This week, the accountability landscape was once again stirred by a series of significant developments involving former President Donald Trump. In a stunning revelation, federal law enforcement sources confirmed Trump’s public announcement that he had received a notification from the Department of Justice informing him that he is a target in the Special Counsel’s criminal investigation into efforts to subvert the will of American voters in the 2020 election. Many legal experts have stated this development indicates that the former president likely could face criminal charges related to the events that unfolded before and at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Additionally, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously rejected Trump’s attempt to evade a possible indictment for alleged election interference in the state during the 2020 presidential election. Lastly, Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon on Friday set the trial date in the classified documents case against former President Trump for May 20, 2024, per a court filing.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. #AccountabilitySummer Ramps Up: Federal law enforcement sources confirm Trump is a target in Special Counsel’s 2020 election probe + “fake electors” receive first criminal charges in state-level investigation
On Tuesday, Trump announced that he has received a “target letter” from the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel Jack Smith informing him that he is a target of their investigation into the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and corresponding efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Federal law enforcement sources have confirmed that the letter was sent to Trump attorneys this past weekend. While Trump’s team has not made a copy of the letter public, reporting through unnamed sources have pointed at a few expected potential charges. Reports also indicate that Trump’s team is attempting to find out whether there are witnesses or evidence they were not aware of that may bolster Smith’s case. In other 2020 election investigation news, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has charged 16 people falsely claiming in signed documents that Donald Trump won the 2020 election and that they were presidential electors. The MI charges are notable not only because it is the first instance of charges involved in the “fake” electors scheme (we also learned this month of a similar investigation in Arizona), but also because they are the first handed down to individuals involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results before the attack on January 6.
- Top point to make: Charges against the 16 “fake” electors in Michigan and encouraging public signs of progress in the Special Counsel as well as Fulton County 2020 election probes as charging decisions appear imminent have been considered by some legal and state election experts as a significant turning point in the ongoing investigations. As former President Trump and his allies continue to attack law enforcement for doing their duty as public servants through these criminal investigations, it’s even more imperative for any and all ongoing probes be allowed to continue unimpeded from outside interference. No one is above the law, not even former presidents.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 7/18/23: Trump Says He’s Target in Special Counsel’s Investigation Into Jan. 6: Former President Donald J. Trump has been informed that he could soon face federal indictment for his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss, potentially adding to the remarkable array of criminal charges and other legal troubles facing him even as he campaigns to return to the White House. Mr. Trump was informed by his lawyers on Sunday that he had received a so-called target letter from Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating his attempts to reverse his defeat at the polls, Mr. Trump and other people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. Prosecutors use target letters to tell potential defendants that investigators have evidence tying them to crimes and that they could be subject to indictment.
2. Supreme Court in Georgia rejects Trump’s attempt to avoid indictment
The Georgia Supreme Court has denied an attempt by Donald Trump’s legal team to throw out a special grand jury’s work and disqualify the prosecutor leading the investigation into his attempts to undermine the 2020 election results in Georgia. While Americans have yet to learn whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will criminally charge the former president and/or his associates, Willis has requested that “judges not schedule trials and in-person hearings during the weeks beginning Monday, Aug. 7 and Monday, Aug. 14” – a move that many believe indicate when indictment decisions may be announced.
- Top point to make: The unanimous decision by the Georgia Supreme Court to reject yet another attempt from Donald Trump to undermine Fulton County prosecutors’ work serves as a powerful reminder that the issues at stake go beyond partisan politics – rather it’s bedrock institutions like the rule of law and the democratic process. The fact that the case revolves around allegations of election interference through a Republican secretary of state adds an interesting dimension. It underscores the notion that this is not merely a political battle between different parties but rather a crucial effort to protect against potential subversion of the democratic system and achieve any and all needed accountability.
- If you read one thing: Politico, 7/17/23: Georgia Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to head off potential indictment: Georgia’s highest court has unanimously rebuffed a last-ditch bid by former President Donald Trump to try to head off a potential indictment for tampering with the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state. In a five-page decision issued Monday afternoon, all nine justices of the Georgia Supreme Court said Trump’s lawyers had failed to make a persuasive case for shutting down the inquiry led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. She has signaled that indictments are possible in the election-related probe in the next few weeks as a grand jury convenes to consider possible charges.
