Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
It’s a brand new year, but among the holiday cheer, there has been some less-than-encouraging news when it comes to our democracy. Public officials from Maine to Hawaii, including those responsible for overseeing ballot access and voting, have been subject to threats and harassment this week—a disturbing trend that has been on the rise since 2020.
As the new year begins, our democracy is confronting the same issues that dominated the end of the last one: namely, the need for accountability for the attempts to subvert the 2020 election, and attempts to redraw legislative maps to disenfranchise voters.
Former President Donald Trump is also still insisting that he is immune to prosecution for any actions taken to overturn the legitimate win of President Joe Biden. He is, however, facing significant pushback to this argument, including an amicus brief from sixteen Republicans to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. These experts – former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers, including individuals appointed in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump administrations – support Judge Chutkan’s ruling that Trump is not immune from prosecution.
The main effect of Trump’s arguments, and those of his co-defendants, has been extensive delays to Trump’s court cases. This could be extremely harmful to our nation, which deserves to know what exactly happened in 2020 and 2021, and who is to blame.
Meanwhile, the courts continue to address allegations of gerrymandering in the redistricting process, particularly in Georgia, where voting rights groups claim that the state legislature violated the Voting Rights Act.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Trump Presses for Immunity in Election Case as Special Counsel Argues Against Claims in Appeals Court
Trump continues to attempt to get courts to rule he is immune from prosecution in his election interference case. With the U.S. Supreme Court declining to intervene early, he is now pressing this claim in federal appeals court, saying that sweeping presidential powers protect him from facing prosecution for his efforts to undo the 2020 election results. He is appealing a decision made in December by Judge Tanya Chutkan, who decided Trump does not have “absolute immunity” from decisions made while he was in the White House.
In a filing late Saturday night, Trump’s lawyers said immunity is necessary for “bold, fearless Executive leadership.” Trump also argues that the Senate somehow blocks future criminal prosecution when they acquitted him of impeachment. His legal brief also refers to a social media post from Trump on the same day of the filing, which links to a report from an unnamed source running down various unfounded voter fraud claims
In a more than 80-page filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in response, Special Counsel Jack Smith strongly argued against Trump’s insistence that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution on federal charges. In addition, Smith’s filing is filled with a list of theoretical misdeeds that seem to telegraph potential bombshells at his upcoming D.C. trial. These include accepting a bribe, ordering an FBI director to fake evidence against a political foe, ordering the military to murder critics, and even selling nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to the four-count indictment, filed in August, which accuses him of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. The fight over immunity is arguably the most important aspect of this case. While the case is set to go to trial in the Federal District Court in Washington in early March, it has been put on hold until Trump’s attempts to dismiss the charges on grounds of immunity are resolved.
- Top point to make: Trump’s continued pursuit of immunity is a significant threat to the principle that no one is above the law. While it is essential to let the standard appeals process play out, it is certainly distressing to see the lengths to which Trump and his lawyers are going to delay the case. The public deserves answers here, and as soon as possible. Furthermore, it must be noted that Trump’s perpetuation of voter fraud myths is highly damaging. Such misinformation is, indeed, a direct threat to democratic institutions. Our system works because the American people have faith in it. Attempts to erode that faith have been, and continue to be, devastating to our nation.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 1/3/24: Judge Pauses Trump Election Case Amid Appeal of Immunity Issue: “Prosecutors have repeatedly described Donald Trump’s false claims of voter fraud in 2020 as effectively manufacturing a pretense for fraudulently overturning the election. Special counsel Jack Smith said in his indictment of the former president that fake electors were meant to ‘create a fake controversy’ that could be used on Jan. 6, 2021. In a new filing, Trump’s legal team appears bent on helping prosecutors make that case. Tucked into Trump’s latest legal brief in his appeal for presidential immunity in his federal Jan. 6 case is a remarkable citation. Trump’s lawyers refer to a social media post from Trump the same day of the filing — Tuesday — which links to a report from an unnamed source running down various voter-fraud claims.”
2. Mark Meadows Seeks Full Appeals Court Review in Bid to Shift Election Case to Federal Jurisdiction
On Tuesday, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows requested, once again, that his election interference case be moved to federal court from Fulton County, Georgia. In pursuing this, he requested a rare ‘en banc’ hearing before all 12 judges on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meadows is among more than a dozen people charged with former President Donald Trump in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Meadows and four other co-defendants have asked to move their state cases to federal court. They are arguing that they were all acting as federal officials when they allegedly committed their crimes. This, they say, makes them all exempt from prosecution. A US District Court judge rejected Meadows’ last request in September. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The ruling, so far, has been consistent: prosecuting a former official in state court doesn’t interfere with a current presidential administration.
Meadows evidently plans to keep fighting hard. On Tuesday, he announced he’s hired Paul Clement, who represented the United States in matters before the Supreme Court from 2004 to 2008, to represent him in the case.
