It was a historic week. Former President Donald Trump was indicted for commiting alleged crimes as he tried to overturn the 2020 election results. The charges leveled against him include conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official government proceeding, and conspiracy to deprive Americans’ right to vote and have it counted. The former president was arraigned on Thursday and pleaded not guilty. Lawmakers’ reactions to the indictment were deeply divided along partisan lines. Meanwhile, in Georgia, a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to halt an investigation into his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in that state.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Trump Indicted for Alleged 2020 Election Crimes Trying to Subvert Will of American Voters
The indictment of former President Donald J. Trump marks a significant moment in the nation’s history. Special Counsel Jack Smith presented Trump with four felony counts from a grand jury of everyday Americans related to his efforts to remain in power following the 2020 election. The charges stem from Trump’s efforts to erode trust in American election systems through false election claims – even before ballots were cast – and corresponding conspiracies targeting the federal government’s duty to collect, count, and certify the presidential election results.
The indictment is not only a product of the special counsel’s investigation but also heavily relies on the work of the Special House Committee that probed the January 6 attack on the Capitol. This committee introduced the American public to a sprawling cast of characters. One of the central figures in the indictment, however, is a familiar one who did not testify to the Committee: Vice President Mike Pence. Pence plays a critical role in the charging document. Pence’s notes describe Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure him into reversing the election results on January 6. This led to a rupture between the two that persists to this day. The indictment also mentions six co-conspirators who allegedly worked with Trump to subvert the election. Their identities remain undisclosed for now but the indictment does indicate that they largely are attorneys who advised and implemented conspiracies to undermine our freedom to vote.
- Top point to make:January 6, 2021, was a dark and tragic day for our nation and for democracy. The attack on the Capitol was an unprecedented and shocking act of violence that sought to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the results of a free and fair election. The sanctity of votes is at the heart of democratic governance, and any attempt to undermine the electoral process strikes at the core of the nation’s democratic principles. The indictment of former President Trump is a historical step toward accountability, and it’s not hyperbole to say that this legal case is likely the most consequential for the future of our American democracy. It is vital that justice prevails so that we can restore faith in our democracy and protect it from further threats.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 8/3/23, Prosecutors Took Cautious Path in Connecting Trump to Jan. 6 Violence: There was something noticeably absent when the special counsel, Jack Smith, unsealed an indictment this week charging former President Donald J. Trump with multiple conspiracies to overturn the 2020 election: any count that directly accused Mr. Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The indictment asserted that as violence erupted that day, Mr. Trump “exploited the disruption,” using it to further his goal of stopping the certification of his loss in the election. But it stopped short of charging him with actually encouraging or inciting the mob that stormed the building, chasing lawmakers from their duties. Still, the charging document, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, made abundantly clear that a group of aides and lawyers surrounding Mr. Trump were highly aware that he was playing with fire by pushing forward with his plan to pressure his vice president, Mike Pence, to throw the election his way during the congressional proceeding on Jan. 6.
2. Trump’s Third Indictment Sparks Divided Reactions
The third indictment of former President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves across the political landscape. It has led to a deeply divided response from lawmakers and the public alike. Democratic officials seized the opportunity to condemn the former president’s alleged crimes committed around the 2020 election. And they have commended the indictment as a long-overdue step towards holding Trump accountable for his actions and a necessary measure to safeguard the integrity of American democracy. Conversely, Republicans have rallied to Trump’s defense. They claim that the indictment is part of a politically motivated witch hunt against their party’s leader. Some GOP members, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have openly criticized the special counsel, Jack Smith.
Meanwhile, Trump himself has not taken the indictment quietly. He has adopted a defiant stance, comparing the situation to Nazi Germany. This statement has drawn widespread criticism for trivialization of the Holocaust.
- Top point to make: The stark partisan reactions from lawmakers to the indictment underscore the deep divisions in our society. It is imperative that we break free from the cycle of viewing every development through political and partisan lenses. To ensure the survival of democracy, we must uphold one standard of justice. Everyone must be accountable in our legal system, irrespective of their political affiliations. Our democracy cannot thrive if we allow whataboutism and hyperbolic comparisons to cloud our focus. We must allow the court to impartially assess the evidence and uphold the principles that underpin our democracy. This is an important moment wherein our nation has a chance to live up to its principles by showing no one is above the law.
- If you read one thing: Politico, 8/1/23, Lawmakers quickly react to latest Trump indictment: Lawmakers on Tuesday leapt to comment on the news that former President Donald Trump had received his third indictment — this time on four federal charges relating to his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.The majority of responses were divided along party lines, with Democrats using the indictment as an opportunity to slam the former president, who is currently the frontrunner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. Republicans, on the other hand, argued that the news was evidence of a partisan justice system, suggesting that the indictment was an attempt to unfairly defame Trump and distract from the ongoing legal troubles of President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.
