In a significant ruling tied to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, Stewart Rhodes, leader of the far-right Oath Keepers, was sentenced to 18 years for seditious conspiracy on Thursday, setting a precedent for the more than 1,000 related cases. The sentencing demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding our democratic system. Meanwhile, amid escalating ethics controversies at the Supreme Court, billionaire Harlan Crow has defied a Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry, prompting calls for robust, preventive measures against potential corruption and for bolstering transparency. Lastly, former President Trump continues to face mounting legal challenges, with his possible mishandling of classified records getting the lion’s share of attention this week.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Oath Keepers Leader Sentenced to 18 Years for Seditious Conspiracy in Landmark Jan. 6 Capitol Attack Case
In a landmark ruling that marked a pivotal moment for over a thousand criminal cases tied to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right militia group, Oath Keepers, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The sentencing, issued by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, was on the grounds of seditious conspiracy, with Rhodes found guilty of mobilizing a pro-Trump attack in a bid to disrupt the electoral count. The severity of the punishment, the first of its kind to meet the legal definition of terrorism, sets a precedent that could influence the sentence of Enrique Tarrio, former chairman of another far-right group, the Proud Boys, on a similar charge.
- Top point to make: The sentencing of Stewart Rhodes is a major step toward upholding the sanctity of our democratic system. By instigating an attack on the Capitol with the aim of overturning a legitimate election, Rhodes not only undermined the principles of democracy but also risked the stability of the nation. His actions should be met with significant consequences, and indeed, they have been. The severity of his sentence sends a clear message to any who would consider similar actions that such attempts to subvert our democratic processes will not be taken lightly. While there remains much work to do in ensuring accountability for all involved in the January 6th insurrection, and more critically, in safeguarding against such incidents in the future, Rhodes’ sentencing represents real progress in that direction.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 5/25/23: Oath Keepers Leader Is Sentenced to 18 Years in Jan. 6 Sedition Case: Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia, was sentenced on Thursday to 18 years in prison for his conviction on seditious conspiracy charges for the role he played in helping to mobilize the pro-Trump attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The sentence, handed down in Federal District Court in Washington, was the most severe penalty so far in the more than 1,000 criminal cases stemming from the Capitol attack — and the first to be increased for fitting the legal definition of terrorism.It was also the first to have been given to any of the 10 members of the Oath Keepers and another far-right group, the Proud Boys, who were convicted of sedition in connection with the events of Jan. 6.
2. Ethics Concerns at Supreme Court Escalate: Billionaire Crow Defies Senate Inquiry as Justices Pledge Commitment to High Standards
Amid escalating controversies around Supreme Court ethics, billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow has refused to cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request for information about gifts and travel he provided to Justice Clarence Thomas. This move was defended by Crow’s legal team, but met with criticism from the Committee Chair Senator Richard J. Durbin. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will maintain public trust in its adherence to high standards of conduct, despite ongoing scrutiny around financial disclosures and demands for a specific code of conduct. This comes as all nine justices have publicly committed to upholding broad ethical norms and amidst calls for the adoption of formal internal mechanisms to enforce agreed-upon rules.
- Top point to make: Supreme Court justices, as guardians of the constitution, should not only hold themselves to the highest standards but should also hold their peers to the same rigorous level of accountability. Because proximity can cloud judgment and objectivity, they should be willing to accept external investigations into misconduct allegations. Pledges of high moral conduct, while important, aren’t as convincing as they could be, especially when they seem more like defensive posturing than genuine commitments to ethical conduct. The bottom line is that it’s imperative for justices to prioritize transparency and institute robust, preventive measures against potential corruption. Proactive initiatives aimed at strengthening ethics, rather than mere reactive assurances, would bolster public faith in the Supreme Court and reinforce its position as a trusted institution in the American democratic system.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 5/23/23: Roberts says Supreme Court will address ethics issues: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Tuesday night that he was “confident” the Supreme Court will convince the public that it “adheres to the highest standards of conduct.” Accepting an award at the American Law Institute, Roberts did not directly comment on the controversies that have surrounded the court’s members and their financial disclosures or the mounting congressional pressure for a specific code of conduct for the Supreme Court. But he said that disturbances outside the court have not affected the nine justices: “Inside the court, there is cause for optimism,” he said.
