We hate to do this (as we suspect we'll be doing it recurringly for the next year or so), but once again the biggest political news of the week came from the legal system. Almost all the news was from the Republican side of the aisle, because of course it was. (And we promise that our subhead this week will be explained in due time, too... but not until the very end of the column.)

While most of the legal proceedings in the political world are going to be drawn-out affairs, this week we saw a truly speedy trial take place. Peter Navarro's trial began at the start of the week (after the holiday, even), took only two days from start to finish (with only three hours of witness testimony), and the jury then took a mere four hours to return with a guilty verdict. Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress, which was (quite obviously) an open-and-shut case. Navarro was prevented by the judge (before the trial began) of making his specious argument to the jury that he somehow had some sort of magic "executive privilege" that meant he was free to just blow off a congressional subpoena. In the first place, Donald Trump never backed up Navarro's claim of executive privilege -- which is not something that just anybody can claim (it requires the actual executive to claim it). Secondly, even if Navarro did have a legitimate claim to executive privilege (which he did not), he still would have been required to show up as a witness and claim executive privilege in person (which he did not do). So he really didn't have any defense at all and is pinning all his hopes that the Supreme Court will eventually just let him skate free. He now faces up to two years in jail, although even if he is sentenced to some prison time he will likely remain free until his appeals are all exhausted. Even so, it was good to see some actual legal consequences for a member of Donald Trump's White House.

The other big trial of the week (we wrote about both trials yesterday at more length, if anyone's interested) is taking place in the Texas state senate, where Attorney General Ken Paxton is facing a whopping 16 articles of impeachment. If the senate convicts him of even one of them, he will be removed from office and barred from ever serving in any state office again. The trial is likely to wrap up next week, and the outcome is in no way certain. The Texas legislature is dominated by Republicans, but the house impeached him with 60 out of the 86 Republican members voting to impeach. In the senate, if the 12 Democrats vote to convict, nine Republicans will also be necessary (to reach the two-thirds mark). So this will be a big legal story to watch next week.

Of course, every week (for the foreseeable future) will also have some Donald Trump legal news in it. He's got so many cases up in the air, it's almost guaranteed there'll be developments on a regular basis. So let's just quickly run down what happened this week:

The worst news Trump got was that in the second federal case brought against him by E. Jean Carroll, the judge issued a summary judgment: since Trump has already been proven to be liable (in her first case against him, which she won), there is simply no need to relitigate that part of it, so the only thing the jury will have to determine is how much money Trump will have to pay her. In other words, Trump has lost before the case even begins.

One case sort of flying beneath most people's radar is the business fraud case against him in New York, but the judge in this case ruled against Trump's motion for more delays and the case is scheduled to begin October 2nd. So it'll be the first one out of the chute, although since it is a civil case, Trump won't have to physically show up in the courtroom.

Another case that hasn't been getting much attention is one filed by Lisa Page and Peter Strzok against the F.B.I. They're not suing Trump himself, but an appellate court just ruled that Trump could be forced to give a deposition in this case (since he was at the heart of the effort to punish the two F.B.I. employees, and repeatedly bragged about doing so). And you never know what Trump is going to say when he's put under oath, so there's that to look forward to.

Down in Georgia, the prosecutor indicated that any of the trials (for all 19 defendants) will likely take around four months -- after a jury is seated. That's an important distinction because with a sweeping RICO case that is likely going to take months. It can be tough to find jurors who wouldn't have their financial life turned upside down by a monthslong trial (seating a jury for such an extended trial can, in and of itself, take months).

[Breaking news: while editing this article, the news broke that a federal judge has just denied the motion of Mark Meadows to move his case to a federal court instead of being tried in Georgia state court. This has implications for all the other defendants (possibly including Donald Trump) who are making or may make a similar effort. But the news broke so late we'll have to address this fallout next week, sorry.]

The big news out of Georgia today, though, was the release of the initial grand jury's recommendations. Under Georgia law, the grand jury that extensively investigated everything didn't have the power to actually indict anyone, so they handed off their findings in a report to the grand jury that did have that power. And they recommended bringing charges against a lot more people than the 19 who were ultimately charged. Which included a lot of very big names (Senator Lindsey Graham and former senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler), as well as Trump loyalist Michael Flynn, and Trump lawyers Boris Epshteyn, Cleta Mitchell, and Lin Wood. So astonishing as it is to say it, charging only 19 people was actually a very conservative move by the prosecutor. She obviously only filed cases where she thought she could easily win a conviction, and declined to file charges against people who might have been tougher to convict.

