Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
From alarming security threats to questions about corruption and criminal activity at the highest echelons of power, it was another packed week of news.
Leading off, there is a new and concerning development related to the security of our elections. The discovery of hazardous substances in letters sent to various election offices is leading to investigations and operational disruptions.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has taken a significant step by issuing its first-ever statement of ethics. The new code has sparked discussions about its implications and its perceived inadequacies.
Finally, former President Donald Trump’s legal team is pushing for live telecasting of his trial. This request is facing resistance from prosecutors, who fear it could turn the trial into a spectacle.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Suspicious Letters with Traces of Fentanyl Sent to Election Offices in Five States, Prompting Investigations and Disruptions
Authorities are investigating suspicious letters in at least five states. These letters were mailed to election offices. At least one of the letters contained trace amounts of the deadly drug fentanyl in a field test. This finding forced evacuations, and in some cases temporarily disrupted ballot counting after last week’s elections. Secretaries of State in Nevada, California, Washington state, Georgia, and Oregon all confirmed that election offices in their states had received the letters. They say law enforcement, including the FBI, is investigating the matter. There have been no reports of anyone suffering ill health effects, and the substances found in the letters are still being lab-tested.
- Top point to make: This is a distressing situation. The use of a harmful substance like fentanyl in these letters is an extreme form of intimidation and a direct attack on the democratic process. The ongoing threats and harassment faced by election workers since 2020, now escalated to lethal methods, underscore the urgent need for more action. The involvement of the FBI indicates the severity of the threat to the electoral process. We need strong measures to safeguard these individuals and ensure that election processes are not hindered by such threats. There should be thorough investigations to hold those responsible accountable.
- If you read one thing: Associated Press, 11/0/23: Local election workers have been under siege since 2020. Now they face fentanyl-laced letters: “While workers were counting ballots for primary elections in August, the elections office in King County, Washington, received a suspicious envelope that turned out to contain trace amounts of fentanyl. It happened again this week, and not just in Washington state, where the office was processing ballots from the general election and had to be evacuated. Election offices in at least five states were sent threatening mail, some containing the potentially deadly drug, authorities say. Authorities were working to intercept any additional letters still in the mail system, including one bound for Atlanta’s Fulton County, the largest voting jurisdiction in one of the nation’s most important presidential swing states. Officials said Friday afternoon the letter sent to the Georgia office had been located.”
2. Supreme Court Issues First Ethics Statement Amid Criticism for Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its first-ever statement of ethics. A statement from the Court said that while “for the most part” the guidelines are not new, they were necessary for the public. The absence of an ethics code “has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”
The justices, however, did not explain how the code would work or who would enforce it. The statement did acknowledge the Court might need additional resources to “perform initial and ongoing review of recusal and other ethics issues.” Experts were skeptical, with many saying that the lack of an enforcement mechanism means that the code will operate on the honor system.
Democrats and some outside advocates have spent months backing legislation to impose recusal standards, an ethics complaint review process, and more changes to the court. None of these were included in the court’s 14-page code. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the main Senate backer of Supreme Court ethics legislation, said the code has no teeth.
- Top point to make: The Supreme Court’s move is a necessary step in the right direction. This is a positive step towards promoting accountability and transparency in one of the nation’s highest democratic institutions. But it will be pointless unless implementation, enforcement, and continuous improvement of these ethical guidelines are better emphasized. If this doesn’t happen, the code will not be adequate in ensuring judicial integrity and promoting public trust.
- If you read one thing: Roll Call, 11/14/23: Supreme Court ethics code doesn’t satisfy Democratic appetite for legislation: “The Supreme Court’s announcement of its first code of conduct Monday did little to damper the Democratic drive to pass legislation to bind the justices with a set of tighter ethics rules. Democrats and some outside advocates have spent months backing legislation to impose recusal standards, an ethics complaint review process and more changes to the court — none of which was included in the court’s 14-page code. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., the main Senate backer of Supreme Court ethics legislation, called the code ‘a chink in their armor of indifference’ but said it had no teeth because it lacks enforcement provisions and only says justices ‘should’ act a certain way.”
3. Trump’s Lawyers Demand Live Telecast of D.C. Trial, Citing Public Accountability, Despite Opposition from Prosecutors
Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked Judge Chutkan to permit his D.C. federal trial to be televised live from the courtroom. In a filing, they wrote, “President Trump absolutely agrees, and in fact demands, that these proceedings should be fully televised.” The filing also included several of Trump’s criticisms that his case is illegitimate and that he is being deprived of his rights. A televised trial, they argued, would provide public accountability. Several media organizations have made similar requests.