3. Disarray Within Trump’s Legal Team As Multiple Legal Probes Escalate
The internal discord within former President Trump’s legal team is reportedly impeding the defense strategy in a federal probe into his handling of classified documents, contributing to an increasing sense of looming legal jeopardy. Accusations of interference and dishonesty among members of Trump’s expansive legal team have amplified the challenges. Compounding these issues, recent revelations indicate the Justice Department has been investigating potential violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice by Trump, who purportedly ignored warnings against retaining classified documents. This classified documents situation looks more problematic than ever after a Washington Post exclusive on Thursday, which asserted that two of Trump’s employees moved boxes of papers the day before FBI agents and a prosecutor visited — “timing that investigators have come to view as suspicious and an indication of possible obstruction.”
As part of the escalating scrutiny, a March 2024 trial date has been set for charges of falsifying business records, amid an array of DOJ probes and civil lawsuits. These developments unfold against the backdrop of unprecedented legal scrutiny for a former president, including 34 felony charges tied to hush-money payments, lawsuits for defamation and sexual assault, and investigations into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
- Top point to make: While the discord and internal conflicts within Donald Trump’s legal team might make for compelling headlines and a measure of political theater, it’s crucial to maintain focus on the real issue at hand. The former President stands accused of serious legal transgressions, including mishandling classified documents and falsifying business records, both of which carry significant consequences. The law must apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their status or past positions, so Trump’s actions warrant thorough and rigorous investigation. That is why this matters. We must remember, amid the unfolding drama, that the crux of the matter isn’t the dysfunction within Trump’s defense but the allegations of illegal conduct against him and the imperative that no one is treated as above the law.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 5/24/23: The status of key investigations involving Donald Trump: Donald Trump is facing historic legal and legislative scrutiny for a former president. Trump has been indicted on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records in New York in connection with hush-money payments in 2016. He is the first former president ever charged with a crime. The Justice Department is separately investigating the handling of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago and efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The Fulton County district attorney is leading a parallel criminal probe related to the 2020 election, and the New York attorney general has sued Trump, three of his children and his family business for a medley of alleged violations. Trump has been sued twice by the author E. Jean Carroll for defamation and sexual assault. The first of those civil lawsuits ended with a $5 million judgment against him.
Expert Voices
Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general for national security at Department of Justice 2016-2017, re: Oath Keepers leader Rhodes’ sentence: “‘Violent rebellion because you don’t like the results of an election is anathema to our Constitution,’ said Mary McCord, who headed the Justice Department’s national security division for the first several months of the Trump presidency. ‘Eighteen years is a significant sentence and sends a strong message of deterrence.’” Washington Post
Jill Wine-Banks, Watergate prosecutor, re: Trump attorneys’ letter to AG Garland: “This is wrong in so many ways. Trump’s lawyers don’t even know history or they would never say, ‘No President of the US has ever, in the history of our country, been baselessly investigated in such an outrageous and unlawful fashion.” 1st, investigation is well founded in facts..2/ 2nd, Pres Nixon –while in office and after resigning– was investigated for his crimes, although Trump’s are more numerous and far worse for democracy than Nixon’s. 3rd, no evidence exists that merits investigation of Pres Bident. Hunter is being investigated by a Trump atty[.] The lack of seriousness of sending this letter is evidenced bybtheir [sic] pitting it on Trump’s social media.” Tweets
Democracy Docket: “DeSantis has signed multiple bills that restrict the right to vote or endanger voters. During his tenure as governor, DeSantis has signed multiple bills into law that restrict the right to vote or undermine American democracy. One bill even predates the current wave of voter suppression laws stirred up by Trump’s election lies. S.B. 7066 (2019)[:] The same year DeSantis won the governor’s office, Florida voters approved Amendment 4, a measure intended to restore voting rights to an estimated 1 million Floridians with previous felony convictions. However, almost immediately upon taking office, DeSantis and Republican allies in the state Legislature moved to restrict the scope of the amendment.” Democracy Docket: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Record on Voting Rights
Protect Democracy: “The League of Women Voters of Arizona has settled their case against Melody Jennings and her organization, formerly known as Clean Elections USA. This litigation is an important victory for voters’ rights, and this resolution will protect voters from intimidation in the future. In October 2022, the League of Women Voters of Arizona (LWVAZ) brought a lawsuit to protect voters from intimidation at ballot drop boxes in Arizona. A federal court found that defendants Melody Jennings and her organization (then known as Clean Elections USA)—as well as individuals working with the defendants—had likely violated voter intimidation laws when they engaged in surveillance and harassment of voters at ballot drop boxes during the 2022 election. The Court ordered them to immediately halt intimidating conduct. The parties have now settled the case. In so doing, the League and Ms. Jennings agreed to publicly condemn intimidation of any kind in connection with the exercise of the right to vote. The terms and obligations of the settlement are confidential.” Protect Democracy: League of Women Voters of Arizona vs. Lions of Liberty LLC, et al.
