Skip to main content
Defend Our Country Digest

Defend Our Country Digest — September 19, 2023

By September 19, 2023No Comments

Driving the Day

Must Read Stories

Special Counsel pursues gag order against Trump, obtains his private messages, and fights his relocation efforts

  • New York Times: Special Counsel Seeking Gag Order on Trump in Election Case: “Prosecutors have asked the judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s federal indictment on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election to impose ‘a narrowly tailored’ gag order on him, citing his ‘near-daily’ social media attacks on people involved in the case, according to court papers released on Friday. The request to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of Federal District Court in Washington, who has herself been the subject of some of Mr. Trump’s verbal assaults, brought to a head the simmering issue of the former president’s online statements. In a 19-page motion, prosecutors said that some of the people Mr. Trump has gone after on social media — including the special counsel, Jack Smith, who has filed two indictments against him — have experienced subsequent threats from others. Mr. Trump’s statements, they said, could also affect witnesses and the potential jury pool for the trial, which is scheduled to take place in Washington starting in March.”
  • Salon: “These are not hypothetical considerations”: Prosecutors feared that Trump could spark “violence”: “Federal prosecutors warned in April that Donald Trump’s public disclosure of their efforts to access his Twitter account could spark unrest as his doing so in the past had, newly unsealed court filings show. Notifying Trump of the search warrant ‘could precipitate violence as occurred following the public disclosure of the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago,’ the prosecutors for special counsel Jack Smith warned in the document. Smith also argued that Trump introduces a ‘significant risk of tampering with evidence, seeking to influence or intimidate potential witnesses, and ‘otherwise seriously jeopardizing’ the Government’s ongoing investigations.”
  • New York Times: Special Counsel Obtained 32 Private Messages From Trump’s Twitter Account: “The federal prosecutors who charged former President Donald J. Trump with a criminal conspiracy over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election obtained 32 private messages from his Twitter account through a search warrant this winter as part of their investigation, court papers unsealed on Friday said. Questions have lingered about what prosecutors were looking for in Mr. Trump’s Twitter account ever since it was revealed last month that the government had served the warrant on Twitter in January. In an earlier release of documents, prosecutors disclosed that they had obtained some private messages from Mr. Trump’s account but not how many. The 32 messages, whose content has not been disclosed, were only a small fraction of the larger body of data that Twitter was forced to turn over under the terms of the warrant, the new court papers said. Much of the legal wrangling over the matter focused on the Justice Department’s demand that Twitter, purchased last year by Elon Musk and now known as X, not inform Mr. Trump of the search warrant.”
  • Washington Post: Special counsel fights Trump bid to oust Judge Chutkan from Jan. 6 case: “Prosecutors working with special counsel Jack Smith urged U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on Thursday to deny a request by Donald Trump’s attorneys that she disqualify herself from his federal election obstruction case. The prosecutors said Trump’s team had cherry-picked statements by her out of context and misapplied the law to wrongly argue that she was biased against him. Trump’s defense on Monday asked for Chutkan’s recusal, saying the veteran jurist appeared to have prejudged the former president’s guilt when she noted while sentencing two defendants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack that Trump and other leaders claiming the election was stolen had not been charged with crimes. But prosecutors said in a late-evening court filing that Chutkan was appropriately responding to an argument raised by scores of Capitol attack defendants: that they deserved leniency because they were inspired by or less culpable than others who had not been held responsible, including Trump.”

