Skip to main content
Defend Our Country Digest

Defend Our Country Digest — November 30, 2023

By November 30, 2023No Comments

Driving the Day

Must Read Stories

In his defense, Trump still questioning the results of the 2020 election

  • New York Times: Trump Seeks to Use Trial to Challenge Findings That 2020 Election Was Fair: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump said in court papers that they planned to question the findings of several government agencies that the 2020 election was conducted fairly as part of their efforts to defend Mr. Trump against federal charges that he sought to overturn the results of the race. The lawyers also suggested in the papers that they intended to raise a host of distractions as part of their defense, indicating that they want to drag unrelated matters like Hunter Biden’s criminal prosecution and the investigation into former Vice President Mike Pence’s handling of classified documents into the election interference case.”
  • Washington Post: In D.C. 2020 election case, Trump demands information on U.S. government: “Donald Trump’s attorneys are seeking a vast trove of information about how the U.S. government investigated both him and his allegations of voter fraud in 2020 — the latest sign that the former president and 2024 Republican front-runner will fight charges in D.C. of election obstruction by relying on his unfounded allegation that President Biden’s victory was “stolen” and other baseless conspiratorial claims. In court papers filed Monday, Trump’s legal team sought permission to compel prosecutors to turn over reams of information on the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack from the FBI, national security and election integrity units of the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Capitol Police, the Defense Department, the D.C. police department, the National Guard, and members of Congress.”

Pence reportedly talks to Jan. 6 counsel about Trump’s push towards “constitutional crisis”

  • ABC: Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: “Speaking with special counsel Jack Smith’s team earlier this year, former Vice President Mike Pence offered harrowing details about how, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, then-President Donald Trump surrounded himself with ‘crank’ attorneys, espoused ‘un-American’ legal theories, and almost pushed the country toward a ‘constitutional crisis,’ according to sources familiar with what Pence told investigators. The sources said Pence also told investigators he’s ‘sure’ that — in the days before Jan. 6, 2021, when a violent mob tried to stop Congress from certifying the election — he informed Trump he still hadn’t seen evidence of significant election fraud, but Trump was unmoved, continuing to claim the election was ‘stolen’ and acting ‘recklessly’ on that ’tragic day.’”
  • Vanity Fair: Mike Pence: My Son Had to Remind Me Not to Let Trump Steal the Election: “Trump, based on what Pence reportedly told prosecutors, seemed to be aware that what he was asking his veep to do was illegal. In his book, Pence wrote that he told Trump on Christmas 2020: “You know, I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome” of the election. But, pressed by prosecutors about the comma in that sentence, Pence reportedly said he had meant to write, “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome”—implying Pence had already made clear he did not believe he could throw out electors, as his boss wanted him to do.”

Rep. George Santos anticipates expulsion vote following Ethics Committee’s report

  • Reuters: US House to vote on expulsion of indicted Republican George Santos on Thursday: “The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Thursday on whether to expel Republican George Santos, who has been engulfed in scandal since his 2022 election and charged with corruption, House Speaker Mike Johnson said. Several lawmakers have introduced motions targeting the first-term lawmaker after a report by his House colleagues suggested that federal prosecutors should bring additional charges against Santos, 35, who fabricated large aspects of his life story in his election campaign. The motion requires a two-thirds majority in the House, which Republicans control by a narrow 222-213 majority.”
  • Washington Post: Speaker Johnson expresses ‘real reservations’ about the motion to expel Santos: “House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Wednesday expressed ‘real reservations’ about a motion to expel embattled Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) and said that lawmakers would be free to ‘vote their conscience’ during a floor vote that could come as soon as Thursday. ‘We’ve not whipped the vote, and we wouldn’t,’ Johnson told reporters. ‘I trust that people will make that decision thoughtfully and in good faith. I personally have real reservations about doing this. I’m concerned about a precedent that may be set for that.’”
  • New York Times: Democrats Pressure Republicans to Vote This Week to Expel Santos: “House Democrats on Tuesday moved to force a vote this week on whether to expel Representative George Santos of New York from office, a strategic effort to prevent Republican leadership from slow-rolling any bid to push one of their own out of office. The Democratic effort, led by Representatives Robert Garcia of California and Dan Goldman of New York, comes shortly after another resolution introduced this month by the Republican chairman of the House Ethics Committee, following its scathing report that found “substantial evidence” that Mr. Santos, a Republican, had violated the law. When the ethics chairman, Representative Michael Guest of Mississippi, introduced his resolution on Nov. 17, he did so without attaching a timeline. Since then, Republicans have debated whether to shield or expel Mr. Santos, aware that either path could come with grave costs.”

