In this week’s update, the focus remains on the Trump Georgia case, where former President Trump faces charges of orchestrating a scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Trump has pleaded not guilty, and a trial date has been set by the overseeing federal judge for early March. Meanwhile, Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, testified about his role for the first time, arguing that his involvement was part of official government duties and prompting discussions about potential ramifications for accountability.
The spotlight returned to Tennessee as well where chaos unfolded in the House of Representatives as Republican lawmakers once again voted to silence Justin Jones—renewing concerns that silencing dissenting voices is contrary to the democratic process.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Trump Georgia Case: Trump Pleads Not Guilty Amidst Legal Maneuvers and Co-Defendant Disputes
It has been another major week for the Georgia case, in which former President Trump is charged with 13 felony counts related to an alleged scheme to overturn the results of the presidential election. The charges brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis range from racketeering to conspiracy to committing election fraud. Eighteen people have been charged alongside former President Donald Trump. On Thursday, Trump pleaded not guilty, and waived his arraignment.
The federal judge overseeing his prosecution set a trial date on Monday for early March, rejecting Trump’s attempts to delay until 2025.. The case has already generated numerous motions and replies, with defendants seeking to move it to federal court, delay the trial, speed it up, or dismiss it altogether.
Several Trump allies are also facing repercussions. Rudy Giuliani was found liable for defaming two Georgia election workers whom he made the target of conspiracy theorists after accusing them of manipulating ballots in 2020. Reports suggest that some of the co-defendants are already at odds. They are divided over when and where they will have their day in court. Five defendants have already sought to move the state case to federal court, citing their ties to the federal government. The first one to file—Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff during the 2020 election—made his arguments on Monday.
- Top point to make: The case’s historic nature, and the media attention devoted to it, could impact public perception and trust in the electoral system. Americans need to see that the system can still work—and work for all of us. Accordingly, even high-profile figures need to be held accountable for their actions. The attempt to subvert democracy in Georgia was a threat to all of us, and everyone responsible should face justice.
The legal proceedings and motions related to moving the case to federal court, meanwhile, should be examined by the court carefully. Attempts to manipulate the legal process or obscure transparency do not bring what the public needs here: clarity. Attempts to game the system should not be rewarded.
- If you read one thing: ABC, 8/29/23: Willis seeks to have all 19 defendants in Georgia election interference case tried together: “Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in a filing Tuesday reiterated her desire for all 19 defendants charged in her Georgia election interference case to stand trial together, telling the judge that her office ‘maintains its position that severance is improper at this juncture and that all Defendants should be tried together.’ The development came on the same day that the judge overseeing the hearing over former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ request to move his case from state court into federal court requested “limited additional briefing” before he renders a decision on the matter. Willis’ filing came after Judge Scott McAfee ordered defendant Kenneth Chesebro to stand trial on Oct. 23, following Chesebro’s request for a speedy trial — and after former President Donald Trump’s attorneys alerted the court that they would move to sever the case.”
2. Mark Meadows Testifies About Role in Trump’s Post-2020 Election Actions, Seeks Removal to Federal Court
For roughly three-and-a-half hours on Monday, Mark Meadows testified about his job at the White House and the chaotic post-2020 election period when then-President Trump sought to overturn the election result to stay in power. Meadows argued that his various attempts to block his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden were part of his official government duties, so his case should be moved out of relatively liberal local courts and placed before a federal judge.
Meadows’ decision to suddenly testify in Atlanta federal court on Monday was a surprise for many observers. For years now, he has avoided answering questions about his involvement in former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Meadows’ appearance Monday made him the first Trump associate to testify in open court about actions the former president took after the 2020 election. If Meadows wins his removal, attorneys for his co-defendants are expected to try to argue the ruling applies to everyone charged in the case.
- Top point to make: Mark Meadows’ attempts to convince a judge that his actions were part of his official government duties is concerning. If accepted, this excuse would set a devastating precedent that could prevent officials from being held accountable for using government positions for personal or political purposes. This could undermine democratic norms dramatically.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 8/28/23: Mark Meadows, former Trump chief of staff, testifies in Georgia: “Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s final White House chief of staff, testified in a federal courtroom in Georgia on Monday that he helped question the 2020 presidential election results out of a federal interest in ‘free and fair elections’ intended to build national trust in the outcome and bring on a peaceful transfer of power. Over nearly four hours of testimony, Meadows defended his participation in meetings and phone calls described by prosecutors as part of a plot to subvert Joe Biden’s victory, repeatedly insisting there was a’ federal nexus’ to all of his actions. He said his duties managing the president’s calendar and extricating him from lengthy meetings necessitated participating in hundreds if not thousands of conversations each month.”