3. Trump’s legal team yet again attempts to delay Mar-a-Lago classified documents trial
As part of a routine pretrial process meeting this week in the Mar-a-Lago criminal case, Trump’s legal team argued before Trump-appointed federal Judge Aileen Cannon that the trial on criminal charges of mishandling classified documents should be delayed until after the 2024 election. The Department of Justice argued that the trialshould start in Florida in December. Ahead of the scheduled conference on Tuesday, Trump praised Judge Cannon on Fox News when asked if he believed she’d grant his team’s motion to delay. On Friday, it was announced that the trial will be held in May of 2024.
- Top point to make: The notion that no one is above the law, not even a former president, lies at the heart of a just and equitable legal system. If justice is to be truly blind, it must be applied evenly and without favoritism, irrespective of an individual’s position or past accomplishments. Allowing a former president to dictate the timing of his trial based on what is convenient for him would set a concerning precedent. The law should not be subject to the personal preferences or political calculations of any individual, regardless of their standing. It is essential that the legal system operates independently and ensures that cases are adjudicated based on their merits, rather than being subject to manipulation or delay for the sake of personal or political convenience.
- If you read one thing: NBC News, 7/18/23: Trump lawyers and special counsel prosecutors debate trial date in classified document case: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon heard Tuesday from federal prosecutors and attorneys representing former President Donald Trump on charges that he mishandled sensitive government documents after he left the White House. During the nearly two-hour hearing, Trump’s attorneys and prosecutors for the special counsel discussed how they will handle classified material in the case and how it would be presented at trial. Trump’s co-defendant, Walt Nauta, who was an aide to the former president, arrived at the courthouse before the hearing with his defense lawyers Stan Woodward and Sasha Dadan.
Expert Voices
Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Joshua Kolb, and Jacob Gaba: “On Tuesday the world learned that the Department of Justice had served Donald Trump with a target letter for crimes related to January 6th. On Wednesday, reporting by The New York Times and Bloomberg News detailed which charges the letter actually contained. Two of the charges were expected: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 USC § 371) and Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 USC § 1512). The letter also reportedly includes a third statute that the paper of record aptly described as a ‘surprise:’ 18 USC § 241, conspiracy to deprive people of their rights. With the picture now clearer, the DOJ’s approach appears to largely track the basic structure that was outlined by the comprehensive January 6th Model Prosecution Memo published by Just Security and written or edited by some of the authors here. The memo analyzed Sections 371 and 1512 in depth, and also addressed the conduct that the Section 241 charge appears to be targeting, albeit considering other statutory vehicles and candidly addressing their flaws.” Just Security: Unpacking the “Surprise” Crime in DOJ’s Target Letter to Trump
States United Democracy Center: Backgrounder: Fulton County Special Grand Jury Investigation Into 2020 Presidential Interference. Key Takeaways | Special Grand Jury Witnesses | Related Litigation | PDF
Barbara McQuade, former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, re: GOP response to criminal charges against 16 “fake electors” in MI: “‘Weaponization’ is the new label for any criminal charges someone doesn’t like. Political affiliation is not a get-out-of- jail free card. If you do the crime, you do the time.” Tweet
Joyce Vance, former US attorney for the Northern District of Alabama: “Alabama House’s GOP majority has acted in a way that made clear they had little intention of following SCOTUS’ decision. The message is, they are entitled to power regardless of how Alabamians vote. They want to pick their voters instead of letting voters pick them.” Tweet
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters for America: “Fox News’ rebooted evening lineup of loyal Trumpists is rallying to the former president’s defense as a federal indictment looms in special counsel Jack Smith’s probe of Donald Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection. While Fox’s propagandists do typically offer zealous support at Trump’s most vulnerable moments, they have an added incentive in this case: Their network’s own coverage was critical to his scheme.” Media Matters for America
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket: “North Carolina Republicans are poised to enact a new law that would require counties to adopt and deploy software to match signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes with the voters’ signatures on file. North Carolina law already requires voters to have their mail-in ballot signatures witnessed by two different people who then must sign the ballot return envelopes affirming under criminal penalty that they witnessed the voter sign it. In addition, the voter must include a photocopy of their valid identification. There is simply no rational justification for also now requiring that the same voter’s signature be ‘verified’ by software. It will not make the process more secure, but it will result in thousands of voters having their ballots rejected due to normal variations in their signatures and the inability of any signature verification system to accurately ‘verify’ every person’s signature. History shows that minority and young voters will bear a disproportionate brunt of those mismatch rejections.” Democracy Docket