In the States

TEXAS: The entire 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will reconsider its Voting Rights Act precedent over Galveston County voting map 

  • The Guardian: Rightwing appeals court to consider Texas map in fresh threat to Voting Rights Act: “The rightwing fifth circuit court of appeals has agreed to consider an electoral redistricting case emerging from Galveston county, Texas, a move that poses a fresh threat to the Voting Rights Act – the signature legislation of the civil rights movement. In an order released from their base in New Orleans, Louisiana, on Tuesday, the court’s 17 active judges have agreed to consider a challenge to the way the act is used to protect the voting rights of citizens of color. Six of the judges were appointed by Donald Trump. The court’s decision to hear the case en banc – in front of its full bench – could have serious implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act. An adverse ruling could deliver yet another blow to the country’s prime legal safeguard of access to the ballot box for Black and Latino voters.”

ARIZONA: Supreme Court denies Arizona lawmakers’ attempt to avoid depositions in voting lawsuit

  • New York Times: Arizona Legislators Must Testify About Voting Laws, Supreme Court Rules: “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that two Arizona lawmakers must testify about their reasons for supporting state laws requiring proof of citizenship for voting in federal elections. The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. No dissents were noted. The Justice Department, the Democratic National Committee, civil rights groups, and others had challenged the state laws, saying they violated federal laws and had been enacted with a discriminatory purpose. After Arizona’s attorney general, Kris Mayes, a Democrat, declined to defend aspects of the laws, Ben Toma, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, and Warren Petersen, the president of the Arizona Senate, both Republicans, intervened to defend it.”

OHIO: State Supreme Court dismisses three long-running redistricting lawsuits against state legislative maps

  • Ohio Capital Journal: Ohio Supreme Court dismisses redistricting challenge, leaving Statehouse maps in place: “In a drastic change from previous rulings, a partisan majority on the Ohio Supreme Court chose to leave Statehouse redistricting maps in place for 2024 and beyond, denying a challenge to the constitutionality of the newest maps. In a 4-3 ruling released Monday evening, right-wing justices on the court pointed to the bipartisan support of the district maps adopted in September as one reason to dismiss challenges filed by the ACLU and anti-gerrymandering groups. ‘The bipartisan adoption of the September 2023 plan is a changed circumstance that makes it appropriate to relinquish our continuing jurisdiction over these cases,’ Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, along with fellow justices Patrick Fischer, Patrick DeWine, and Joseph Deters. That bipartisan support ‘means that it is effective for the 2024-through-2030 election cycles,’ the majority wrote.

GEORGIA: Lawmakers meet to redraw political maps that disenfranchised Black voters

  • Georgia Recorder: Georgia lawmakers back at Capitol to redraw political maps to comply with Voting Rights Act: “It’s back to Atlanta and back to the drawing board for Georgia legislators, who are set to gavel in for a special session Wednesday after a federal judge ruled the redistricting maps they produced in 2021 did not protect the rights of Black voters. Lawmakers will take another crack at creating voter maps for Georgia’s 14 Congressional seats, 180 state representatives, and 56 senators. What they produce will determine the state’s political balance until the next redistricting session after the 2030 U.S. Census. This time around, citizens can express their opinions on a new page of the Legislature’s website as well as read comments made by other Georgians.”
  • Associated Press: Georgia Senate Republicans propose map with 2 new Black-majority districts: “Georgia Senate Republicans are proposing a new map that would create two Black-majority voting districts, but would probably retain Republicans’ 33-23 edge in the General Assembly’s upper chamber, in an effort to fix a map a judge said illegally dilutes Black votes. The proposed districts, released Monday, would increase the number of Black-majority districts by eliminating two white-majority districts currently represented by Democrats. State Sens. Jason Esteves and Elena Parent, both of Atlanta, would find themselves living in Black-majority districts if the redrawn map goes through.”

