Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
To start, Molly Michael, a former assistant to former President Donald Trump, revealed that Trump instructed her to deny knowledge of boxes containing classified documents during an FBI inquiry into his handling of sensitive government documents.
Meanwhile, prosecutors are opposing Trump’s request to disqualify U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan from his federal election obstruction case. Prosecutors have also obtained 32 private messages from Trump’s X (formerly Twitter) account through a search warrant, and have requested a “narrowly tailored” gag order on the former president due to his social media attacks on case participants.
In Wisconsin, Senate Republicans voted to remove Meagan Wolfe, the state’s elections chief, last week. Justice Janet Protasiewicz, who won a seat on Wisconsin’s highest court, is still facing unwarranted impeachment threats as well, and the Republican-controlled State Assembly voted to change how legislative maps are drawn.
There are Georgia case updates, too. Former U.S. Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark is seeking to move charges related to alleged election interference in Georgia to federal court. Clark is accused of participating in a scheme to overturn Joe Biden’s presidential election victory, alongside Trump and 17 others. Clark’s lawyer argues that he was acting within the scope of his official duties when expressing concerns about the 2020 election. Prosecutors say his actions were not part of his job and his claims have no basis in reality.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Former Trump Assistant’s Revelations Deepen Questions on His Handling of Classified Documents
Molly Michael, a former assistant to Trump, has added interesting dynamics to the classified documents case. Michael told investigators recently that Trump instructed her to deny any knowledge of boxes containing classified documents stored at his Florida club. This, she says, happened during the inquiry into his handling of sensitive government documents.
Trump allegedly told Michael, “You don’t know anything about the boxes,” when he learned the FBI wanted to interview her. These revelations have once again raised serious questions about how Trump managed classified documents, both during his time as president and after.
Michael also disclosed that Trump would write task notes to himself on documents, some of which were later found to have classified markings. The FBI discovered the classified notecards at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate during an FBI search on August 8, 2022. Michael helped transfer the classified documents to the FBI after finding them in her office drawer organizer the next day.
- Top point to make: Trump has so far been successful in convincing many supporters that the indictments are politically motivated. This report may complicate his narrative. This report adds to the growing body of evidence in the case of Trump’s alleged illegal possession of sensitive national security records… and his potential obstruction of government efforts to retrieve them. Additionally, while the timing of Trump’s notes on the notecards remains unclear, it raises concerns about how seriously he was taking these essential documents. Michael’s testimony could also indicate Trump misled the investigation and obstructed it. Michael and another potential witness, Yuscil Taveras, could testify in Trump’s trial.
- If you read one thing: USA Today, 9/19/23: Trump Is Said to Have Told Aide Not to Acknowledge She Knew of Documents: “A former assistant to Donald J. Trump has informed investigators that the former president told her to say she did not know anything about the boxes containing classified documents that he had stashed at his private club in Florida after leaving the White House, according to a person briefed on her comments. The assistant, Molly Michael, who worked for Mr. Trump in the area outside the Oval Office and then in his post-presidential office, told the investigators about Mr. Trump’s comments when she was interviewed as part of the inquiry into his handling of sensitive government documents. ‘You don’t know anything about the boxes,’ Mr. Trump told Ms. Michael when he learned that federal officials wanted to talk to her in the case. Her account was first reported by ABC News and was confirmed by the person briefed on her comments.”
2. Federal Election Obstruction Case: Prosecutors Oppose Trump’s Judge Disqualification Request, Unseal Twitter Messages, and Seek Gag Order
Prosecutors working with Special Counsel Jack Smith are opposing Trump’s request for U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to disqualify herself from his federal election obstruction case. Trump’s defense has alleged she is unfit to preside over the case on the basis of statements she made about Trump’s involvement while sentencing Jan. 6 Capitol attack defendants. Trump’s defense may ask higher courts to disqualify Chutkan if she refuses the recusal request. The standard for such petitions is, however, very high.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors have obtained 32 private messages from Trump’s X (formerly Twitter) account through a search warrant. The content of these messages has not been disclosed. The warrant required Twitter (now X) not to inform Trump about the search. Newly unsealed documents reveal details of a legal dispute between the special counsel’s office and Twitter. The documents include a ruling imposing a $350,000 fine on Twitter for delaying compliance with the search warrant.
Lastly, prosecutors have requested a “narrowly tailored” gag order on Trump, due to his frequent social media attacks on people involved in the case. The prosecutors argue that Trump’s attacks, especially on Special Counsel Jack Smith, have led to subsequent threats against individuals. The threats could also, they argue, affect witnesses and the jury pool for the upcoming trial. The proposed gag order would prevent Trump from making statements about witnesses, testimony, or anyone involved in the case that could be considered “disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating.”
- Top point to make: Trump’s aggressive social media behavior has included threats and bullying. it is at last clashing with the constraints of the criminal justice system. A gag order would likely lead to legal arguments over Trump’s First Amendment rights, but there are indeed reasons to be concerned that his statements could influence the jury pool. His social media posts have targeted officials, private citizens, and also the residents of the entire city of Washington, where the trial will take place. Prosecutors will have no shortage of examples of Trump’s attacks. They have already cited examples of Trump’s out-of-court statements on Chris Krebs, the former head of the government’s cybersecurity agency, and Georgia election workers, who he falsely accused of mishandling ballots. These statements inspired documented threats and harassment against his targets.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 9/15/23: Special Counsel Seeking Gag Order on Trump in Election Case: “Prosecutors have asked the judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s federal indictment on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election to impose ‘a narrowly tailored’ gag order on him, citing his ‘near-daily’ social media attacks on people involved in the case, according to court papers released on Friday. The request to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of Federal District Court in Washington, who has herself been the subject of some of Mr. Trump’s verbal assaults, brought to a head the simmering issue of the former president’s online statements. In a 19-page motion, prosecutors said that some of the people Mr. Trump has gone after on social media — including the special counsel, Jack Smith, who has filed two indictments against him — have experienced subsequent threats from others. Mr. Trump’s statements, they said, could also affect witnesses and the potential jury pool for the trial, which is scheduled to take place in Washington starting in March.”
