“A Trump Second Term Poses an Authoritarian Threat:” Former Repub. Staffer

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Less than 90 days until the American presidential election, Georgia Republicans have passed new rules that would allow them to contest the results. In a swing state, securing those votes is crucial to both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s paths to victory in November. After the January 6th Capitol riots that sought to overturn President Biden’s win in 2020, Amanda Carpenter of the nonprofit group Protect Democracy joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the challenges and determination to safeguard the integrity of the 2024 election.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Amanda Carpenter, thanks so much for joining us. We’re having this conversation partly because a lot of people are concerned these days on regardless of what the election outcome is, whether those votes will be counted, whether they’ll be certified, and what kinds of delays there may be. Just this week, there was some information that came out about the Georgia State Election Board, and this is otherwise a pretty obscure, small kind of group of people who worked quietly. But you know, just recently at a rally for the former president, President Trump name checked three of the five of these members who, you know, love and support him. I mean, I guess, tell our audience what happened there, and why is this important?

AMANDA CARPENTER, WRITER AND EDITOR, PROTECT DEMOCRACY: Yes. So, what happened in Georgia is, I think the best way to explain it is to go back to what happened on January 6th, because what you saw on that day was a massive pressure campaign levied at Former Vice President Mike Pence to use his role as vice president in certifying elections to somehow take that duty, and use it as a means to delay, obstruct, or block the certification of Joe Biden as president. And the word that a lot of constitutional lawyers like to throw around, and ultimately, we’re convincing to him to go through and do the right thing, is that you have a ministerial duty to just count, open up the results from the states, see what happened and certify the results. And so, what you see happening at a local level, not just in Georgia, but it has happened in other places as well, is that there are other officials who look at that certification, that ministerial role and say, OK, well maybe there is an opportunity to do more than just count the votes here. And so, what happened in Georgia is that this board of elections created a rule to say that county officials at the certification process can conduct a, quote, reasonable inquiry into the results.

SREENIVASAN: It seems like you are kind of changing the role of what a certification board was supposed to do. I mean, in a sports analogy, I mean, it’s like a scorekeeper versus a referee, but now, if they have the ability to have inquiries, that kind of almost makes them the instant replay room. You know what I mean? It’s a different change. And I wonder, is that even legal?

CARPENTER: No. So, this is a thing that we have to remember. So, the reason why, like you — we do have to take this very seriously, but it is not in accordance with Georgia State laws and what other kinds of laws that other states also have in the books. And the reason why for this is that if there are problems with the election or just issues that need to be resolved, there are processes set into place to do this. That’s where you see things like recounts come into play, legal challenges to the election, canvases, things of that nature. And the reason for that is that you need the certification to take place in the first place. You need a baseline count to go from so that then a challenge can be made if that needs to be done. But the thing that is just really important to remember here is that, you know, the reason why we have all these processes and deadlines is so the rightful winner of the election can take office, because if we opened up the certification Pandora’s box, you know, at all these county levels, it makes it very difficult for anyone to ever assume office. And so, that is why we have all these deadlines. You know, when we think about the presidential election, when all the states have to send their results to Congress in mid-January, and then we have that certification process with all members of Congress on January 6th. I mean, there’s a very streamlined order and cadence of events that needs to occur so that we can have a peaceful transfer of power. And so, if people are getting the idea that this certification process should be a step that where you can use it to delay the results it’s a really bad idea.

SREENIVASAN: There was a recent Rolling Stone article a week or so ago, and it talked about election deniers, people who do not think that Joe Biden is the current president or the rightful president, who have taken roles, have been appointed to roles in key battleground states, dozens of them. And I wonder, when did this sort of an otherwise ministerial role become so politically heated. I mean, this was not — this was, you know, something people would volunteer to do, and we would kind of thank them for doing their civic duty, right. And then, now, all of a sudden, there’s just a lot more at stake.

