Skip to main content
Defend Our Country Digest

Defend Our Country Digest — October 5, 2023

By October 5, 2023No Comments

Driving the Day

Must Read Stories

Judge imposes gag order as Trump’s outbursts continue during fraud trial

  • Washington Post: Judge issues gag order in fraud case after Trump assails staffer on social media: “The judge overseeing a civil trial over alleged business fraud committed by Donald Trump and his company issued a gag order in the case Tuesday barring the former president from making public comments about his court staff. The decision by Judge Arthur Engoron, announced about a day and a half into the trial, came soon after Trump posted on social media about a staffer for the judge and included a picture of the person. Trump had already spent a significant amount of his time outside the courtroom lambasting officials in the case, repeatedly pillorying Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who brought the lawsuit.”
  • New York Times: Trump Said Shoplifters Should Be Shot, Part of a String of Violent Remarks: “Former President Donald J. Trump had a lot to say on the first day of the fraud trial against him and his company. Speaking to reporters at a Manhattan courthouse on Monday, he dismissed the judge as a ‘rogue’ justice and said he did not “think the people of this country are going to stand for it.” And he focused on the official who filed the lawsuit against him, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. ‘This is a disgrace,’ he said, ‘and you ought to go after this attorney general.’ The remark urging people to “go after” a top elected official in New York, by a former president whose invective has become a familiar backdrop of American life, was part of a pattern of increasingly sharp language from Mr. Trump.”
  • CNBC: Trump returns to court for $250 million fraud trial after judge imposes gag order: “Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday returned to court for the third day of his $250 million business fraud trial, after his conduct a day earlier spurred a judge to issue a gag order. On Tuesday, Trump’s account on his Truth Social site posted disparaging comments about Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron’s principal law clerk. That post included the clerk’s full name alongside a photo of her posing with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Trump, who often claims that all of the civil and criminal lawsuits against him are politically motivated, accused the clerk of being ‘Schumer’s girlfriend’ and ‘running this case against me.’”

Justice Thomas recuses in Supreme Court appeal for first time ever

  • New York Times: Justice Thomas Recuses as Supreme Court Turns Down Appeal From Eastman: “Justice Clarence Thomas, in a break from his practices in earlier cases involving the 2020 election, recused himself on Monday when the Supreme Court turned down an appeal from an architect of a plan to subvert the 2020 election. As is its custom, the court gave no reasons for denying review in the appeal, which was filed by John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who had advised President Donald J. Trump. Justice Thomas, for whom Mr. Eastman had served as a law clerk, offered no explanation for his decision to disqualify himself from the case. The justice’s wife, Virginia Thomas, known as Ginni, had participated in efforts to overturn the election. Mr. Eastman’s petition was viewed as a long shot. It elicited no response from any other party, and Mr. Trump did not file a brief in the case.”
  • NBC: Sen. Durbin renews call for a Supreme Court code of conduct amid ethics concerns: “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin called on the Supreme Court to create a code of conduct as its new term begins Monday. ‘The Supreme Court’s new docket, which begins today, should start with one essential element: re-establishing the integrity of the court,’ Durbin, D-Ill., said in a statement. ‘The public reports of lavish gifts, luxury vacations, and sordid political relationships go to the heart of this court’s credibility,’ Durbin said. ‘Failure by the court to establish a code of conduct makes these nine justices self-anointed royalty in our democracy.’ Durbin for about a dozen years has, without success, asked the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct. Supreme Court justices are the only federal judges who are exempt from the official ethics rules.”

Prosecutors offer plea deals in Trump election interference case as Georgia trial looms

  • Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Fulton prosecutors float plea deals to Trump defendants: “Fulton County prosecutors are floating plea deals to a number of defendants in the election interference case involving former President Donald Trump, according to people with knowledge of the proposals. At least a handful of the now 18 defendants have received offers from the District Attorney’s office — or prosecutors have touched base with their attorneys to gauge their general interest in striking a deal for a reduced charge in exchange for their cooperation, according to the legal sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive ongoing negotiations. It’s common for prosecutors to float plea deals to lower-level defendants in large racketeering cases as they home in on their biggest targets. Trump and his former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani face the most charges in the 41-count indictment, which centers on efforts to overturn the results of Georgia’s 2020 presidential election.”
  • New York Times: Trump Won’t Be on Trial in Georgia Case This Fall, but His Presence Will Be Felt: “Within weeks, jury selection in Fulton County, Ga. will be underway. Cameras will be in the courtroom. And prosecutors will present their case alleging a sprawling conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. But the star defendant — former President Donald J. Trump — won’t be there. Instead, the defendants in the first trial in the racketeering case against Mr. Trump and 18 of his allies, scheduled to begin on Oct. 23, will be two of the lawyers who tried to keep him in power after the election: Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, who were the only ones to seek speedy trials, as Georgia allows. The former president will loom over the courtroom, though, even if he is not in it. That has much to do with how racketeering cases work. ‘It is absolutely the trial of Donald Trump,” said Keith Adams, an Atlanta defense lawyer and former prosecutor. Everyone else — they’re not extras, necessarily, but they’re bit characters.’”
  • The Messenger: Pro-Trump Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro Asks Georgia Judge to Give Him More Chances to Nix Potential Jurors: “Kenneth Chesebro, a former election lawyer for former President Donald Trump, filed a motion Tuesday seeking more leeway over jury selection ahead of his Georgia trial later this month. Jury selection is set to begin Oct. 20 for Chesebro and fellow Trump election attorney Sidney Powell after the two requested expedited proceedings under Georgia’s Speedy Trial Act. In his motion Tuesday, Chesebro requested more ‘peremptory strikes,’ which is the legal term referring to the ability of a defendant to exclude a potential juror from a case without any explanation.”

In The States

ALABAMA: Judges to hear arguments on Alabama’s proposed congressional maps and are expected to rule this week

  • AL.com: Federal court to ‘rule shortly’ on Alabama’s new congressional district map: “A three-judge federal district court will rule soon on the congressional map Alabama will use in next year’s elections. The court held a hearing Tuesday morning on three plans proposed by the special master appointed by the court. The two groups of plaintiffs who have prevailed in their Voting Rights Act lawsuits against the state’s maps told the judges their preferences of the three proposed maps and answered the judges’ questions. “This court will rule shortly on this matter,” U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus said at the end of the 80-minute hearing at the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse in Birmingham. The other judges are District Judge Anna Manasco and District Judge Terry Moorer. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen has told the court the state needs a map in place in early October to prepare for next year’s election. Abha Khanna, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs group led by Marcus Caster of Washington County, said her clients supported Remedial Maps 1 and 3 proposed by Special Master Richard Allen, without a preference for either.”

IDAHO: Idaho court dismisses lawsuit that challenges the state’s youth voter suppression laws

  • Idaho Capital Sun: Voting bills eliminating use of student ID at Idaho polls are constitutional, judge says: “An Ada County judge on Monday determined that two bills passed by the Idaho Legislature to eliminate the use of student ID cards for voter registration are constitutional. The lawsuit filed in March by BABE VOTE and the League of Women Voters of Idaho challenged House Bills 124 and 340, which eliminated the use the student IDs for voter registration but provided for a new free form of identification. The organizations claimed it violated the constitutional right to equal protection under the law as well as the right to suffrage. The Idaho Secretary of State’s office sought a declaratory judgment in the case, which means the case will not go to trial. Fourth Judicial District Judge Samuel Hoagland dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and declared in his written judgment that HB 124 and HB 340 do not violate the equal protection clause of the Idaho Constitution. In the memorandum and order, Hoagland wrote “The challenged legislation places conditions on the right to suffrage rather than directly removing the ability of a particular classification to vote.”

WISCONSIN: Lawsuit challenges Wisconsin absentee ballot witness signature requirement

  • Associated Press: National Democrats sue to block Wisconsin’s absentee voting witness requirements: “A national Democratic law firm on Monday challenged Wisconsin’s witness requirements for absentee voting, arguing that the state is violating the federal Voting Rights Act by demanding a witness signature on ballot envelopes. Elias Law Group, representing four Wisconsin voters, called the requirement a “burden” to voters in the lawsuit, which they filed in federal court against the Wisconsin Elections Commission and other elections officials. State law requires clerks to reject absentee ballots that are missing a witness’ address or signature. A Wisconsin judge ruled last year that elections officials cannot correct or fill in missing information on witness certifications, a practice known as ballot curing. The Voting Rights Act prohibits states from requiring a voter to ‘prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.’”
  • Wisconsin State Journal: Senate committee rejects Democratic appointment to Wisconsin Elections Commission: “Republicans who control the state Senate’s elections committee voted Tuesday against confirming Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ appointment of Joseph Czarnezki to the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission — sending the matter to the GOP-controlled Senate, where Republicans could vote to fire him. If Republicans vote to fire Czarnezki, it would — at least temporarily — create a 3-2 Republican majority on the commission, though Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who appointed Czarnezki earlier this year, has pledged to work quickly to name a new Democratic member to the agency to bring it back to its standard 3-3 partisan split. The Senate committee on shared revenue, elections and consumer protection voted 3-2, along party lines, against Czarnezki’s appointment, with Republicans on the committee taking aim at Czarnezki for being one of three Democratic members of the agency who abstained from voting on the reappointment of the commission’s nonpartisan administrator Meagan Wolfe earlier this year in an effort to prevent the Senate from firing her.”

