Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
This week we witnessed several important developments in the cases against former President Donald Trump. There were key decisions in the 14th Amendment and the 2020 election interference cases, and Trump testified in the E Jean Carroll trial. Meanwhile, Trump claimed on Truth Social that presidents should have complete immunity for actions taken in office, to widespread criticism. In a democratic society, this would set a terrible precedent.
In New Hampshire, the long-held fears of many came to fruition this week, when artificial intelligence was used to make a deepfake voice of President Biden in a robocall full of misinformation. Legislators in the U.S. House have already requested that the Justice Department take action to prevent such abuses from becoming widespread.
Lastly, Wisconsin Republican legislators are working to draft new legislative maps in order to conform to a State Supreme Court decision. Their previous maps were ruled to be an illegitimate gerrymander.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. All Things Trump update: Maine Supreme Court Decision, Dubious Claims of Presidential Immunity, and a Gag Order Upheld
On Wednesday, the Maine Supreme Court decided that Trump can remain on Maine’s primary ballot until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the 14th Amendment case in Colorado. They upheld a lower judge’s order and dismissed Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) appeal. This was a unanimous decision.
Meanwhile, Trump said on Friday night that American presidents deserve complete immunity from prosecution even for acts that “cross the line.” He made these remarks on his social media platform, Truth Social. They were the latest signal that he seems to view the presidency as an office unbounded by the normal checks of the criminal justice system. Legal analysts disagree.
In the 2020 election interference case, the full federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday rejected Trump’s bid to lift a gag order imposed on him. The ruling leaves Trump with only the option of appealing to the Supreme Court on this matter. The appeals court decision largely affirmed Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling, which barred Trump from making statements that “target” foreseeable witnesses, court staff, and prosecutors. The appeals court refined that directive: They barred Trump from any statements “made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with” the course of the case.
Also, Trump testified at the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial. He was restricted from disputing that he had sexually abused and defamed Carroll, and was only on the stand for a few minutes. Under direct examination from his lawyer, Trump was asked if he had ever instructed anyone to hurt Carroll in his statements about her. “No, I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency,” Trump said. Trump was ordered at a separate trial last year to pay $5 million to Carroll for sexually abusing her in the mid-1990s and for damaging her reputation through denials and insults in 2022.
- Top point to make: There are serious potential implications for the Maine Supreme Court’s decision. It is crucial that we be able to hold public figures accountable for their behavior and insist that they follow the rule of law. This is undermined if we ignore Constitutional prerequisites for candidacy. Along the same lines, Trump’s assertion that presidents deserve total immunity from prosecution is also highly dangerous. His stance is not surprising at this point, but certainly remains alarming. If courts back him up, the potential impact of such a precedent on democratic institutions and the balance of power in the U.S. government would be severe. Finally, the court’s decision to uphold the gag order is a necessary measure to protect the integrity of our legal system. We need to prevent potential interference with witnesses and the court proceedings. We should all support the court’s efforts to balance the rights of the accused with the need to maintain a fair and impartial legal process.
- If you read one thing: Newsweek, 1/25/24: State Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Decision on Donald Trump Case: “Maine’s highest court refused on Wednesday to weigh in on whether embattled former President Donald Trump should stay on the ballot in the state, before the U.S. Supreme Court decides on a similar case in Colorado. On December 19, Colorado became the first state to declare Trump ineligible for the White House under a constitutional clause that prevents insurrectionists from holding office. A few days later, Maine—another Democratic-led state—moved to disqualify Trump from running on the state’s primary ballot, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.’”
2. New Hampshire Election Targeted by Biden-Impersonating Deepfake, Prompting State and Federal Investigations into AI Misuse in Elections
A robocall, with someone impersonating President Joe Biden’s voice, discouraged residents from voting in Tuesday’s New Hampshire presidential primary. The message appears to have been “spoofed” to falsely show that it had been sent by the treasurer of a political committee. The New Hampshire attorney general is launching an investigation. Congressman Joseph Morelle (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to the Justice Department on Monday calling for a federal investigation. Morelle, in his note to Attorney General Merrick Garland, said he is deeply concerned about the effects AI could have on elections.
In the year since ChatGPT launched, generative AI has quickly become a focus of concern for lawmakers. The deepfake robocall imitating Biden has further sparked these fears. “The political deepfake moment is here,” said Robert Weissman, president of the progressive advocacy group Public Citizen, in a statement Monday. “Policymakers must rush to put in place protections, or we’re facing electoral chaos. The New Hampshire deepfake is a reminder of the many ways that deepfakes can sow confusion and perpetuate fraud.”