The request, however, is likely to face an uphill battle. Federal rules of criminal procedure generally prohibit cameras in federal courtrooms. The special counsel’s office pushed back, as well. On Monday, prosecutors wrote in a filing that Trump’s bid is “a transparent effort to demand special treatment, try his case in the courtroom of public opinion, and turn his trial into a media event.” They also told the court that broadcasting the trial could create a spectacle that may invite witness intimidation.
- Top point to make: This is a complex issue. On one hand, there’s the potential benefit of transparency and public engagement with the legal process. On the other, there’s a significant risk that the trial could be used as a platform for misinformation and spectacle. Instead of promoting accountability, it could detract from it. Given Trump’s history of misinformation, this is a legitimate concern. The question of televising the trial demands a careful, balanced approach to ensure that the trial serves the interests of justice and democracy, rather than personal or political agendas.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 11/11/23: Trump Asks Judge to Televise Federal Election Trial: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump have told a judge that she should permit his trial on federal charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election to be televised live from the courtroom. It was the first time that Mr. Trump has formally weighed in on the issue of whether to broadcast any of the four criminal trials he is facing. His motion to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal election trial in Washington, came after similar requests made by several media organizations and was filed late on Friday. A judge in Georgia who is handling Mr. Trump’s state election subversion case has said that proceedings will be televised. But the request to Judge Chutkan is likely to face an uphill battle given that federal rules of criminal procedure — and the Supreme Court — generally prohibit cameras in federal courtrooms.”
Expert Voices
Heather Digby Parton on Trump’s extremist rhetoric, for Salon: “Today, Trump is on the stump threatening daily to exact revenge on his political enemies, which includes Democrats, the press, election officials, the Department of Justice and anyone else he believes has crossed him. It is the main theme of his campaign. But calling these enemies vermin takes it to a whole new level and one which has even more resonance than usual with the current discussion of antisemitism. He’s now blatantly using the language of Nazi Germany to degrade and dehumanize Jews in the 1930s. If I had to guess, I would say that Trump didn’t come up with that word himself. He’s more of a ‘rats’ guy than a ‘vermin’ guy when it comes to rhetoric. And the fact that he repeated the exact phrase from the teleprompter at a rally later in the day on Saturday indicates that it was a speech writer’s work not his own, although it certainly reflects his feelings on the matter. I suspect it was either written or inspired by his right hand fascist, Stephen Miller, featured heavily in yet another chilling article in the New York Times about the Trump agenda for his second term.”
Michael Podhorzer on the Ezra Klein Show: “There’s just the collapse in confidence in American institutions generally. And that has been happening for the last 20 years, at least. Whoever is president is actually the head of one of those institutions that people have lost faith in, which is why for three quarters of the time for Bush, Obama, Trump, and, Biden their approval ratings have been underwater, except during the 9/11 bump and in the first couple of months after they get elected. That is just the permanent state of presidential approval in the 21st century. And so we’re not seeing a different thing, really.”
Amanda Marcotte for Salon: “So this ridiculous ‘code of ethics’ serves to expose how much the justices don’t understand — refuse to understand, really — why it is that most Americans hate them so much. It’s not just the payola, but what it represents: an imperious court stacked with far-right justices who have become petty tyrants. Men (and one woman) who not only believe they are above basic rules, but that the rest of us should be forced into servitude to a fundamentalist Christian belief system. If it were just the bribe-taking, most people wouldn’t care so much. But it’s that the money serves the larger goal of stripping basic rights away from most Americans.”
Andrew Weissmann on Judge Cannon’s recent ruling regarding trial date for document case, on X (Twitter): “This doesn’t change my opinion of Cannon one iota; by allowing Trump to later move to delay the trial, but keeping the date for now, she is blocking Fani Willis from scheduling her trial on the current FLA date. And Cannon has substantially delayed the dates for all FLA filings.”
Norm Eisen, Tom Joscelyn, and Fred Wertheimer for Just Security: “On Monday, the government’s lawyers filed an opposition to the Trump defense team’s attempt to strike mentions of ‘the actions at the Capitol on January 6, 2021’ from the federal indictment. Trump’s lawyers argued that he is not charged with ‘responsibility’ for those actions and all references to them should be stricken from the indictment because they are supposedly prejudicial and inflammatory. Smith’s team fired back, describing Trump’s argument as ‘disingenuous’ and laying blame for the Capitol attack squarely on the former president’s shoulders. The government’s lawyers write that Trump’s argument is a ‘meritless effort to evade the indictment’s clear allegations’ that the former president is ‘responsible for events at the Capitol on January 6.’”
