Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial began this week: another precarious legal situation, in a year full of them, for the former president. The fireworks started almost immediately. Trump’s comments to the press, and on social media, about the court’s staff members and prosecutors led to Judge Engoron imposing a gag order. Reportedly, a similar order has been requested by prosecutors in the D..C federal trial.
Of Trump’s many legal cases, the Georgia election interference case continues to have the most updates. Prosecutors have reportedly been offering plea deals to defendants. One defendant, bail bondsman Scott Graham Hall, took them up on it—becoming the first defendant to plead guilty this week. Meanwhile, in the classified documents case, a New York Times story alleged on Thursday night that Trump “shared sensitive information about American submarines with a billionaire member of Mar-a-Lago” shortly after leaving office.
Courts around the country are also taking up numerous voting rights cases. Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Mississippi all have cases that could curtail or expand voting rights in individual states. These cases are important to keep an eye on, because they could have enormous ramifications for the rights of residents of these states—and the country’s democracy as a whole—going forward.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Judge in Trump’s Civil Fraud Trial Imposes Gag Order
The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial issued a gag order against the former president on Tuesday, barring Trump from making public comments about court staff. The decision by Judge Arthur Engoron came soon after Trump’s post on social media about a staffer, which included the clerk’s full name alongside a photo of her posing with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Trump accused the clerk of being “Schumer’s girlfriend” and “running this case against me.”
Additionally, Trump had dismissed the judge as a “rogue” justice to reporters the day before. He added, he did not “think the people of this country are going to stand for it.” Trump also went after the official who filed the lawsuit against him, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. “This is a disgrace,” he said, “and you ought to go after this attorney general.”
The gag order followed reports that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office is arguing for a similar order in Trump’s D.C. federal trial. Smith filed a request for a gag order on September 5. He has recently argued that Trump’s recent attacks on Gen. Mark Milley and one of their own clerks bolsters the case for an order. Smith’s office says that Trump has continued to wage “a sustained campaign of prejudicial public statements.” Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the election interference case in Federal District Court in Washington, has not yet decided on whether to impose the gag order.
- Top point to make: Trump’s inflammatory language has long been and continues to be concerning. His words could contribute to the erosion of trust in democratic institutions and the legal system. This could particularly be the case when his rhetoric is directed at judges and elected officials. Trump’s comments here, especially the urging of people to “go after” New York’s attorney general, undermine the legal process and endanger officials. Intimidating individuals involved in the legal system is never appropriate. The gag order rightly aims to prevent public comments that could potentially distort the outcome of the trial, as well as to keep our officials safe.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 10/3/23: Judge issues gag order in fraud case after Trump assails staffer on social media: “The judge overseeing a civil trial over alleged business fraud committed by Donald Trump and his company issued a gag order in the case Tuesday barring the former president from making public comments about his court staff. The decision by Judge Arthur Engoron, announced about a day and a half into the trial, came soon after Trump posted on social media about a staffer for the judge and included a picture of the person. Trump had already spent a significant amount of his time outside the courtroom lambasting officials in the case, repeatedly pillorying Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who brought the lawsuit.”
2. Georgia Election Interference Case Updates: Trump Opts Against Moving Case to Federal Court as Prosecutors Offer Plea Deals to Numerous Defendants
The Georgia case against Trump for his alleged election interference continues to proceed at a fast and furious pace. This week we learned that Trump will not seek to get his Georgia election interference case transferred to federal court. Three weeks ago, a judge rejected a similar attempt by the former president’s White House chief of staff.
Meanwhile, Fulton County prosecutors are floating plea deals to a number of defendants. At least a handful of the now 18 defendants have received offers from the District Attorney’s office. Scott Graham Hall, a bail bondsman, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges on Friday, becoming the first defendant to accept a plea deal. Hall pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties, all misdemeanors, at a surprise court hearing. Prosecutors had accused him of participating in a breach of election equipment in rural Coffee County. They initially charged him with racketeering and six conspiracy counts, all felonies. Hall will receive five years probation, has been ordered to issue an apology letter to the people of Georgia, and will testify in further proceedings.
Lastly, Kenneth Chesebro filed a motion on Tuesday seeking more leeway over jury selection. Jury selection is set to begin Oct. 20 for Chesebro.
- Top point to make: The upcoming trials related to the Georgia case, including those of key Trump allies like Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, are an opportunity to shed light on the alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results. Hall’s guilty plea, too, could be a significant development in pursuing accountability. Offering plea deals to some defendants may reveal more information about the election interference efforts and uncover the full extent of the conspiracy. Trump’s decision not to seek a transfer of the case to federal court is perhaps also a step toward accountability. Everyone, after all, should be tried in the proper venue: not the one where they will get the most favorable trial.
- If you read one thing: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/3/23: Fulton prosecutors float plea deals to Trump defendants: “Fulton County prosecutors are floating plea deals to a number of defendants in the election interference case involving former President Donald Trump, according to people with knowledge of the proposals. At least a handful of the now 18 defendants have received offers from the District Attorney’s office — or prosecutors have touched base with their attorneys to gauge their general interest in striking a deal for a reduced charge in exchange for their cooperation, according to the legal sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive ongoing negotiations. It’s common for prosecutors to float plea deals to lower-level defendants in large racketeering cases as they home in on their biggest targets. Trump and his former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani face the most charges in the 41-count indictment, which centers on efforts to overturn the results of Georgia’s 2020 presidential election.”
