Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
In a press briefing on the Georgia election interference case on Monday, attorney Amy Lee Copeland said, “If you remember Bugs Bunny cartoons from your youth, where the small snowball would then turn into a giant avalanche, that’s kind of what I’ve seen going on in the short term here. The people turn in other people, who make it grow and spread.” She was right. After Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro pleaded guilty last week, former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis followed suit on Tuesday. Reportedly, so did former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.
These are enormous developments in the push for accountability for the attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. It is common for prosecutors to obtain guilty pleas from some figures in a conspiracy to strengthen their case against more central figures, like dominoes falling in a sequence. That may happen here, as well. Legal experts are suggesting that Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and even former President Trump may have more to worry about this week than last.
In other news, Trump fought against his two gag orders, and was fined twice for violating one of them. Voting rights advocates, meanwhile, noted that new North Carolina congressional maps – released this week – are heavily gerrymandered.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Key Figures Plead Guilty and Agree to Testify Against Trump in Georgia Election Interference Case
Last week, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro accepted plea deals with Georgia prosecutors in the election interference case. Chesebro’s deal was particularly significant. He pleaded guilty in a criminal racketeering indictment. He agreed to testify against Trump and other co-defendants, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and several other top Trump aides.
Even more defections followed. On Tuesday, Jenna Ellis also cut a deal that will require her to testify about the other defendants, including presumably Trump. The guilty pleas by Chesebro, Ellis, and Powell mean all three could take the stand against the former president. This will give prosecutors more leverage to convince some of the remaining 15 defendants in the case to also plead guilty.
Trump’s final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith’s team at least three times this year, as well. One of these discussions was apparently before a federal grand jury. This came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to ABC sources. The sources said Meadows informed Smith’s team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless. This directly contradicts Trump’s account of the events.
- Top point to make: No democracy can thrive without transparent and accountable leadership. The decisions of Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesebro to cooperate and testify will contribute to this goal. Three central figures – four, if Mark Meadows is also cooperating – have now admitted in court that they committed crimes while helping Donald Trump try to overturn a free and fair election in Georgia in 2020. Powell, Ellis, and Chesebro have agreed to give truthful testimony against other defendants. This will help DA Willis piece together this conspiracy for the jury. For almost three years, Willis has carefully and relentlessly pursued this case. She did that, and continues to do that, because this was a crime against the people of Georgia. It was a conspiracy to rob them of their freedom to decide the 2020 election themselves. It was a significant breach in our democracy. These plea deals represent substantial progress toward repairing it.
- If you read one thing: ABC, 10/24/23: Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: “Former President Donald Trump’s final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith’s team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter. The sources said Meadows informed Smith’s team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump’s prolific rhetoric regarding the election. According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being ‘dishonest’ with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in.”
2. Trump Fined for Violating Gag Order
As Trump faces 91 criminal charges, including 17 for his multifaceted drive to overturn his 2020 election loss, and a high-stakes civil trial, he has launched a barrage of ad hominem attacks on two judges overseeing trials. Trump faced two partial gag orders barring him from making certain types of public statements. Last Friday, he had already been ordered to pay $5,000 for violating the New York order.
These reprimands did little to deter him. This week, Trump has been fined $10,000 after appearing to reference a court clerk, in another violation of the New York gag order. Concurrently, special counsel Jack Smith is urging a federal judge to reinstate the federal order. The federal gag order had been paused while Trump filed an appeal.
Smith argues that Trump used a brief reprieve from restrictions to pressure and attack witnesses, such as his former chief of staff Mark Meadows. A 32-page filing on Wednesday night portrayed the former president as an active danger who must be restricted by a court to not only protect the integrity of the upcoming trial, but also the physical safety of government witnesses.
- Top point to make: As always, the former president’s incendiary remarks – and his insistence on making them – are a cause for concern. They jeopardize the safety of court officials, staff, and others. The gag orders ensure that information disseminated to the public is truthful and not misleading. They create a fairer and safer trial environment. Trump’s consistent attacks on the judiciary disrupt the transparency of the trial processes. The speed with which judges are reacting, however, shows an encouraging dedication to accountability.