3. Wisconsin Republican Lawmakers Vote to Remove Elections Chief and Threaten Justice Impeachment
Wisconsin Senate Republicans voted to remove Meagan Wolfe, the state’s elections chief, sparking a legal battle. Wolfe has served as the nonpartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator since 2018. She was unanimously confirmed by the State Senate in 2019, but has since faced attacks related to the 2020 election results—including widespread fraud claims, even though audits and recounts found no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.
Democrats argue that the Wisconsin State Legislature lacks the authority to remove an elections administrator. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers himself has criticized the move. He has accused Republicans of trying to sow distrust and disinformation about elections. A recent state Supreme Court ruling allows state officials to remain in their positions until a replacement is voted in by the State Senate. Wolfe is suing to retain her position and plans to continue in office while the legal issue unfolds. Republicans may challenge Wolfe’s decisions while her future remains tied up in the courts.
Simultaneously, Justice Janet Protasiewicz, who won a seat on Wisconsin’s highest court, faces impeachment threats over comments about “rigged” legislative maps. Some Republicans called for her recusal from cases involving the maps, while others floated impeachment. Under the Wisconsin Constitution, impeachment is reserved for “corrupt conduct in office or for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor.” It is perhaps worth noting that former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, Republican David Prosser, who is involved in investigating the impeachment, received donations from the state Republican Party during his time on the court.
The Republican-controlled Wisconsin State Assembly has also voted to change how legislative maps are drawn. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos introduced the redistricting plan without a public hearing. The plan involves redrawing maps with the help of a nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau and establishing a redistricting advisory committee composed of five members. These members would be appointed by the state Senate majority and minority leaders, state Assembly speaker and minority leader, with the fifth member chosen collectively by the four political appointees as the chairperson.
- Top point to make: Protasiewicz criticized the GOP-drawn maps as “unfair” and “rigged.” It is difficult to refute this statement: Despite winning 53 percent of the statewide legislative vote, Republicans secured a supermajority of 65 percent of seats in the state Assembly in 2022. This is clear gerrymandering. As Republican lawmakers consider impeachment, they should think about the consequences of erasing over a million votes. Additionally, it has been well established that conservative judicial candidates in the state have not faced repercussions, despite taking many public positions on various issues.
- If you read one thing: CNN, 9/15/23: Wisconsin Assembly advances redistricting bill in effort to bypass state Supreme Court: “The Republican-controlled Wisconsin State Assembly has voted to change how the state’s legislative maps are drawn – a major shift in strategy as Republicans face the possibility that the new liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court could throw out the current electoral maps, which give the GOP an advantage. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos introduced the redistricting plan Tuesday in a surprise move. The bill went straight to a vote Thursday without a public hearing, drawing the ire of Democrats. The plan directs the staff of the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau to redraw maps and establishes a redistricting advisory committee composed of five members. If approved, the state Senate majority and minority leaders and the state Assembly speaker and minority leader would each appoint one person to the commission. The four political appointees would together appoint the fifth member to serve as chairperson.”
Expert Voices
Norm Eisen and Richard Painter for Slate: “Donald Trump may not like Chutkan for a variety of reasons—she was appointed by President Barack Obama; she sits in the District of Columbia, which did not cast its Electoral College votes for Trump; she did not give him his 2026 trial date; and, perhaps most significantly, she believes people should be held accountable for their actions, not allowed to shift all the blame to others. All of this, however, is irrelevant to recusal of a judge under federal law. She should not and almost certainly will not remove herself from the case, and that is a good thing. If the issue is appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, or eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, it will likely fail there too.”
Joyce Vance on X (Twitter): “Molly Michael will be an important witness in the Mar-a-Lago case. She personally interacted with Trump. And she’s the one who received lists he wrote for her on the back of notecards containing classified information, which he treated like scratch paper.”
Andrew O’Hehir for Salon: “Of course it’s exceedingly unlikely that Trump will get both U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan (who is overseeing Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump) and New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron (in charge of the New York civil trial that could destroy Trump’s business empire) disqualified or ousted or subjected to whatever gothic punishments the ex-president’s mind may devise. But in both directions Trump is following a strategy — although that’s really not the right word — that has served him well innumerable times in the past: Divert the media’s attention by saying outrageous things that make him look dangerous or unhinged but are probably unprosecutable, while also deploying teams of unlikely-to-be-paid attorneys to sniff out and exploit every possible legal loophole that can delay the hour of reckoning by another few days (or months, or years).“
Noah Bookbinder about the government’s motion to ensure that Trump’s extrajudicial statements do not prejudice the DC case, on X (Twitter): “Prosecutors and the judge are in a difficult position, but Donald Trump’s statements risk not only influencing the jury pool, but also endangering people. They have little choice but to act even given the sensitivities in this case.”
Former Federal Prosecutor Neama Rahmani on Molly Michael’s classified documents testimony for Salon: “Michael’s testimony is damning in the classified documents case. [It demonstrates] Trump’s knowledge that he unlawfully maintained classified documents, his intent to keep them from the FBI, and to obstruct justice. Sophisticated criminal defendants do not often admit to committing crimes, but if the jury believes Michael, that is exactly what Trump did.”