Georgia case updates: Jeffrey Clark tries to move to federal court, as the nation weighs possible fallout from Mark Meadows’ testimony

  • AP: Ex-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark acted within the scope of official duties in Georgia case, lawyer says: “Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark was acting within the scope of his official duties when he wrote a letter expressing concern about alleged problems with the 2020 election in Georgia, his lawyer said Monday as he sought to move charges against Clark to federal court. Clark is charged along with former President Donald Trump and 17 others, accused of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential election victory and keep the Republican Trump in power. All 19 defendants have pleaded not guilty.”
  • Washington Post: ​Mark Meadows’s Testimony in Georgia Case May Have Done Him No Favors: “One morning last month in an Atlanta federal courtroom, Mark Meadows, former President Donald J. Trump’s final chief of staff, was in the hot seat. And he was the one who had put himself there. Mr. Meadows’s lawyer had made the surprise move of asking his client to testify in an effort to have the Georgia election interference case against him moved to federal court, a venue where his chances of acquittal, or even having the case thrown out, may be a bit better than in the state court where he has been charged. At issue was whether his actions — as described in the indictment of Mr. Trump, Mr. Meadows and 17 others in Fulton County, Ga., last month — could be considered within the scope of his duties as White House chief of staff. Mr. Meadows made the case for that under questioning by his lawyer, but he hit a snag when a prosecutor asked whether he had “any role” in coordinating the bogus electors who were used in a last-ditch effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election. ‘No, I did not,’ he replied.”
  • CNN: Judge is skeptical of Trump-era DOJ official Jeffrey Clark’s bid to move Georgia election charges to federal court: “A federal judge during a hearing Monday was skeptical of former Trump-era Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark’s efforts to move his Georgia election subversion case to federal court. The case stems from Clark’s efforts to use his senior role at the Justice Department to help former President Donald Trump overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election despite the objections of his bosses. Clark wasn’t present at the hearing, an absence that became especially notable after US District Judge Steve Jones said he would not accept a sworn statement from Clark as evidence in the case. The hearing ended after about three hours with no ruling from the judge, who seemed visibly frustrated and annoyed at times, with his probing questions directed at one of Clark’s attorneys at one point leading Trump attorney Steve Sadow, who was in the courtroom, to whisper, ‘This is not good.’”
  • Washington Post: Trump Says He Hopes Meadows Will Remain ‘Loyal’ to Him in Election Case: “Former President Donald J. Trump said he hoped Mark Meadows — his final White House chief of staff and a co-defendant in a sweeping racketeering indictment in Georgia stemming from efforts to thwart the 2020 election — was still ‘loyal’ to him. Mr. Trump made his comment during a lengthy interview with Kristen Welker, the new moderator of NBC’s ‘Meet The Press,’ broadcast on Sunday morning. Mr. Trump has been warned by the federal judge in a case also stemming from his efforts to stay in office, brought against him by the special counsel Jack Smith, to avoid saying anything that might affect the testimony of witnesses. His comment about Mr. Meadows could attract new interest. A lawyer for Mr. Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

In The States

TEXAS: Texas Senate acquits state’s attorney General Ken Paxton on all corruption charges after May impeachment

  • Texas Tribune: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton acquitted on all 16 articles of impeachment: “The Texas Senate on Saturday acquitted Attorney General Ken Paxton of 16 articles of impeachment alleging corruption and bribery, his most artful escape in a career spent courting controversy and skirting consequences of scandal. No article received more than 14 of the required 21 votes to convict. Only two of 19 Republican Senators, Bob Nichols of Jacksonville and Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, voted in favor of convicting for any article — a stark contrast to the more than 70% of House Republicans who impeached the attorney general in May. Paxton, who attended just two days of the trial and was not present to witness his exoneration, was characteristically defiant. ‘The sham impeachment coordinated by the Biden Administration with liberal House Speaker Dade Phelan and his kangaroo court has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, disrupted the work of the Office of Attorney General and left a dark and permanent stain on the Texas House,’ Paxton said in a statement. ‘The weaponization of the impeachment process to settle political differences is not only wrong, it is immoral and corrupt.’”
  • New York Times: Behind Paxton’s Impeachment, a Republican Battle for Control of Texas: “The impeachment trial of Ken Paxton that ended in his acquittal on Saturday was about more than the fate of the Texas attorney general. It was also the most dramatic flashpoint in a yearslong struggle among Republican leaders in the Legislature over control of the party and the future direction of the state. The trial occurred only because a majority of Republicans in the Texas House voted in May to impeach Mr. Paxton, sending charges of bribery and abuse of office to the State Senate. Constitutionally obligated to hold a trial, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the staunchly conservative politician who sits at the head of the Senate, vowed to do so impartially. But after the voting was done on Saturday, and Republican state senators decided overwhelmingly against removing Mr. Paxton from office, the lieutenant governor lashed out at the Texas House, whose Republican members are more moderate. He accused them of wasting “millions of dollars” and called for a ‘full audit’ of public spending on the case since March, when the House investigation began, as well as stricter impeachment rules in the Texas Constitution.”

