This week, Donald Trump’s legal aide, Walt Nauta, pleaded not guilty in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Their legal team is seeking a trial delay, citing various legal and political factors, including potential pre-trial disputes and the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Investigations have revealed surveillance footage suggesting that Trump may have been concealing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Moreover, newly unredacted sections of the warrant affidavit have uncovered handwritten notes that appear to be from the former president. In other news, the Special Counsel investigation into Trump’s 2020 election and January 6 actions has progressed with grand jury testimony from dozens of witnesses. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court faces even more ethics scrutiny. Notably, an Associated Press investigation into justices’ engagements at educational institutions has unveiled details about donors, politicians, perks, and the influence of school trips on book sales.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. After Trump and Aide Plead Not Guilty in Mar-a-Lago Classified Documents Case, Their Legal Team Seek Trial Delay and Challenge Evidence
Former President Trump’s aide, Walt Nauta, has pleaded not guilty to charges related to mishandling classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, including obstruction and concealment charges. Investigations have also revealed that surveillance footage obtained by subpoena at Mar-a-Lago suggests that Trump was likely concealing classified documents among the numerous boxes of presidential records stored on the estate. Furthermore, newly unredacted sections of the warrant affidavit have brought to light a potentially damaging discovery: handwritten notes from what appears to be the former president. Trump’s legal team is actively seeking a trial delay, citing a range of legal and political factors, including potential pre-trial disputes and the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
- Top point to make: The classified documents case must not be a victim to politics and must be handled with utmost integrity. Preserving public trust in the judicial system and upholding the rule of law require that this case proceeds without unnecessary delays or political considerations. The severity of the charges and the importance of safeguarding classified information demand a fair and expeditious trial. Ensuring accountability for those involved, regardless of their political stature, is crucial to restore public confidence in our institutions, prevent future abuses, and uphold the principles that underpin our democracy.
- If you read one thing: The New York Times, 7/11/23: Trump Lawyers Seek Indefinite Postponement of Documents Trial: Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked a federal judge on Monday night to indefinitely postpone his trial on charges of illegally retaining classified documents after he left office, saying that the proceeding should not begin until all “substantive motions” in the case had been presented and decided. The written filing — submitted 30 minutes before its deadline of midnight on Tuesday — presents a significant early test for Judge Aileen M. Cannon, the Trump-appointed jurist who is overseeing the case. If granted, it could have the effect of pushing Mr. Trump’s trial into the final stages of the presidential campaign in which he is now the Republican front-runner or even past the 2024 election. While timing is important in any criminal matter, it could be hugely consequential in Mr. Trump’s case, in which he stands accused of illegally holding on to 31 classified documents after leaving the White House and obstructing the government’s repeated efforts to reclaim them.
2. Dozens of Witnesses Testify as Grand Jury Delves into Trump’s Actions, Linking Jan. 6 and Election Interference
Federal grand jurors have heard testimony from numerous witnesses – including Jared Kushner and Hope Hicks – as they delve into the actions of former President Donald Trump regarding his attempts to impede the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election. Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, has been leading a wide-ranging investigation spanning from before Election Day to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team has also reportedly intensified its interest in an “unhinged” Oval Office meeting where Trump heard “desperate proposals to keep him in power over objections from his White House counsel.” That meeting also was detailed in the Select Committee on January 6’s hearings, which Committee Member Jamie Raskin described as “critically important”. Additionally, analysis by government watchdog group CREW reveals that nearly 200 individuals charged in connection with the Capitol attack have pointed at Trump during their legal proceedings.
- Top point to make: Last year, the Select Committee on January 6 concluded that Donald Trump and his allies conducted a “multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 Presidential election” – posing dangerous threats to public trust and the integrity of our democratic processes. By conducting a full investigation and holding those responsible accountable, as prosecutors in Fulton County and Special Counsel are expected to make charging decisions soon as part of their investigations, we can restore faith in the presidency, deter future threats to our democratic institutions, and ensure that the rule of law remains paramount in our society. The meticulous work of Special Counsel Jack Smith and the dedicated investigators demonstrates the commitment to upholding justice and safeguarding our democratic principles.
- If you read one thing: CNN, 7/7/23: New glimpses into 2020 election interference probe suggest peril could be growing for Trump and his associates: Revelations that special counsel Jack Smith has been digging into efforts to overturn former President Donald Trump’s Arizona election loss in 2020 bolster growing indications that his investigation is nearing a critical point. New CNN reporting on Thursday also suggests that Smith remains interested in a chaotic Oval Office meeting days before Trump left office during which the former president considered some of the wildest schemes dreamed up to try to keep him in power, despite pushback from his White House counsel. Smith has already made Trump the first former president to be formally accused of federal crimes. Trump was charged last month with the willful retention of national defense information and over alleged obstruction of the investigation in connection with a trove of classified documents he kept at his Florida home after leaving office.
