Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
For months now, former President Donald Trump has argued that he should have immunity for any role he played in the January 6 insurrection, by virtue of having been president at the time. This week, he brought this claim to a federal appeals court, though few legal experts believed the immunity argument held water. While we do not know the court’s decision yet, commentary from the judges suggests the court was, similarly, less than impressed.
Trump’s civil trial in New York has ended after an incendiary set of closing remarks by the former president himself. All the while, Trump continued to threaten dire repercussions if his numerous court cases were decided against him, even as his lawyers prepare for the Mar-a-Lago classified documents trial.
Meanwhile, the legal saga of Ray Epps, whose participation on January 6 made him the center of a conspiracy theory, came to a close with a probation sentence. One year after the insurrection, more than 850 people have been convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.
Finally, Louisiana and North Dakota remain embroiled in gerrymandering disputes centered on possible violations of the Voting Rights Act, as federal courts determined that a new Ohio voting law disenfranchises voters.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Federal Appeals Court Leans Toward Rejecting Trump’s Immunity Claims in Election Case
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, heard Trump’s claims of immunity for charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election. It signaled it would probably reject them, with the judges displaying little sympathy for Trump’s claims. Judge Karen L. Henderson expressed some concern about opening the “floodgates” for politically motivated prosecutions of future presidents. But all the judges expressed doubts about Trump’s legal arguments. Henderson said it was “paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws.”
Trump, who was present, showed little emotion throughout. At the end of the trial, he suggested that the special counsel’s office had been forced to concede two key points. He did not offer details as to what those points were.
The court has already moved the case along at a brisk pace. It is expected to make its decision fairly quickly by the standards of a typical appeal.
- Top point to make: The judges’ skepticism appears to be warranted. There is little precedent suggesting that a president should not be liable for any actions taken in office, and the comments from Trump’s own camp in 2021 supported the perspective that he could be held accountable once out of office. Rejecting the immunity claim ensures that the democratic process is upheld, misinformation is combated, and key figures are held accountable for their actions. These are all core American values. It is important that this trial be allowed to proceed, quickly and efficiently, so that we can ensure that the rule of law is respected and voters are able to get all the information they need this year.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 1/10/24: Trump’s Argument for Immunity in 2024 Is the Opposite of His Stance in 2021: “When former President Donald J. Trump appeared before an appeals court in Washington this week to claim he was immune from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, one of his lawyers argued that he should not face criminal charges because the Senate had failed to convict him of similar offenses at an impeachment trial three years ago. But at that February 2021 trial, Mr. Trump, through a different set of lawyers, made the opposite claim: He argued that the Senate could not convict him because he was already out of office while pointing to the criminal justice system as the legitimate remaining way to seek accountability. ‘After he is out of office,’ Bruce Castor, one of the impeachment lawyers, said, ‘you go and arrest him.’”
2. Ray Epps, Former Oath Keeper, Sentenced to Probation for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack Role
Former Oath Keeper Ray Epps was sentenced to one year of probation on Tuesday for his role during the attack at the Capitol on Jan. 6. The former Trump supporter became a target of a conspiracy theory over the last several years. This theory claimed he was an undercover government agent who helped to instigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He, his lawyer, the prosecutor, and even the judge overseeing the case all asserted in open court that the tale was preposterous.
In addition to the year of probation, Epps received a $25 fine, $500 restitution, and 100 hours of community service. Before his sentencing, Epps said that he never should have believed claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “Truth is not always found in the places I used to trust,” Epps said in court on Tuesday.
Epps had been on the front lines of the mob as it pushed toward the Capitol, but he turned himself in to the FBI on Jan. 8, 2021, and cooperated with authorities and the House committee investigating the attack.
- Top point to make: Epps, essentially, serves as a cautionary tale for the dangers of misinformation and extremist ideologies in the post-Jan. 6 landscape. It is promising that he now acknowledges that the 2020 election was not stolen. This suggests that there is a possibility of countering these false narratives even among true believers. But Epps also illustrates that this reform only comes with accountability provided by our legal system.
- If you read one thing: CNN, 1/10/24: Ray Epps: Man at center of right-wing conspiracy theories sentenced to one-year probation for his actions on January 6: “The man who became an unwitting figurehead of false conspiracy theories around the January 6 US Capitol attack has been sentenced for his actions that day to one year of probation. James Ray Epps, who pleaded guilty in September to disorderly conduct in a restricted area, was sentenced Tuesday, marking the end of a chapter for the man who some right-wing figures falsely claimed was a federal agent who helped incite the attack. Prosecutors have made clear that Epps was never an undercover government agent.”