WISCONSIN: Republican lawmakers move to remove the state’s top elections official, pass redistricting bill, and threaten to impeach newly elected state supreme court justice

  • New York Times: Wisconsin Republicans Vote to Oust Top Elections Official: “Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate voted on Thursday to remove the state’s elections chief, escalating a fight over who can determine the leader of a group that will supervise the elections next year in the battleground state. Meagan Wolfe, who has served as the nonpartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator since she was appointed in 2018 and confirmed unanimously by the State Senate in 2019, is suing to keep her post and plans to continue in the role while the issue plays out in the courts. Democrats in the state have sharply criticized the decision, saying that it is not within the Legislature’s power to remove an elections administrator. ‘It’s unfortunate that political pressures have forced a group of our lawmakers to embrace unfounded rumors about my leadership, my role in the commission and our system of elections,’ Ms. Wolfe said at a news conference on Thursday afternoon. ‘I’ve said it multiple times, and I’ll say it again: Elections in Wisconsin are run with integrity. They are fair, and they are accurate.’”
  • CNN: Wisconsin Assembly advances redistricting bill in effort to bypass state Supreme Court: “The Republican-controlled Wisconsin State Assembly has voted to change how the state’s legislative maps are drawn – a major shift in strategy as Republicans face the possibility that the new liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court could throw out the current electoral maps, which give the GOP an advantage. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos introduced the redistricting plan Tuesday in a surprise move. The bill went straight to a vote Thursday without a public hearing, drawing the ire of Democrats. The plan directs the staff of the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau to redraw maps and establishes a redistricting advisory committee composed of five members. If approved, the state Senate majority and minority leaders and the state Assembly speaker and minority leader would each appoint one person to the commission. The four political appointees would together appoint the fifth member to serve as chairperson.”
  • Associated Press: Republican legislatures flex muscles to keep power in closely divided North Carolina and Wisconsin: “In 2020, North Carolina seemed the model of an evenly-divided swing state. Then-President Donald Trump barely won, beating Democrat Joe Biden by just over a percentage point. Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, won reelection by a relatively comfortable 5 points. Even last year, as Republicans won two seats on the state Supreme Court, North Carolina’s congressional delegation split evenly between Democrats and the GOP. But it’s the Republican Party that is making the decisions in the state, thanks to recent seat gains in the legislature and aggressive stances from GOP lawmakers. It has passed voting changes over Democrats’ objections and this week could vote to wrest power from the governor over how the state’s elections are run.”

ARIZONA: Judge blocks state from enforcing provisions of Arizona’s voter suppression law

  • KTAR: Federal judge strikes down 2 Arizona voting proof-of-citizenship laws: “A Wednesday court ruling could make it easier for Arizonans to register to vote. That’s because U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton struck down key elements of two Arizona laws that expanded requirements for voters to prove their citizenship status. One of them, House Bill 2492, disallowed Arizonans from registering to vote without proof of citizenship. Former Gov. Doug Ducey wrote H.B. 2492 into law in March 2022. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division called those requirements ‘onerous.’ ‘House Bill 2492’s onerous documentary proof of citizenship requirement for certain federal elections constitutes a textbook violation of the National Voter Registration Act,’ she said in a statement. Passed in 1993, the NVRA required states to accept federal forms on their own from voters. However, after H.B. 2492, Arizonans couldn’t register to vote with federal forms alone. Election officials turned them away if the federal forms weren’t accompanied by proof of citizenship.”