3. Georgia Judge Rejects Trump’s Attempt to Halt Election Investigation; Indictments Expected Soon
A Georgia judge rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s attempt to halt an investigation into his and his allies’ potential crimes committed trying to overturn the 2020 election in the state. The judge, Robert McBurney, ruled that Trump lacked the legal standing to challenge the investigation before indictments were handed up, dismissing claims of injuries suffered from the two-and-a-half-year investigation as either insufficient or speculative. Meanwhile, Atlanta braces for the possibility of indictments in the high-profile Georgia investigation that has captivated the nation for over two years. Speculation intensified as orange security barriers appeared near the Fulton County Courthouse, indicating a looming charging decision that could involve not only Trump but several high-profile Republicans.
- Top point to make: The decision to reject Donald Trump’s effort to short-circuit the investigation is a good sign. It is a positive development for all Americans who value the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It is in the best interest of the nation to get to the bottom of whether Trump and his allies committed crimes in efforts to undermine the results of a lawful election. This is expected to be a tumultuous trial. Given the charged climate and Trump’s propensity for making inflammatory statements when he is facing legal scrutiny, it is crucial that we ensure it proceeds without delay. We must allow a thorough and unbiased examination of the evidence. That is the only way we can reaffirm our commitment to the principles underpinning our democracy.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 8/2/23, Judge Rejects Trump’s Effort to Short-Circuit Georgia Election Case: A Georgia judge forcefully rejected on Monday an effort by former President Donald J. Trump to derail an investigation into attempts by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state — an investigation that is expected to yield indictments in mid-August. Mr. Trump tried to get Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta to throw out evidence collected by a special grand jury and disqualify the prosecutor overseeing the investigation, Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney. But in a nine-page order, Judge McBurney wrote that Mr. Trump did not have the legal standing to make such challenges before indictments were handed up. The judge said the “injuries” that Mr. Trump claimed to have suffered from the two-and-a-half-year investigation “are either insufficient or else speculative and unrealized.”
Expert Voices
States United Democracy Center: Backgrounder: U.S. Department of Justice charges Trump for 2020 presidential election interference, explained Fact Sheet
Joyce Vance, former US attorney: “All of the charges in the indictment are equally important, but the one that tears at my heart is Count Four, the conspiracy by an American president to take away our right to vote. The indictment alleges that Trump conspired to “injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.” Sobering no matter who the defendant is, but even more so when it is a former president.” Civil Discourse
Derek Holliday, postdoctoral fellow for the Polarization Research Lab at Stanford University, Yphtach Lelkes, associate professor at University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, and Sean J. Westwood, associate professor in the department of government at Dartmouth College: “Did Donald Trump’s indictment increase support for democratic norm violations and political violence? Political commentators have indicated concern that pursuing criminal charges against the former president may inflame antipathy between partisans. Using survey data covering the periods before and after Trump’s [Mar-a-Lago] indictment, we show no lasting, significant changes in the attitudes of partisans. Any differences in attitudes before and after the indictment quickly dissipated to pre-indictment levels within a few days. Our results have positive implications for the health of our democracy, suggesting politicians can be held accountable for criminal activity without widespread threat of retaliation from supporters.” Polarization Research Lab: Holding Trump Accountable Has Not Threatened American Democracy
Norman Eisen, former impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, Joshua Kolb, former law clerk on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21: “Each of the charges in the indictment alleges Trump was at the heart of this effort to overturn the will of the voters. This must never be lost in the farrago of machinations in the wake of the 2020 election. By charging Trump alone, Smith emphasizes his centrality — and keeps the indictment simple.” MSNBC Op-Ed: Jack Smith’s legal strategy: ‘Keep it simple, stupid’
Ian Bassin, co-founder and the executive director of Protect Democracy and a former associate White House counsel, and Kristy Parker, counsel at Protect Democracy and the former deputy chief of the criminal section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division: “Reconstruction sought not only to restore the Union after the Civil War, but also to build guardrails against such an authoritarian faction ever again being able to subvert the Republic. It’s therefore appropriate that Section 241 and other Reconstruction-era laws are precisely those that the American legal system is turning to in response to a former president who stoked the flames of an insurrection in which a violent mob stormed the Capitol in an effort to undermine the democratic process. One of the rioters, later sentenced to three years in prison, carried a Confederate flag into the Capitol, an indelible image captured in photographs and widely circulated.” NYT Op-Ed
Accountable.US: “The bombshell indictment of former President Donald Trump released [this week] introduced six co-conspirators who prosecutors allege aided Trump in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Their inclusion in the historic indictment sparks a broader discussion of the key players central to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election —and the extremist influence network behind them still at play…Meet the extremist influence network behind the new Trump indictment:[.]” Meet the Extremist Network Behind the New Trump Indictment