3. Redistricting Battles Keep Expanding Across the Nation
Redistricting disputes are continuing their frantic pace this year. In Ohio, a federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging a law requiring voters to show ID at the polls, among other changes. U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs in the case. These plaintiffs included the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans, and the Union Veterans Council. The lawsuit was filed a year ago in the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs argued that the voting changes in House Bill 458 would unconstitutionally disenfranchise younger voters, senior citizens, Black voters, and military members.
Meanwhile, in North Dakota, a federal judge on Monday ordered the creation of a new joint legislative district for two Native American tribes. The tribes successfully argued a map created through redistricting in 2021 violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength. A judge had given North Dakota’s Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe and the GOP-controlled Legislature until Dec. 22 “to adopt a plan to remedy the violation.” The deadline passed with no new map.
In Louisiana, Governor Jeff Landry has ordered state lawmakers into a special session on redistricting and elections. He has called on the legislature to update voting boundaries for the state’s congressional and Louisiana Supreme Court Districts. The American Civil Liberties Union says it hopes the legislature approves a new congressional map that adheres to the Voting Rights Act. If not, they say they are ready to go to trial.
- Top point to make: As is often the case, the current redistricting developments are a mixed bag. North Dakota and Louisiana are undertaking positive steps toward fair representation and combating gerrymandering. The call for a special session in Louisiana to redraw the state’s congressional map will help ensure fair representation in line with the demographics of the state. The creation of a new legislative district to give fair representation to Native American tribes in North Dakota similarly upholds the Voting Rights Act.
The disenfranchisement caused by the Ohio law, however, is worrying. Any legislation or court decisions that could potentially disenfranchise voters, especially marginalized groups, are harmful to our nation and should be opposed.
- If you read one thing: Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/8/24: Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging Ohio’s voter ID law: “A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit from left-leaning groups challenging a Republican-backed Ohio law requiring voters to show ID at the polls and altering the state’s early-voting times, among other changes. U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent on Monday granted requests by Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office and the Ohio Republican Party, among others, to grant summary judgment against the plaintiffs in the case, which included the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans and the Union Veterans Council. Their lawsuit, filed a year ago Tuesday in the Northern District of Ohio, claimed the voting changes in House Bill 458 would unconstitutionally disenfranchise younger voters, senior citizens, Black voters, and military members. The groups also argued that the changes serve no legitimate purpose, given how rare voter fraud is in the state.”
Expert Voices
Norm Eisen, regarding Trump’s presidential immunity case, on X (Twitter): “100% Under DC Cir law the panel can BOTH find that Trump, of course, does not have absolute immunity— & that the question should not have been taken up on interlocutory appeal but should’ve waited until the normal course post-trial. The stay should be lifted & trial prep resume ASAP.”
Marc Elias for Democracy Docket: “Immediately after the Jan. 6 insurrection, Republicans signaled they had had enough. Even as Republican profiles in cowardice refused to impeach him, Trump seemed alone and isolated. Even his most stalwart allies on Fox News and in the GOP offered criticism and kept their distance. This was short-lived. Predictably, what Republican elites wanted for their party soon ran headlong into the buzzsaw of the grassroots. Right-wing activists poisoned by years of Trump-filled lies and conspiracy theories demanded new investigations into the 2020 election and new legislation to combat nonexistent voter fraud.”
Laurence Tribe, Norman Eisen, and Taylor Redd, regarding Trump’s immunity case hearing, for CNN: “As Judge Michelle Childs pointedly noted to Trump’s counsel, Trump’s immunity claim is irreconcilable with this nation’s history: “Why, for example, would President Gerald Ford have pardoned Richard Nixon if absolute criminal immunity existed?”
Andrew Weissmann, regarding Trump’s immunity case hearing, on X (Twitter): “So shocking to hear Trump’s counsel say a president is free to sell pardons and kill political opponents, unless and until successfully impeached (which may never happen for a host of reasons).”
Joyce Vance, regarding Trump’s immunity case hearing, for X (Twitter): “None of the Judges seemed to believe Trump should be immune from prosecution.”