3. Silencing of Lawmaker Sparks Chaos in Tennessee House
In the Tennessee House of Representatives, Republican lawmakers on Monday voted to silence a Democratic member of the“Tennessee Three” during a floor session. Jones had been criticizing legislation that would have allowed more law enforcement officers in schools and began listing other resources that the state should be providing.
The majority determined the lawmaker violated newly enacted rules designed to punish disruptive members. Jones was then prohibited from speaking and debating on bills for the remainder of the floor session. The vote prompted loud cries and chants that drowned out proceedings for several minutes, even after the House speaker ordered the gallery to be cleared out.
Earlier this year, Jones was among the two Tennessee lawmakers expelled for his role in a pro-gun control protest inside the state Capitol, but was re-elected to his seat alongside fellow Representative Justin Pearson
- Top point to make: Legislatures should prioritize constructive dialogue and decision-making for the betterment of the state and its citizens. Silencing a dissenting member does not do this. Attempts to stifle dissent and opposition voices within the legislative process stops representatives from offering their viewpoints and those of their constituents: viewpoints that, in a democratic society, need to be heard. Further, enacting rules to punish “disruptive” members will have a chilling effect on discourse. It is important to protect lawmakers’ rights – indeed, their obligations – to express their views and engage in open debates.
- If you read one thing: Axios, 8/28/23: “Tennessee Three” Democrat Justin Jones silenced by Republicans for day: “Republicans in the Tennessee House voted Monday to temporarily silence state Rep. Justin Jones after House Speaker Cameron Sexton said he had spoken out of order twice. The disciplinary vote, which prohibited Jones (D-Nashville) from participating in floor debate for the rest of the day, outraged both the Democratic caucus as well as gallery onlookers. Democratic lawmakers stormed out of the chamber as the audience erupted into protest chants and shouting. Jones, a member of the ‘Tennessee Three,’ gained national attention this spring after the same Republican majority voted to expel him for leading protest chants for gun control from the House floor.”
Expert Voices
Dennis Aftergut for Verdict Justia: “The removal issue matters greatly to both sides. Among other reasons, Meadows is looking for a more favorable jury pool in federal court and likely for delay that would follow from the prosecution moving to federal court. For the opposite reasons, Willis is seeking to have the case “remanded,” or sent back, to state court. To the extent feasible, she wants her case against the charged defendants tried together in the same forum.”
Joyce Vance on X (Twitter): “It doesn’t make any sense for part of any public official’s job, let alone the president’s chief of staff, to include scheming to steal an election. But that’s Mark Meadows’ argument to remove his prosecution from state to federal court.”
Praveen Fernandes in Newsweek, on threats to voting rights: “…These indictments are not the only reminder that voting rights are under attack. Last term, in two cases called Allen v. Milligan and Allen v. Castor, the Supreme Court issued a powerful ruling that vindicated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, striking down Alabama’s problematic 2021 congressional map and affirming a lower court ruling. But stunningly, Alabama thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court, creating a new map that fails to remedy the defects the Supreme Court (and a three-judge lower court panel based in Alabama) identified… We don’t know the results of the Trump trials (none of which have begun) or know how judges will react to Alabama’s new flawed map. But we know they remind us of how much work remains to be done to ensure that the right to vote—a right referenced in more places within the Constitution than any other right—exists not as a mere paper promise, but as a lived reality.”
Marc Elias with Democracy Docket: “The legal profession can redeem itself if it has the courage to act decisively. First, it needs to swiftly move to disbar all the lawyers involved in the attack on democracy following the 2020 election. The fact that it is 2023 and many of these proceedings are still ongoing reflects a lack of urgency the circumstances require. But individual disciplinary actions against individual lawyers only go so far. The legal profession needs to make significant structural changes to prevent another attack on democracy in the future.”