And a final bit of Trump legal news -- one that will grow in magnitude, over time -- the very first lawsuit has been filed in an effort to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, because by the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, he is ineligible to serve. He is guilty, at the very least, of "giving aid and comfort" to insurrectionists (as he sat for hours, gleefully watching them on television, refusing to lift a finger to help the cops defending the United States Capitol and every member of Congress from an angry mob). This battle is going to take place across numerous states and in numerous ways (lawsuits, convincing elections officials to rule Trump can't be on the ballot, etc.), and seems destined to wind up in the Supreme Court, so it's going to be a very interesting test of a constitutional clause that hasn't been used since the Civil War (when it was created).

In other news, Republicans in Wisconsin are plotting a very nefarious way of ignoring and insulting the voters of their state. It hasn't quite happened yet, but we certainly wouldn't put it past them, at this point.

In a hard-fought election this year, a liberal chalked up an overwhelming victory in a race for a seat on the state's supreme court. She just got sworn in, but the high court hasn't heard any cases since then. Two cases in particular are expected soon, however, that would have far-reaching results in Wisconsin: one that would guarantee abortion rights in the state and one that would toss out the blatant gerrymandering that Republicans have gotten away with for years.

This has led to a backlash, and the aforementioned nefarious plot. The Washington Post summed it up nicely in a headline: "Wisconsin's Gerrymandering Rides To The Rescue Of Its Gerrymandering." The GOP has so successfully drawn the lines for the state legislative seats that the GOP holds an overwhelming advantage, despite the fact that the state is almost perfectly-balanced in terms of how people vote. This has given Republicans huge unearned majorities in both chambers, including exactly two-thirds of the state senate.

So what they're contemplating doing is to impeach the new justice. Before she ever even hears a case. This is completely outrageous, it bears mentioning, since there simply is no crime or misconduct to impeach her for. But that may not stop them. And, just like Mitch McConnell showed them how to do, by using parliamentary rules, they could deny the will of Wisconsin's voters almost indefinitely. Here is the twisted plot, in all its ugliness:

MAGA Republicans in Wisconsin are gearing up to impeach newly elected state Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, just five weeks after she took her seat on the court and before she has cast her first vote. They want to stop her from doing what the majority of Wisconsin voters elected her to do.

Their plan is nothing less than a coup attempt, an effort to sideline a duly elected judge not because she has committed an impeachable offense but because of what she might do -- namely, join her liberal colleagues in throwing out gerrymandered state legislative maps and legalizing abortion in Wisconsin.

Here's how it would all work:

If Republicans move ahead with this impeachment, it will be for one reason only: because they think they can. "Republicans feel deeply entitled to their gerrymandered majority," said Charlie Sykes, once a powerful right-wing radio host in Wisconsin and now a founder of the Never Trump conservative publication The Bulwark. "For them, this is an existential issue."

Impeachment, which requires only a simple majority of the Assembly, may be easier for Republicans than removal, which requires a two-thirds vote in the State Senate. (Given the size of their Senate majority, they couldn't afford to lose a single vote.) But some observers think that even if Republicans impeach [state Supreme Court Justice Janet] Protasiewicz, they have no intention of actually holding a Senate trial. Once impeached, a justice is suspended from hearing cases while the process plays out. But since the state Constitution is silent on a timeline for that process, Republicans could impeach Protasiewicz and then leave her in legal oblivion indefinitely.

In that case, the Democratic governor, Tony Evers, would never be able to appoint a replacement, and the court would be deadlocked, unable to do anything about either the gerrymandering or the abortion ban.

"Senate Republicans in Wisconsin are basically saying, 'Yeah, we're not going to have a trial. We won't do anything,'" said Sykes, whose ex-wife is a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. "So in other words, she would never get to due process. And she would sit in limbo, theoretically, forever. So they just wipe away the election."

This is pure evil. It is losing and then getting what you want anyway by cheating. As we said, thanks to Mitch McConnell denying Barack Obama a Supreme Court pick, such disgraceful and disgusting tactics are now apparently on the table. Democrats wouldn't even get to make the case to the voters of Republican state senators (several of whom represent districts that lean Democratic) to pressure them to refuse to convict in a senate trial -- because there never will be a senate trial.