CARPENTER: Yes, there’s definitely a lot taken. I think it’s a lot harder for people to get involved in the process because they do open themselves out. I mean, this isn’t a good thing by any means, to becoming targets. And we really saw a lot of this happen in the 2020 election. Yes, there was this pressure campaign in squarely at Mike Pence to get him to not perform his ministerial duty. We’re seeing that play out. But you also saw pressure campaigns aimed at just regular people, you know, election workers that later ended up testifying to the January 6th Committee, like Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, and you know, just regular people doing their jobs, often in a volunteer capacity, being targeted by a lot of bad faith actors. And so, that was, you know, incredibly terrible. But at the same time, there has been a lot of accountability for what has happened as a result of those election denial conspiracies. And, you know, I think there’s a big gap, right? Because most people look at what happened, and they think there hasn’t been accountability because we haven’t got to that step with the person who called a lot of this into action, who was Donald Trump. But going down the line, I mean, if you look at the fraudulent elector scheme, if you look at people like — I’m thinking of the attorneys in Michigan that tried to tamper with voting equipment, and the point is, you know, the downstream effects that this had, the people who went down this route have had a very hard road, right? And so, that is the kind of deterrent effect that we need. That is why we need the rule of law to be in place to uphold these things and uphold these processes. So, once again, I mean, we’re probably going to have the largest voter turnout election ever again. Despite all of this, we have incredible voter turnout. So, we have people who do have faith in the process, who do want to participate in it. And, you know, a big part of that is making sure there is accountability. And when people do get these ideas about, well, maybe I can play games of the certification, we have people talking to them, like my colleagues at Protect Democracy do, and just say, like, this is what the law says. This is a dangerous game.

SREENIVASAN: Amanda, just this week, there was a former clerk in Colorado named Tina Peters who was found guilty by a jury of her peers. This is one of the first election officials to be charged with a security breach after the 2020 election. I guess, what do you think about that?

CARPENTER: Well, number one, I would say it is a good thing that the rule of law has held. I mean, if you think about how long ago this happened and how long it took for this conviction to finally be secured, that does seem like the law of justice takes a long time. But ultimately, it does catch up. But, Secondly, it’s really unfortunate. This woman was clearly caught up in a conspiracy of lies that were promoted, you know, by the former president and people like Mike Lindell, who she was, you know, just by account of the prosecutors in this case, when you look at what was stated in the indictment, she was really caught up in trying to find this fraud that they promised she would find if only she would do these things. And it’s really unfortunate that she went through and did these things. But it is — it should be a deterrent for other people who may be considering future action like this and that you will not be a hero to a certain conservative base. Ultimately, you will be risking jail, which is sad.

SREENIVASAN: I want to get a little bit to the work that Protect Democracy does. You are — you know, you call yourself a nonpartisan organization and you are steadfastly anti-authoritarianism, which seems like something we can all kind of agree on. You and your colleagues have been doing a lot of work. Tell me a little bit about what you were telling election officials right now, what are their primary concerns going into this election cycle? What are the kind of the most frequently asked questions? And I guess what are the answers that you’re giving them?

CARPENTER: Yes. I mean, I would say, you know, a lot of the work that happens at the local level is just, you know, nuts and bolts education about what the processes are, you know, what to do when you are possibly targeted with one of these bad faith actors, what resources are available to you because, you know, our democracy depends on, you know, a lot of people just volunteering their time, working in jobs where, you know, many times they’re not fairly compensated. They’re not getting the compensation, you know, that the hours would lead to. I mean, we think about these election officials, we think of high-ranking people. You know, a lot of people volunteering at the polls, they just want resources. What do you do when you encounter, you know, this kind of, you know, conspiracy theory that’s happening on your Facebook page? You know, what resources do I have? Who can I go to for help? You know, what are — what does the law instruct me to do? So, that I can go back to my community and say, this is what the rules are. This is what I can do. And this is how you can participate in this process. So, I would say, you know, more than anything, it’s just nuts and bolts education, networking with each other, letting them know what resources are available to them if they encounter problems. And just — the real basic kind of stuff. But you can’t overlook it because I think we’ve learned when you come under attack, which is a new thing with our elections, we are facing new things, not just from the political class, but just social media and everything else. There’s a lot of noise. And once people feel like they’re alone in this, and they don’t have the help, and we’re actually not all in this together, that’s when it’s easy to walk away, and we need the good guys to stay on the field. We can’t abandon, you know, our voting booths. We can’t abandon this just because it’s been a little rocky. And so, I mean, the really good news is that there’s a lot of people with good intentions who want the good things to happen that keep this thing going. And so, it’s been really rewarding.

SREENIVASAN: We should point out to our audience that there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. And I’m wondering, you know, this is something — this is a narrative that at least the Republican Party seems to continue to push, that it is almost, you know, a foregone conclusion in the minds of some conservatives that this election will be stolen. Is there any evidence of that?