3. Voting Rights Face Legal Challenges Across States
Many cases about voting rights are moving through state court systems.
In Michigan, eleven Republican state lawmakers filed suit in federal court last week to invalidate two recent constitutional amendments. One target is 2018’s Proposal 3, which ushered in no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day and automatic voter registration. It also lent constitutional protections for straight-ticket voting. The measure passed with slightly over two-thirds of the vote. The second target is last year’s Proposal 2, which created a nine-day early voting period, guaranteed the right to vote without a photo ID by signing an affidavit, and required state-funded postage for absentee ballots. Voters approved it by a nearly two-to-one margin. The lawsuit alleges both amendments unconstitutionally skipped legislative input.
Moving on to Idaho, an Ada County judge on Monday determined that two bills passed by the Idaho Legislature to eliminate the use of student ID cards for voter registration are constitutional. This was in response to a lawsuit filed in March by BABE VOTE and the League of Women Voters of Idaho. The lawsuit challenged House Bills 124 and 340, which eliminated the use of student IDs for voter registration but provided for a new free form of identification. The organizations claimed the bills violated the constitutional right to equal protection under the law, as well as the right to suffrage.
In Mississippi, a significant expansion of voting rights was put in doubt last week. A federal appeals court said it’s reconsidering an earlier decision to allow people convicted of certain felonies to cast ballots. The 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals now says that a majority of the appeals court’s 16 active judges would take a new look at the 2-1 decision delivered by a panel on Aug. 4. Mississippi attorneys, led by state Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, had asked for the review.
Finally, Elias Law Group on Monday filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin Elections Commission and other elections officials challenging the state’s witness requirements for absentee voting on behalf of four Wisconsin voters. The firm is arguing that the state is violating the federal Voting Rights Act by demanding a witness signature on ballot envelopes and called the requirement a “burden” to voters in the lawsuit.
- Top point to make: Some of these cases are troubling to witness. For instance, the dismissal of the lawsuit challenging Idaho’s voter suppression laws could potentially limit access to the democratic process, particularly for students. The Michigan effort, meanwhile, threatens to invalidate voter-approved election ballot proposals. It is also disappointing to see the U.S. appeals court reconsidering its decision on voter disenfranchisement in Mississippi. A reversal of this decision could limit the rights of individuals with past felony convictions. Citizens who have served their sentences must have the opportunity to participate in the democratic process. On the other hand, it is encouraging to see the lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s witness signature requirement for absentee voting. Eliminating unnecessary obstacles to voting is a step toward ensuring equal voting access for all citizens.
- If you read one thing: Michigan Radio, 9/28/23: Republican lawmakers sue over voter-approved election ballot proposals: “Eleven Republican state lawmakers filed suit in federal court Thursday to invalidate two of Michigan’s recent constitutional amendments concerning elections. One target is 2018’s Proposal 3, which ushered in no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day and automatic voter registration. It also lent constitutional protections for straight-ticket voting. It passed with slightly over two-thirds of the vote. The second target is last year’s Proposal 2. That amendment created a nine-day early voting period, guaranteed the right to vote without a photo ID by signing an affidavit, and required state-funded postage for absentee ballots. Voters approved it by a nearly two-to-one margin. The lawsuit alleges both amendments, which got to the ballot via the petition process, unconstitutionally skipped legislative input. It argues both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution give authority over election laws to state lawmakers.”
Expert Voices
Rakim Brooks in Democracy Docket: “One of the highest stakes cases this term isn’t about a specific issue like abortion or LGBTQ+ rights, but has the potential to dismantle many rights and protections that we take for granted. In the upcoming case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court will decide whether judges or agency experts are better positioned to decide crucial public policy questions. Congress, the branch of government responsible for legislating, believes it should be the agency experts that should have this authority — and for several decades, the judicial branch has agreed. But now the Court’s six conservatives believe they know better, which is a disaster for a democracy as large and complicated as our own.”
Norm Eisen, on the civil fraud trial, for Just Security: “Both Trump and his counsel have said he will testify. But Trump says a lot of things that do not come to pass. While he and his lawyers may well follow through, and there are pros to doing so, there are also substantial cons that may cause them to change their decision. For one thing, it is not clear that Trump’s testimony will actually change the judge’s mind. In adjudicating summary judgment, based on the heavy documentary record and Trump’s deposition, the judge has already made clear where he stands on the fraud. Every indication is that at the end of this process, he is going to rule against Trump… For that reason, if I were Trump’s lawyer, I would urge my client not to take the stand in his own defense.”
Mike Podhorzer in Washington Monthly: “Stressing over polling makes us think election outcomes are like the weather—something that happens to us. In reality, election outcomes are what we make happen—especially in the battleground states, which are so evenly and predictably divided. Remember: any election within the margin of error is also within the margin of effort.”
Michael Beckel, Research Director at Issue One, in Salon: “Election workers across the country are dedicated to keeping our democratic processes secure, fair and safe. When experienced election officials leave their positions, they take with them years of institutional knowledge and expertise. Our leaders have an obligation to protect our nation’s election workers and make sure they have what they need to keep our elections strong.”
Joyce Vance on X (Twitter): “Trump is increasingly referencing violence in a way that is disturbing, alarming. It’s being excused as “just Trump” in far too many quarters, suggesting the frogs are already boiled.”