- Top point to make: Rep. Joseph Morelle’s call for a DOJ investigation into the fake Biden robocall is wise. The dangers of using AI technology to create misleading or fraudulent communications, especially in the context of elections, are substantial. These tactics could undermine trust in the electoral process and potentially even change election outcomes. We need robust measures to counter such disinformation tactics. In the long-term, the nation might be well served by strong regulatory measures to ensure AI accountability and transparency in this context.
- If you read one thing: USA Today, 1/24/24: Fake Biden robocall prompts state probe, ratchets up concerns about AI in 2024 election: “The New Hampshire attorney general’s office has launched an investigation into the fake robocall with someone impersonating President Joe Biden which discouraged residents from voting in Tuesday’s presidential primary. ‘Although the voice in the robocall sounds like the voice of President Biden, this message appears to be artificially generated based on initial indications,’ the attorney general’s office said in a statement. The message appears to have been ‘spoofed’ to falsely show that it had been sent by the treasurer of a political committee that has been supporting the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary write-in efforts for President Biden.”
3. Wisconsin GOP Legislators Rush to Redraw Legislative Maps, Aiming to Avoid State Supreme Court Intervention
Wisconsin’s Republican lawmakers are scrambling to draw new legislative district maps. New maps will need to win the approval of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in order to prevent the state Supreme Court from drawing its own maps. The state Supreme Court last month tossed the current Republican-drawn maps as unconstitutional. The court said it would draw new maps unless the legislature and Evers agreed to new ones first.
Senate Republicans unveiled the last set of maps in a proposal as a 169-page amendment to a previous bill. They did not offer the public or their Democratic colleagues an opportunity to review it.
- Top point to make: Fair and unbiased maps are essential for maintaining the integrity of democratic institutions. Since there is great potential for partisan interests to influence the redistricting process, transparency and public involvement in such decisions is paramount. Accordingly, the refusal of Wisconsin’s Republican legislators to present their maps for public review is unfortunate. Fair representation requires a fair process. We hope that this is what happens going forward.
- If you read one thing: PBS Wisconsin, 1/24/24: Wisconsin Republicans send last-ditch redistricting plan to Evers: “Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers promised to veto a redistricting proposal that the Republican-controlled Assembly passed on Jan. 24 and that largely mirror maps he proposed, but with changes that would reduce the number of GOP incumbents who would have to face one another in November. Evers’ veto will leave it to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to install the state’s new maps. The liberal-controlled state Supreme Court in December tossed the current Republican-drawn maps as unconstitutional. The court said it would draw new maps unless the Legislature and Evers agreed to ones first.”
Expert Voices
Alan Jenkins, a Professor at Harvard Law School, in an interview reflecting on Jan. 6, with Salon: “This is a chilling moment for our democracy, but I am nonetheless hopeful that we can reclaim our democratic values and institutions. The forces that drove the 2021 insurrection — disinformation, white nationalism, antisemitism, the resort to political violence — have only grown stronger in the years since January 6, 2021. But I’ve been heartened by the activism and courage of everyday people around the country. People who believe in democracy and equal justice have been organizing, educating, and demanding accountability.”
Marc Elias for Democracy Docket: “Once again, pro-voting groups dominated in every category of court wins. In a year that saw 146 separate court orders across 34 states, pro-democracy forces won more than twice as many times as they lost. This includes winning nearly twice as many final orders and 70% of the interim orders in cases that are still pending. Pro-voting victories spanned state and federal courts at all levels…For the third year in a row, the Republican Party increased its share of the anti-voting docket. In 2023, Republicans were behind 68% of all anti-voting lawsuits, up from 52% in 2022 and 25% in 2021. On the other side, it was nonpartisan groups that litigated the vast majority — 92% — of the pro-voting cases in 2023.”
Amanda Marcotte, on E. Jean Carroll defamation case, for Salon: “Most men indicted for sexual abuse or assault will surround themselves with female supporters while claiming to be too tender-hearted to hurt a woman. The goal of defense attorneys is generally to make their client seem incapable of the vicious crime they’re accused of. Not Donald Trump, however. In what is now the second trial regarding his sexual assault and repeated defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll, Trump has embraced the novel strategy of acting exactly like a cartoonishly evil villain on an episode of ‘Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.’ Despite repeatedly whining about how much time he has to spend in court, Trump has shown up in court, even though he doesn’t have to, just to intimidate not just Carroll but the jury members.”