The only recourse Wisconsin voters would have would be to throw the bums out in the next election -- but if they're successful in their chicanery, the next election will be held with the same outrageously-gerrymandered maps as are in place right now. Which pretty much guarantees that Democrats are never going to win control of either chamber of the state legislature.

This is how low the Republican Party is willing to stoop, these days. And it has disgusted us so much that we're just going to wrap up this segment here with two news items designed to cleanse the mental palette.

In the first, the Pentagon has now launched a new website where anyone can go to see what evidence they have (mostly from the cameras of military planes) of U.F.O.s. This was all the result of Congress forcing them to go public with this stuff, and now there's a very easy way for the public to see what they've got, so go check the site out!

And finally, President Joe Biden was caught in a rather endearing moment while working the rope line at a recent event celebrating Labor Day. It seems a guy in the audience complimented Biden's baseball cap (with the presidential seal on it), so Biden reached out and swapped hats with the guy. He got to go home with an official presidential cap, while Biden got a cap reading: "JFK" in return. As the tweet with the video clip put it: "That's just Joe being Joe."

This week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis. She charging ahead with the wide-ranging RICO case she filed against Donald Trump and 18 of his cronies, and since two of them demanded speedy trials Willis told the judge (essentially): "Fine! Let's just try all of them together starting next month! I'm ready to go!" But that's not why we're giving her the MIDOTW award this week.

Representative Jim Jordan, who is hellbent on politicizing the justice system as much as Republicans can get away with, sent a letter to Willis demanding, essentially, that she stop her uppity behavior and let Donald Trump walk scot-free for all the state crimes he is now officially charged with.

Well, that's overstating things, but only slightly.

Jordan is trying the same tactic that has already failed him against New York and federal prosecutors who have the temerity to insist that no one -- not even the leader of the GOP personality cult, Donald Trump -- is above the law. This irks Jordan no end, but as a mere House of Representatives committee chair, there isn't a whole lot he can do about it. Which hasn't stopped him from trying.

So he sent a similar letter to Willis, making all sorts of demands for documents and explanations and obeisance. This week, Willis sent her reply back to him:

In the letter, Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis accused Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of "an unjustified and illegal intrusion into an open state criminal prosecution" with his own recent letter demanding records related to the investigation and indictment of [Donald] Trump and his allies on charges, alleging that they illegally plotted to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia.

"Your attempt to invoke congressional authority to intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case in Georgia is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution," Willis wrote in the nine-page letter, which accuses Jordan of lacking a "basic understanding of the law," including the law regarding state sovereignty.

"Your public statements and your letter itself make clear that you lack any legitimate legislative purpose for that inquiry," Willis added. "Your job description as a legislator does not include criminal law enforcement, nor does it include supervising a specific criminal trial because you believe that doing so will promote your partisan political objectives."

. . .

In her response, Willis called Jordan's letter "unconstitutional" and "offensive."

"Its obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations," Willis wrote. "There is no justification in the Constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter, as you attempt to do.

"The defendants in this case have been charged under state law with committing state crimes. There is absolutely no support for Congress purporting to second guess or somehow supervise an ongoing Georgia criminal investigation and prosecution," Willis added.

Willis suggested that Jordan's questions about how she had prosecuted the case "shows a total ignorance of Georgia's racketeering statute and the basics of criminal conspiracy law."

"I encourage you to read 'RICO State-by-State,'" Willis wrote, referring to a book by John Floyd, a special prosecutor on the 2020 election case. "As a non-member of the bar, you can purchase a copy for two hundred forty-nine dollars [$249]."

In technical legal terms, this is known as "taking him to the woodshed."

The whole letter isn't that long, and is a breathtaking read, so we urge everyone to take the time to do so.

Willis is already showing her steely backbone in the face of a tsunami of political pressure, and she appears more than up to the task of smacking down annoying little pismires such as Jordan. And for that, she definitely deserves this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on her official contact page (although there is no direct "email Willis" link, however, sorry), to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

It is with a very heavy heart that we hand out our next award. Because we can see both sides of the issue, but at the same time it was disappointing to hear.