What Experts Are Saying

Joyce Vance on X (Twitter): “In Texas, partisanship Trump’s GOP commitment to ethics in governance as state AG Ken Paxton is acquitted on all charges in his impeachment. He remains under indictment in a trial delayed years by procedural motions.”

Andrew O’Hehir for Salon: “Of course it’s exceedingly unlikely that Trump will get both U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan (who is overseeing Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump) and New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron (in charge of the New York civil trial that could destroy Trump’s business empire) disqualified or ousted or subjected to whatever gothic punishments the ex-president’s mind may devise. But in both directions Trump is following a strategy — although that’s really not the right word — that has served him well innumerable times in the past: Divert the media’s attention by saying outrageous things that make him look dangerous or unhinged but are probably unprosecutable, while also deploying teams of unlikely-to-be-paid attorneys to sniff out and exploit every possible legal loophole that can delay the hour of reckoning by another few days (or months, or years).“

Lisa Rubin on X (Twitter): “Trump’s insistence to… [ NBC’s Kristen Welker]… that he could have but did not pardon himself during his last presidency is especially funny given that he could not have pardoned himself for the crimes charged in the classified docs case. Why? Because the charged conduct did not occur until after he was no longer president. A president can charge uncharged crimes—but not ones that have not yet happened.”

Arekia Bennett-Scott for Democracy Docket: “Today, Mississippians are one step closer to justice thanks to a historic court ruling last month. In early August, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down our state’s long and oppressive history of lifetime felony disenfranchisement laws, which have rendered one in 10 Mississippians ineligible to vote. This momentous decision represents a significant advancement in the fight for equal voting rights and civic participation, reaffirming the fundamental principle that every citizen’s voice should be heard and valued. Felony disenfranchisement laws have had a devastating impact on our communities, perpetuating systemic racism and undermining the principles of democracy. The court’s ruling acknowledges the importance of restoring the full rights and dignity of individuals convicted of certain crimes who have paid their debt to society, giving them a chance to be active participants in shaping the future of their state.”

Noah Bookbinder about the government’s motion to ensure that Trump’s extrajudicial statements do not prejudice the DC case, on X (Twitter): “Prosecutors and the judge are in a difficult position, but Donald Trump’s statements risk not only influencing the jury pool, but also endangering people. They have little choice but to act even given the sensitivities in this case.”

Headlines

MAGA and the threat to 2024 Elections

Washington Post: Lawmakers are spending way more to keep themselves safe. Is it enough?

Trump investigations

Axios: Trump says he does not worry about possible jail time in criminal cases

Atlanta News First: Another Trump co-defendant wants Fulton case sent to federal court

January 6 and the 2020 Elections

The Independent: Trump says ‘liberal jews’ voted to ‘destroy America’ as he refuses to answer Jan 6 question

USA Today: Jan. 6 defendants bring cases to Supreme Court. Here’s what it could mean for Donald Trump

The Hill: Trump refuses to say if he watched Jan. 6 attack unfold at Capitol

Opinion

The Hill: Alito wasn’t bluffing: He believes the Supreme Court is above the law

New York Times: I Was Attacked by Trump and Musk. It Was a Strategy to Change What You See Online.

The Hill: With Paxton acquittal, Texas conservatives flex their muscles

Salon: Donald Trump keeps confessing to new crimes

The Hill: The new GOP: If you’re indicted, you’re invited!

In the States

The Plain Dealer: Ohio redistricting still held up over GOP leadership squabble

Associated Press: A Supreme Court redistricting ruling gave hope to Black voters. They’re still waiting for new maps

Michigan Advance: Michigan has made big strides on voting rights. Here’s what to expect next.