3. Supreme Court Faces Another Ethics Controversy
A series of investigations have shed light on potential ethical issues within the Supreme Court. The AP’s monthslong inquiry into justices’ engagements at colleges and universities has revealed details about donors, politicians, perks, and the influence of school trips on book sales. Meanwhile, reports indicate that lawyers involved in cases before the Supreme Court, including one who successfully argued against race-conscious admissions, made payments to a top aide of Justice Clarence Thomas through Venmo, potentially highlighting the close ties between Thomas and lawyers with business before the court. These revelations add to the growing number of ethics scandals within the Supreme Court, including Thomas’ connections to a wealthy billionaire donor and Justice Samuel Alito’s alleged extravagant trip with a billionaire involved in cases before the court.
- Top point to make: The recent revelations about ethical issues within the Supreme Court, including the disturbing Venmo transactions, are highly distressing and raise serious concerns about the integrity and impartiality of the highest judicial body in the land. If true, the allegations that lawyers with business before the Supreme Court paid money to a top aide of Justice Clarence Thomas for his Christmas party are deeply troubling. The notion that a federal government employee would collect money from lawyers, especially those who argue cases before the court, is unacceptable and undermines public trust in the judicial system. The Supreme Court should maintain the highest standards of ethics and impartiality, and events like Christmas parties should not be financed by lawyers who may have vested interests in cases before the court. These ethical lapses, coupled with other scandals involving wealthy donors and lavish trips, further erode confidence in the Supreme Court and highlight the need for increased transparency and accountability within the judicial branch.
- If you read one thing: Associated Press, 7/11/23: Book sales, a lure for money and more takeaways from the AP investigation into Supreme Court ethics: In a monthslong inquiry, which included reviewing tens of thousands of pages of documents from more than 100 public records requests, The Associated Press has examined what happens behind the scenes when Supreme Court justices travel to colleges and universities for lectures and other events. The AP learned the identities of donors and politicians invited to events with justices, details about the perks that have accompanied the school visits and information about how school trips have helped advance books sales.
Expert Voices
Norman L. Eisen, Noah Bookbinder, Donald Ayer, Joshua Stanton, E. Danya Perry, Debra Perlin, and Kayvan Farchadi: “This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election…Our memo follows a common DOJ practice. Prior to indicting a case, federal prosecutors prepare a pros memo that lays out admissible evidence, possible charges, and legal issues. This document provides a basis for prosecutors handling the case and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Principles of Federal Prosecution, which permit charges only when there is ‘evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.’” Just Security: Overview | Memo | WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin Column | Norm Eisen Twitter Thread
Marc Elias, Democracy Docket founder: “Moore, like Allen v. Milligan — the Alabama voting case also decided by the Court this term — was a victory for the status quo in a world where we fear a conservative Supreme Court will upend established precedent to roll back the clock on progressive policies. Both cases involved right-wing lawyers advancing novel interpretations to undermine fundamental protections for voting rights. And in both cases the Court ruled in favor of democracy by rejecting those conservative attacks. Like the 60 plus courts that refused to indulge former President Donald Trump and his allies’ attempts to disrupt the peaceful transition of power, the Court in Moore refused to indulge right-wing attempts to disrupt our fundamental system of checks and balances. This is no small victory. This is a Court that in other areas proved willing to cast aside settled precedent and the fundamental rights they protected. Status quo is not something we can afford to take for granted. But Moore hardly puts an end to the ongoing threats to democracy.” Revisiting Moore v. Harper and the Threats to Democracy
Layna Mosley, political scientist at Princeton University: “As attention shifts toward 2024 U.S. electoral contests, it is important—for the American public generally and for U.S.-based institutional investors specifically—to remain cognizant of the very real threats to U.S. democracy. Investors often treat the United States as an exceptional market, by virtue of its size, liquidity, and global role. Indeed, cross-national academic analyses in political economy and finance often exclude the United States, because it is an outlier in many ways…This report therefore argues that U.S. institutional investors have a fiduciary duty to continue to closely monitor the political risks associated with potential democratic erosion in the United States.” The Brookings Institution and the States United Democracy Center Report: Overview | Report: The Financial and Economic Dangers of Democratic Backsliding
UPDATED ANALYSIS: Brennan Center for Justice: “A Brennan Center analysis already revealed that the gap in turnout between white and Black voters in Georgia’s 2022 primaries was the highest it had been since at least 2014. While Georgia saw similar turnout numbers in November compared to the 2018 midterms, our new analysis shows that these racial turnout gaps persisted.” Georgia’s Racial Turnout Gap Grew in 2022