What Experts Are Saying

Chauncey Devega, on Trump’s rhetoric, for Salon: “In a new essay in the New York Times, Thomas Edsall consulted with mental health professionals from some of America’s most prestigious institutions about this emergency. Their conclusion: Donald Trump’s aberrant behavior is getting worse…I have been very vocal in my criticism of the New York Times and other agenda-setting media about their failures to consistently engage in pro-democracy journalism — a type of journalistic practice that requires that the abnormal is not normalized and that the American people are repeatedly warned about Trumpism, neofascism, and the dangers embodied by other types of anti-democratic politics.”

Joyce Vance, on John Eastman’s new motion in the Fulton County, GA RICO case, for Substack: “Eastman’s newest motion is awkwardly written. Although he doesn’t come out and say it, what he’s asking for is two separate trials for all remaining defendants, not including Trump. Presumably, Trump’s trial would happen alone, at some later date. Much later…There is no rationale for splitting the defendants into two groups for trial. It’s a device to get to the desired result: delaying Trump’s trial until after the election, given Eastman’s projected timeline. It’s a cute stunt, but not much more than that. Eastman is still carrying Trump’s water, perhaps in hopes of the Hail Mary of Trump saving him. While Trump could pardon him to end any threat of federal charges, it would be unprecedented for a president to interfere in a state criminal case.”

Paige Anderholm, on voting laws in Mississippi, for Democracy Docket: “Instead of facilitating access to the democratic process, Mississippi has a series of highly limiting election policies that prevent those eligible from voting easily. Mississippi has an egregious voting rights record and boasts the highest level of felony disenfranchisement in the country. A Jim Crow-era constitutional provision, known as Section 241, enables Mississippi to disenfranchise more than 10% of its total voting-age population and its disenfranchisement of Black voters exceeds 15%. In August of this year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the disenfranchisement provision, holding that it violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The massive win for voters in the state, however, lasted just over a month before the 5th Circuit agreed to rehear the case and allowed Section 241 to remain in place, locking tens of thousands of Mississippians with prior felony convictions out of the democratic process. For those in the state who aren’t disenfranchised, Mississippi has a laundry list of administrative hurdles standing in the way of the right to vote.”

Ruth Marcus, on conservative judges and the Voting Rights Act, for The Washington Post: ​”The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, and throughout the subsequent decades, the universal assumption has been that private parties — voters who claim their rights were infringed, or interest groups representing them — could go to court to invoke the law’s protections…Voting cases are complex and time-intensive. There’s only so much the Justice Department can do — even in administrations that are inclined to enforce the law. Smith noted that of at least 182 successful Section 2 cases in the past 40 years, only 15 were brought solely by the attorney general…So, ending suits by private parties would drastically undermine the law’s effectiveness at a time when other provisions have already been neutered…The justices are going to have to decide this question.”

Norm Eisen, on Trump’s gag orders, for Twitter: “We’ve never had a former president with so many pending legal matters run for office. But the 1A (1st Amendment) has been tested time & time again, & the courts are clear: 1A protections are not absolute. The NY & DC gag orders should be turned back on.”

Headlines

Extremism

Washington Post: Elon Musk boosts Pizzagate conspiracy theory that led to D.C. gunfire

Trump investigations

Newsweek: Jack Smith Sparks MAGA Fury Over Donald Trump Twitter Move

Washington Post: Trump Lawyers ID Election denial’s Patient Zero: Russian interference

Newsweek: Donald Trump Will Use Classified Documents to Cross-Examine Witnesses

AP: Trump embraces the Jan. 6 rioters on the trail. In court, his lawyers hope to distance him from them

January 6 and the 2020 Elections

Newsweek: Donald Trump Says Undercover Agents Should Have Stopped Jan. 6 Happening

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Trump plans First Amendment defense to Fulton criminal charges 

Opinion

New York Times: Randall Eliason: Why Judges in the Trump Jan. 6 Trial Need a Rocket Docket

USA Today: Bill Cotterall: Trump’s election fraud trial should be televised

The Hill: Megan Shahi: Election denialism nearly shattered our democracy. Meta’s allowing it anyway

In the States

Georgia Recorder: Voting groups fear court ruling on Arkansas maps hurts chances to challenge election laws

Las Cruces Sun-News: New Mexico Supreme Court will not overturn Republican’s redistricting appeal

NC Newsline: Federal judge denies “meritless” motion to block Senate’s redistricting plan