- If you read one thing: CNN, 10/25/23: Judge fines Trump $10,000 for violating gag order: “Donald Trump has been fined $10,000 by a New York judge after appearing to reference a court clerk, in violation of a gag order. ‘As the trier of fact, I find that the witness is not credible,’ Judge Arthur Engoron said after hearing from the former president under oath.Engoron held a surprise hearing over comments Trump made outside the courtroom earlier Wednesday that could have been referring to a court clerk and therefore violating a gag order. ‘I’m going to hold a hearing right now about that,’ the judge said.
3. North Carolina Senate Republicans Propose Gerrymandered Congressional Districts
Republicans in the North Carolina Senate advanced a map proposal Monday for the state’s new congressional districts. The maps are a radical shift, and appear heavily gerrymandered. They create ten districts that appear to favor a Republican, three that favor a Democrat and one that could be considered competitive, according to statewide election data included with the proposal. Both parties currently hold seven seats in the state’s congressional delegation. The maps will begin to be used in 2024.
Democrats criticized the maps. “Republicans can expect to continue to win supermajorities, even when the Democrats win more than 50% of the statewide vote,” said Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford. “These maps are not going to reflect the electorate of North Carolina,” she added.
- Top point to make: The proposed maps give a significant advantage to one party. This challenges the very essence of democratic institutions. If a single party can cement its hold on power through manipulative means like redistricting, it can create an imbalance in representation. This imbalance can cause decision-making to suffer from a lack of diverse voices. Minority views and interests could be sidelined. If such actions occur unimpeded, they can erode public trust and create skepticism about the authenticity and integrity of election outcomes.
- If you read one thing: Associated Press, 10/23/23: North Carolina Senate advances congressional map plan that could give Republicans a 3-seat gain: “Republicans in the North Carolina Senate advanced a map proposal Monday for the state’s congressional districts starting in 2024 that could position the party to pick up at least three seats in the U.S. House next year. The potential gains would be a boon to congressional Republicans seeking to preserve and expand their majority in the narrowly divided chamber. The Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee approved a plan for North Carolina’s 14 U.S. House seats, creating 10 districts that appear to favor a Republican, three that favor a Democrat and one that could be considered competitive, according to statewide election data included with the proposal. Both parties currently hold seven seats each in the state’s congressional delegation after a panel of trial judges fashioned temporary boundaries for the 2022 election.”
Expert Voices
Mike Podhorzer, on the pervasiveness of the myth of the Big Lie, on the America’s WorkForce Union podcast: “I think it’s very much a product of information, but that a lot of people have chosen to live in, where there’s a reality to those lies that’s hard to penetrate. And that’s why this country really is so toxically divided: because we can’t agree on what’s true.”
Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, to Salon: “Every person, including Trump, has the right to engage in ‘forceful’ political advocacy. But Trump and his co-conspirators went far beyond advocacy. Trump and his cohorts engaged in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the results of a lawful election by illegal means. To endorse this argument would be to sanction any action taken under the guise of political advocacy, including violence and even political assassination.”
Marc Elias, on the attempt to use Independent State Legislature Theory (ISLT) in a lawsuit in Michigan, for Democracy Docket: “Fortunately, the legal gambit to overturn the pro-voting constitutional amendments in Michigan is destined to fail. Last term, the Supreme Court rejected the fringe ISL theory in Moore. There is no reason to think the Court will want to take up the issue again so soon or on these facts. Further working against the GOP lawsuit is that it also directly contradicts an earlier Supreme Court case that specifically approved of the ballot initiative process as a means of adding election-related provisions to state constitutions.”
Joyce Vance, about the punishments handed out to defendants, on X (Twitter): “Keep your eyes on the prize here. The goal is to hold folks accountable & to keep flipping lower level defendants against ones who are higher up the food chain to reach the most culpable.”
Devon Hasano for Democracy Docket: “Lawsuits alleging disproportionate impacts on young voters due to restrictive voting laws are backed up by substantial evidence. A legal challenge to Ohio’s omnibus voter suppression law enacted in January of this year — which imposed stricter photo ID requirements and eliminated numerous forms of previously accepted ID — lays out the drastic effect.Young voters in the state are far less likely to possess any of the acceptable forms of ID, as described in the lawsuit… While students are less likely to have a driver’s license, it is also especially difficult for them to visit a department of motor vehicles office to obtain a state identification card. As a result of not having a driver’s license or having an out of state license, young voters are “at increased risk of being disenfranchised,” the Ohio complaint asserts.”
