Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
This week we saw more legal maneuvers involving former President Trump, more troubling allegations surrounding already embattled Congressman George Santos (R-NY), and more high-profile fights for voting rights.
In Trump’s federal trials, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors submitted motions to force Trump’s lawyers to divulge their defense strategy. They also worked to protect jurors from potential future harassment. Simultaneously, Trump’s civil fraud trial continued. On Wednesday, a retired bank official testified that Trump obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in loans using financial statements that a court has since deemed fraudulent. Allen H. Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, took the witness stand on Tuesday and Thursday. Later, the attorney general is expected to call Patrick Birney, a junior employee at the Trump Organization, to testify and possibly Michael Cohen.
In Congress, meanwhile, Rep. Santos was charged with an additional 10 counts, including wire fraud and identity theft. This is on top of his 13 existing charges. At present, Santos is vowing not to step down from his position.
In North Carolina, two organizations have filed a lawsuit to stop the Republican supermajority in the state from implementing new voting restrictions.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Trump’s Federal Trials: Dueling Strategies and Concerns for Juror Privacy
Trump’s lawyers continue to try to delay the federal trials he is facing until after the 2024 election. In court papers, they lashed out at Special Counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday, accusing his office of violating Trump’s due process. They argue that Smith is seeking to obtain a guilty verdict against Trump before Election Day in the two federal cases he is facing “no matter the cost.”
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday to force Trump to tell them in advance whether he intends to defend himself by blaming his lawyers for their poor legal advice after the 2020 election. Trump and his current team of lawyers have “repeatedly and publicly announced” that they were going to use such arguments as “a central component of his defense.” Prosecutors argue he should have to formally announce this intention. In a motion, the prosecutors sought an order that would compel Trump to tell them his strategy by Dec. 18.
Smith’s team has also encouraged Chutkan to authorize a questionnaire to begin screening potential jurors in early February, about a month before the case is scheduled to go to trial. That process would help weed out potential jurors who express an inability to participate in the case or judge the matter fairly. It would also, however, expose their identities to the attorneys in the case. Accordingly, prosecutors urged Judge Chutkan to take steps to protect the identity of prospective jurors. They cited Trump’s “continued use of social media as a weapon of intimidation in court proceedings.”
Lastly, Smith’s team revealed that dozens of witnesses who were interviewed in the federal investigation withheld information on the basis of assertions of attorney-client privilege.
- Top point to make: We should remember that our justice system depends on timely accountability. A trial delay, especially a long one like Trump’s lawyers recommend, would potentially disrupt this. The prosecution’s efforts to prevent this are commendable. Meanwhile, the need for juror protections is troubling, but understandable. Online attacks and intimidation tactics can impact legal proceedings and potentially obstruct justice. The prosecution’s request will help ensure a fair and unbiased legal process. These trials must be secure from external influences that could undermine their legitimacy.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 10/11/23: Trump’s Lawyers Lash Out Over Timing of His Federal Trials: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump lashed out at the special counsel, Jack Smith, on Wednesday, accusing his office of violating Mr. Trump’s due process rights by seeking to obtain a guilty verdict against him before Election Day in the two federal cases he is facing ‘no matter the cost.’ The lacerating comments were contained in court papers in which the lawyers reasserted their request to delay, until after the 2024 election, Mr. Trump’s trial in Florida on charges of mishandling classified documents. In some of the strongest language he has used so far, Christopher M. Kise, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, assailed the special counsel’s office for opposing his attempts to delay the documents trial. Mr. Kise said in the filing that the proceeding, which is set to start in May, could conflict with Mr. Trump’s other federal trial. In that trial, which is scheduled to begin in March in Washington, the former president stands accused of three conspiracies to overturn the results of the 2020 election.”
2. Rep. George Santos Faces 23 New Charges, Including Identity Theft and Campaign Finance Fraud
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday filed a new array of charges against Representative George Santos of New York. The congressman is accused of stealing the identities and credit card details of donors to his campaign. The new accusations were made in a 23-count superseding indictment that explained how Santos had charged his donors’ credit cards “repeatedly, without their authorization.” Santos then allegedly distributed the money to his and other candidates’ campaigns… and to his own bank account. The new indictment added 10 charges against Santos in total: conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, false statements to the Federal Election Commission and falsifying records to obstruct the commission.
Those allegations came on top of the 13 charges he received in a federal indictment earlier this year. Those charges included wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and lying to Congress.
For his part, Santos remains defiant. He says he will not accept a plea deal. Santos claims that none of the 23 charges against him had any merit, contending that he would fight them all in court and battle calls for his expulsion. “I’m going to continue to fight this as much as I said in the past. Nothing has changed… I think I’ve made it clear that I will fight this to prove my innocence. So yeah, I’m pretty much denying every last bit of charges,” the Congressman said to reporters on Wednesday.