Representative Nancy Pelosi just announced she is going to run for another two-year term in the House of Representatives. Now, normally this would be cause for celebration, since Pelosi is already a living House legend. She was one of the most consequential and successful House speakers in living memory (Tip O'Neill is the other one in that lofty rank, for us at least), she finally showed that the Democratic House cats (so to speak) could indeed be herded, and she was a stalwart fighter for good and decency and the American way when Donald Trump was president. All that is undeniable. So it's not like we have any personal negative feelings about her or her stupendous legacy.

But she is 83 years old. Now, she's a lot more on the ball and spry and quick-thinking than a whole lot of other politicians of her age (or greater), we have to fully admit (in both political parties, to be fair). But her legacy has always been her leadership. And deciding not to step down is not good leadership, at least as we see it.

Pelosi lives in a safe Democratic district -- the city of San Francisco. And she's already got a literal heir apparent, as her daughter Christine is fully ready to step into Mom's shoes (Christine is currently a member of the Democratic National Committee). This would continue a political dynasty that started with Pelosi's father (Thomas D'Alesandro) in Maryland. So her seat would remain in family hands (since Christine would likely very easily beat any other Democrat who ran).

When Democrats last lost control of the House, Pelosi stepped down from leadership (rather than staying on as minority leader to lead Democrats back to the majority, which she had already done once). She is now nothing but "a backbencher," although she does offer advice (when asked) to those who took up the leadership reins of the party in her chamber. So even if Democrats did win the chamber back in 2024, Pelosi will almost certainly not become speaker again (for a third time). So that isn't a reason for her to stick around for another term.

As we said, this is a tough thing for us to say, since we have tons of admiration for Pelosi and since she is a valuable institutional resource for the leadership who did take over and because she is still one of the most prolific fundraisers the Democrats have. If this had happened in a vacuum, then maybe we'd just say: "Oh what the heck, sure, take another term, Nancy! You've more than earned it!"

But it didn't happen in a vacuum. Pelosi is missing out on a chance to really show some leadership in the manner of her exit from the national political stage. She could set a very good example by handing her district over (to her own daughter, most likely). She could show some other octogenarians (and even nonagenarians): "This is the graceful way to step down."

But she chose not to. Which we have to admit, is more than a little disappointing.

Nancy Pelosi will cruise to re-election, we have zero doubt about that. She will be around for the next two years in Congress after the election. She will still be a resource for the current Democratic leadership, and she's still got the power to knock heads and get Democrats all on the same page. That is all to the good.

But still... she is 83 years old. And she chose not to set an example by going out demonstrating the stellar leadership that is her hallmark. Which is why we -- very reluctantly, mind you -- have to name her our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Representative Nancy Pelosi on her House contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

Volume 722 (9/8/23)

The talking points are kind of all over the map this week, but as promised there's a funny one at the end.

Before we get started, however, we have to mark the passing of two men of note this week: Jimmy Buffett and Bill Richardson. Both -- in their own way -- made a lot of people's lives better, so they will be missed. Requiescat In Pace.

   Do you believe in democracy?

Joe Biden is leaning in hard on this one, which he also did (to great effect) in the midterms. Other Democrats should follow his lead, because at this point it's not just Trump, it has metastasized across the entire GOP.

"You know what a fundamental difference is between our two parties? Democrats believe in and fight for democracy -- while Republicans fight tooth and claw against having the voice of the people decide things. Even when they lose an election, they'll use any means -- by hook or by crook -- to try and rig things so that the voters just don't matter. In Wisconsin, the Republicans are about to pull a fast one to get rid of a state supreme court justice they don't like. They are going to, in a word, cheat to get what they want. They can do this because they already cheated -- they drew incredibly gerrymandered districts that guarantee that the voices of Wisconsin's voters can never accurately be heard. Now they're afraid the new justice -- who was elected by the people of Wisconsin by a double-digit margin -- is going to rule that their gerrymandering is cheating and force a new map to be drawn. So they're just going to sideline her forever. This isn't fighting for democracy, folks, it is fighting against democracy -- and fighting dirty, at that."

   A matter of national security

Biden's been ripping into Senator Tommy Tuberville over his dangerous nonsense, but everyone should join in the chorus.