- Top point to make: It is important that we hold individuals who abuse their power accountable for their actions – because no one is above the law, including the president’s staff.. In the absence of more compelling arguments, Meadows seems to be aiming to avoid this by manipulating legal venues for a more favorable outcome. We should all be wary of efforts to shield individuals from facing consequences for their actions, especially for something as serious as alleged election interference. Also, while Meadows obviously has the right to any legal defense he sees fit to employ, the implications of hiring such a high-profile attorney here are concerning. It might signal a well-resourced and potentially prolonged battle, which could undermine or delay justice here. The best way for the court to gain and maintain public trust in this contentious case is through a swift and transparent trial.
- If you read one thing: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/3/24: Mark Meadows asks full appeals court to hear Fulton removal case: “Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is requesting that a federal appeals court reconsider his twice-rejected bid to move his Fulton County election interference case to federal court. In a court filing late Tuesday, the onetime Republican congressman requested a rare ‘en banc’ hearing before all 12 judges on the conservative 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. ‘A White House chief of staff facing a local prosecutor’s indictment based on actions taken in the west wing should not be a close call,’ his legal team argued. ‘No chief of staff has ever had to defend his west wing actions in state court.’”
3. Federal Judge Greenlights Georgia’s Redistricting Maps Amid National Debate on Voting Rights and Gerrymandering
A federal judge has approved Georgia’s new congressional and state legislative districts. This resolves one of the last cases in a particularly contentious round of national redistricting. The new Georgia maps were made during a special legislative session in December, which was prompted by a federal judge’s declaration that the maps made after the 2020 census violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Black voters.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones decided that the state legislature adhered to this directive. Civil rights groups and others contended, and continue to contend, that Georgia’s redistricting represents a racially-motivated gerrymander.
- Top point to make: Accusations of racially-driven gerrymandering must always be taken seriously. Remaining vigilant about new maps helps to ensure a fair and transparent electoral process that empowers all voters equally – and there is value in remaining cautious. Opposition from Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups suggests that the new maps may not genuinely reflect a fair representation of Black voters’ interests.
- If you read one thing: WABE, 12/28/23: Judge upholds Georgia’s newly-revised political maps: “A federal judge has approved Georgia’s newly-revised political maps for Congress and the state legislature, a win for Republicans who sought to preserve their partisan advantage while adding new majority-Black districts required by the court. ‘The Court finds that the General Assembly fully complied with this Court’s order,’ U.S. District Judge Steve Jones wrote in a Thursday ruling. The court’s decision to approve the new Republican-drawn maps comes over the objections of the civil rights and religious groups who first sued over Georgia’s maps. They argued that the revised district lines continue to illegally dilute the power of Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.”
Expert Voices
Adam Liptak, on the amicus brief filed regarding Trump’s presidential immunity case, for the New York Times: “A friend-of-the-court brief from former government officials said Mr. Trump’s position had ‘sweeping and absurd consequences,’ noting that a great many officials are subject to impeachment. ‘Under the defendant’s interpretation,’ the brief said, ‘the executive would lack the power to prosecute all current and former civil officers for acts taken in office unless Congress first impeached and convicted them. That would permit countless officials to evade criminal liability.’ Mr. Trump also made a slightly narrower but still audacious argument: ‘A president who is acquitted by the Senate cannot be prosecuted for the acquitted conduct.’”
Barb McQuade, on an amicus brief filed regarding Trump’s presidential immunity case, for X (Twitter): “Interesting argument in a new amicus brief by conservative lawyers that Trump’s immunity appeal is subject to final judgment rule and must wait until after trial. Brief uses a textual reading of the Constitution to argue that stay should be lifted immediately.”
Norm Eisen, regarding Trump’s presidential immunity case. for X (Twitter): “BREAKING: the DC Circ has ordered the parties to be ready to reply to the amicus briefs in the immunity case. The case is the most important they’ll confront this year as I explained. So they should consider Amici’s arguments.”
Marc Elias for Democracy Docket: “Most people paying attention to democracy in courts are aware of the major provisions, like Section 2, of the Voting Rights Act. Few are even aware of several more obscure provisions that are already being used — some for the first time ever — in 2024. If successful, they will expand the time periods for all citizens, but particularly minority and young voters, to register to vote and apply for and receive mail-in ballots for the 2024 presidential election. Another set of these would strike down all witness requirements for mail-in voting. Already four cases have been filed using this novel theory, with more almost certainly on the way soon.”
Igor Derysh, on DOJ Special Counsel’s warning against granting Trump presidential immunity, for Salon: “Smith’s team in an 82-page filing over the weekend warned an appellate court against granting former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution because his post-election crusade was an official part of his presidential duties. ‘That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary,’ the filing said.”