What Experts Are Saying

Rakim Brooks in Democracy Docket: “One of the highest stakes cases this term isn’t about a specific issue like abortion or LGBTQ+ rights, but has the potential to dismantle many rights and protections that we take for granted. In the upcoming case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court will decide whether judges or agency experts are better positioned to decide crucial public policy questions. Congress, the branch of government responsible for legislating, believes it should be the agency experts that should have this authority — and for several decades, the judicial branch has agreed. But now the Court’s six conservatives believe they know better, which is a disaster for a democracy as large and complicated as our own.”

Heather Digby Barton, on the gag order in Trump’s civil fraud case, in Salon: “Throughout the break, Trump and his lawyers were called in for a private conference with the judge. When they reconvened, the judge was clearly angry and issued a gag order forbidding defendants from discussing members of his staff. According to legal observers, it’s not unusual for defendants to insult the prosecutors and the judge. Going after the public servants who work in the courts is crossing the line.”

Dennis Aftergut for The Messenger: “While what just happened in the New York case is very different from the situation in the federal case, Trump just handed D.C. federal district court Judge Tanya Chutkan a first-ever precedent for limiting Trump’s speech. No judge wants to act in the absence of a prior ruling in the same direction, particularly as to a gag order motion that presents highly sensitive First Amendment issues. Smith’s motion does so because it seeks a broader order than the one imposed by Judge Engeron. There are many reasons why, even with the new precedent, Smith’s request for a gag order in D.C. remains an uphill climb. The trial there is five months away, so Trump’s recent media posts may not pose a ‘substantial danger of imminent harm’ to fairness in Smith’s prosecution. The Supreme Court has required ‘imminence’ to gag threatening speech that relates to court proceedings.”

Norm Eisen, on the civil fraud trial, for Just Security: “Both Trump and his counsel have said he will testify. But Trump says a lot of things that do not come to pass. While he and his lawyers may well follow through, and there are pros to doing so, there are also substantial cons that may cause them to change their decision. For one thing, it is not clear that Trump’s testimony will actually change the judge’s mind. In adjudicating summary judgment, based on the heavy documentary record and Trump’s deposition, the judge has already made clear where he stands on the fraud. Every indication is that at the end of this process, he is going to rule against Trump… For that reason, if I were Trump’s lawyer, I would urge my client not to take the stand in his own defense.”

Bradley Moss, attorney, regarding Trump’s complaints about not receiving a jury trial in his civil fraud case, on X (Twitter): “Will someone – anyone – please inform him it’s because his lawyer messed up the paperwork?”

Headlines

MAGA and the Threat to 2024 Elections

Washington Post: ‘2000 Mules,’ a key piece of election misinformation, has its day in court

Salon: “A clarion call to arms”: Experts on why MAGA remains impervious to anti-Trump Republicans’ message

Trump investigations

The Hill: DOJ move for gag order in Trump Jan. 6 case puts judge in tough spot

New York Times: What’s Happened So Far at Donald J. Trump’s Civil Fraud Trial?

January 6 and the 2020 Elections

NBC News: Jan. 6 rioter who urged mob to take officers’ guns took a secret plea deal, DOJ confirms

CBS News Chicago: Illinois man sentenced to 4.5 years for attacking officer, cameraman at Jan. 6 Capitol riot

Opinion

New York Times: MAGA Wouldn’t Be Such a Threat if the Electoral System Worked

Washington Post: If ever a defendant deserved a gag order, it’s Donald Trump

New York Times: Americans Deserve Better From the House of Representatives

In the States

Anchorage Daily News: U.S. Justice Department monitoring elections on Alaska’s North Slope and in Dillingham, Kusilvak areas

Ohio Capital Journal: Ohio Attorney General clears third attempt for 2024 anti-gerrymandering amendment proposal

Associated Press: North Carolina retiree group sues to block 30-day voter residency requirement