"The leaders of three branches of America's armed services -- the secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force -- wrote a joint open letter in the Washington Post this week. In it, they excoriate Senator Tuberville of Alabama for his blanket hold on all upper-level military promotions. He has dug in his heels for over six months, because he wants to change the Pentagon's policy on making reproductive health decisions possible for all serving members of the armed forces. In it, they plainly state that Tuberville's hissy fit is, and I quote, 'putting our national security at risk.' Remember when the Republican Party used to support the military? I guess those days are gone. Over 300 high-ranking officers are being blocked from promotions they have earned because one senator is being stubborn. This includes the currently-acting secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. This ties their hands -- they do not have the full power to do their jobs. It is a disgrace, and it is even more disgraceful that the other Republican senators are allowing Tuberville to actively undermine national security for purely partisan reasons. I am calling on Mitch McConnell and all the other Republicans in the Senate to get Tuberville to change his mind and lift his holds, because the national security of America is what is at stake."

   Gotta be pretty corrupt....

Hoo boy. Get this talking point ready no matter what the verdict is next week.

"It seems the Republicans in Texas are impeaching one of their own. Boy howdy, you gotta be pretty corrupt to be impeached by Texas Republicans! A whopping 60 out of 86 Texas house Republicans voted to impeach him. All it will take is nine GOP senators to vote to convict to remove Ken Paxton from office. And Texas is about as red a state as it gets, so like I said, it's notable because you really gotta be pretty corrupt for Republicans to turn on one of their own in such a spectacular fashion, at least these days."

   Bernie's not looking so bad, eh?

This is really just taunting them, but what the heck, it's fun to do....

"Mike Pence gave a speech this week where he laid out the battle for the soul of the Republican Party, as he sees it. He denounced the populism of Donald Trump and said it would be a, quote, 'road to ruin' for the party. He then hurled what (to Republicans) is a pretty scathing insult, calling Trumpian populists 'fellow travelers' on that road to ruin with (gasp!) Bernie Sanders. At the same time, however, some Republican operatives have been slowly realizing that the ranks of their party's base voters have swelled with two distinct demographic groups: blue-collar workers and those without a college education. And whaddya know, both of those groups actually like a whole lot of what Bernie has to say. They want government to tax rich people and help out the working class. They want Social Security and Medicare protected. And they're a big part of the Republican Party's base now. Who woulda thunk it -- Bernie's policies aren't looking quite so radical now, no matter what Mike Pence thinks about it."

   Oh, the horror!

Admittedly, it is a pretty impossible task.

"Republicans just can't quite seem to successfully demonize Joe Biden with the American people. Oh, they keep trying -- they keep attempting to paint him as a cross between Al Capone and Jack the Ripper or something, but it's a pretty tough case to make when Biden is so obviously a decent human being at heart. Don't believe me? Republicans are currently trying to paint Biden as some sort of horrific monster because -- are you sitting down? -- he likes dogs. No, really -- he pets them and everything! And if that weren't enough to make you swoon with fear, it appears Biden also likes ice cream. Oh, the humanity! Who will save us from this dastardly villain?"

   Not exactly holding my breath

Justice Fratboy tried to polish his halo this week, without much noticeable success.

"Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh told an audience this week that there will be 'concrete steps' taken 'soon' to address the complete and utter lack of ethics on the highest court in the land. However, the same sentence of the article reporting on this ends with: '...but he stopped short of addressing calls for justices to institute an official code of conduct.' This is more of the same 'Nothing to see here, folks!' moosepoop that we've gotten from all the conservatives on the court. They have no rules, they get to police themselves, and nothing about this is ever going to change until Congress does its job and passes some ethical reforms. Because I'm not exactly holding my breath for Kavanaugh's promise to come true any time soon. The article didn't say whether Kavanaugh was just quietly smirking behind his hand when he said that, or if he just burst out laughing afterwards, but he was pretty obviously showing his contempt for the idea of any ethical rules at all. Which doesn't surprise me one tiny bit, with him."

   Hit him with the truth

Too, too funny. Watch the video clip, it's a riot!

"Vivek Ramaswamy was -- quite literally -- hit with the truth, on the campaign trail this week. He was giving a speech in front of a giant sign that read: 'TRUTH.' But the karmic gods had apparently had enough, and the sign fell over and smacked him up upside the head. It is rare indeed when you can say without any irony at all that a Republican politician 'got hit with the truth,' but in this case it's just about the only thing you can say!"

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground