may count heavily against you in the eyes of a jury.”
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) on Justice Alito’s reported 2008 luxury fishing trip with billionaire Paul Singer: “He did not recuse himself from this case, and in fact, he used his seat on the Supreme Court after all of this to rule in Singer’s favor. And following the decision, Mr. Singer’s hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion because of this ruling. Not a bad return on investment for a fishing trip there.”