- Top point to make: Like Santos’ previous charges, these new charges are serious allegations of criminal conduct. The accusations of stealing identities and credit card details of campaign donors raise concerns about potential corruption. Charges related to falsifying records and obstructing the Federal Election Commission are, if anything, even more egregious. When an elected official is charged with a crime, it could undermine trust in the democratic process. We hope that our legal system provides a fair and transparent process, to shed light on, and provide closure for, this unfortunate situation.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 10/10/23: Santos Faces New Charges Accusing Him of Lies and Credit Card Fraud: “Federal prosecutors on Tuesday filed a significant array of additional charges against Representative George Santos of New York, accusing him of new criminal schemes, including stealing the identities and credit card details of donors to his campaign. The new accusations were made in a 23-count superseding indictment that laid out how Mr. Santos had charged his donors’ credit cards “repeatedly, without their authorization,” distributing the money to his and other candidates’ campaigns and to his own bank account. The new indictment filed in the Eastern District of New York added 10 charges against Mr. Santos: conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, false statements to the Federal Election Commission and falsifying records to obstruct the commission.”
3. Legal Battle Erupts Over Controversial North Carolina Election Law as Organizations Challenge Restrictions on Voting Rights
Two organizations, the Democratic National Committee and the North Carolina Democratic Party, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging a recently enacted North Carolina election law. This lawsuit targets various aspects of Senate Bill 747, which was passed by the Republican supermajority. The organizations are fighting against provisions in the bill that create additional requirements for photo identification and address verification. According to these provisions, if voters choose to register on the same day but fail to have their submitted information verified in time, their ballots could be invalidated.
Progressive advocates and election experts warn the changes risk creating dysfunction in 2024. Democratic Governor Roy Cooper has said they “could doom our state’s elections to gridlock and severely limit early voting.” The legislation, he said in his veto of the bill last month, “also creates a grave risk that Republican legislators or courts would be empowered to change the results of an election if they don’t like the winner.”
Republicans, meanwhile, contend the bill helps guarantee elections will be run fairly by establishing bipartisan election boards that will take politics out of the process. The lawsuit was filed minutes after the GOP-controlled legislature successfully overrode Cooper’s veto.
- Top point to make: We should be making the ballot more accessible, not making it harder for Americans to vote. Accordingly, we appreciate the efforts of these organizations in trying to protect same-day registration and other policies that empower voters. The North Carolina bill exploits unfounded fears about the security of voting for partisan gain, which serves to make our nation weaker. Indeed, the provision allowing intimidating poll observers could well make voting less secure. Such actions should be challenged. A democracy is only as secure as its voters are.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 10/10/23: North Carolina Republicans override governor’s veto on key election law: “North Carolina Republican lawmakers on Tuesday overrode the Democratic governor’s veto of a bill that overhauls who runs elections and achieves a long-sought goal of the state’s GOP. The legislation creates bipartisan boards that could deadlock on establishing early voting locations or certifying results in a state that may prove crucial in next year’s presidential election. Democrats and election experts warn the changes risk creating dysfunction in 2024, with Gov. Roy Cooper saying they “could doom our state’s elections to gridlock and severely limit early voting.” The legislation, he said in his veto of the bill last month, ‘also creates a grave risk that Republican legislators or courts would be empowered to change the results of an election if they don’t like the winner.’ Republicans contend the bill helps guarantee elections will be run fairly by establishing bipartisan election boards that will take politics out of the process.”
Expert Voices
Special Counsel Jack Smith, in a filing on the classified documents case against Trump, on Monday: “The defendants provide no credible justification to postpone a trial that is still seven months away… The Government has provided the defendants extensive, prompt, and well-organized unclassified discovery, yielding an exhaustive roadmap of proof of the detailed allegations in the superseding indictment. The vast majority of classified discovery is also available to the defendants… There is no reason to adjourn the trial date. The defendants’ motion should be denied.”
Noah Bookbinder on X (Twitter): “Rep. George Santos’ outrageous and deceptive conduct has now resulted in a much expanded new indictment. His continued presence in Congress is an embarrassment and a disservice to his constituents. He needs to resign.”
Joyce Vance: “No matter how Trump’s lawyers try to dress it up and normalize it, it’s criminal conduct. Sure, Trump can have conversations with people, but when they’re about trying to change the results of an election he’s lost, they cross the line and are no longer within the official governing duties of a president, not even within the outer edges of its periphery.”
Katherine Stewart, author on books about political extremism, to Salon: “The survey data should disturb everybody. Because when you ask people if it is justified to use political violence to overthrow the regime, a significant percentage are ready to take up arms. According to a 2021 Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, 41 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of independents and 23 percent of Democrats say violence against the government is sometimes justified. Moreover, according to the University of Chicago’s Project on Security & Threats, 10 percent of American adults said they believe the government is run by Satan-worshipping pedophiles, and a quarter said they believe in the Great Replacement conspiracy. The mainstreaming of this type of disinformation and conspiracism creates a permission structure for violence.”
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, for Democracy Docket: “The time is now for Black voters to be fairly accounted for and fully heard. Black voters should be able to meaningfully participate in the political process. We need legislators that can speak to our communities’ challenges to represent us and when we speak about our concerns — they listen. Black voters in the 1st Congressional District have already had to vote under an unconstitutional map once, during last year’s midterm elections, and should not have to continue to endure this indignity.”