CARPENTER: No, absolutely not. But I think, you know, after we’ve been through this since 2016 and 2020, I do think people are largely wise to the game, that this is political gamesmanship in a lot of respects. And the one bright point of light that I have seen is the — I think the Republicans going back to supporting the mail-in ballot. In 2020, there was a lot of resistance to mail-in voting, which is a wonderful necessary option for people who cannot get to the polls on election day, that might be because you’re disabled and it might be because you have to work, it may be because you have two kids you got to take care of at home and the prospect of dragging them to the booth to stand in line for eight hours is really too much to contemplate, or maybe you can’t stand in line for eight hours on election day, right? Like a lot of people are just not able to do that, let alone have the time to do it. And so, I think there’s recognition now that, yes, mail-in voting is a safe and secure option. And so, that’s one point of progress.

SREENIVASAN: It seems that the attack by the former president on election workers and the institution of how board certify elections and so forth, it’s just kind of just one part of it. I mean, he has attacked the judiciary repeatedly when he finds judges taking decisions or looking at things unfavorably towards him, right? And I wonder what do you think that does over time when we start to lose faith in institutions like what secures our vote or the judiciary?

CARPENTER: Yes. I mean, this is a lot of the work that we do at Protect Democracy and talking about why a Trump second term really does pose an authoritarian threat. And that’s not just because of like policy differences, it really gets at the ways that Donald Trump and his allies imagined in a second term of systematically gutting the checks and balances that constrain a presidency. And the reason why they’re so focused on that is that so that they can enact this authoritarian agenda. And if you don’t mind, I’ll just walk through that really quickly because it’s an argument that I talked to, like, a lot of my Republican friends about, like, why this is different, why it’s not just a matter of tax policy or something like that. And in the way that the movement has now coalesced around a version of Trumpism that really advocates for aggressive, expanded executive power hinges on gutting our checks and balances as envisioned by the constitution. And the top of which is the courts. And the thing that has really — a big, you know, concern, if not setback, is the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that a president should enjoy immunity over official acts. You know, TBD, what the official acts technically means. But in the meantime, it certainly means that there’s not going to be clear accountability for Trump for January 6th before the November election. The next check on Trump 2.0 would be the Congress. And if you look at how Republicans seek to enable and cover up and encourage his behavior, at least in the two impeachments for him that came to January 6th and his illegal holdup of the funding for Ukraine, you saw that Republicans in Congress were not willing to act as a meaningful check on executive abuses of power. And so, it’s overly optimistic, to say the least, to think that somehow, they would change that behavior in a second Trump administration. And then third, you see the plans that Donald Trump has, are also encouraged by his allies at the Heritage Foundation through things like Project 2025, to gut the civil service. That essentially, you hear about proposals like schedule F to go after any kind of career servants and replace them with loyalists. I mean, these are people — this is — they’re often described in a derogatory manner is the deep state. But these are people who like make FEMA work. And so, this goes down a very bad road very quickly with deep downstream impacts if you do suddenly start wiping out the civil service and replacing them with loyalists in ways that impact people that go beyond, you know, his promises of retribution to prosecute people and weaponize the Department of Justice.

SREENIVASAN: I wonder what are your concerns heading into this election? I mean, do you think that we will have a certified declared winner late into the night, that night of elections that we’ve had kind of that experience over the years? But — or do you think that this could be stalled and delayed because of individuals on, you know, state election boards or somewhere else down the line?

CARPENTER: If we are vigilant, I am optimistic. I mean, the tradition is our country is that we do a hold safe, secure, fair elections where we have clear winners. 2020 was a disruption of that. I mean, I’m not downplaying all the terrible things that happened, but the system did hold. And as a result of this — just the horrifying images we saw, the testimony from the brave capital and Washington D.C. police officers who continue to speak out about the actual reality of what happened on that day, I really do believe a lot of people’s eyes have opened. They have reconsidered a lot of things about who they’re going to vote for, you know, what — how they may possibly participate in politics in the future. And so, yes, there’s good reason to be optimistic, but I wouldn’t be working the job that I do today if I thought it was a sure thing. I don’t believe it’s a sure thing. I believe that we all have a role to play in this process. We have to be vigilant. We have to speak out and educate and uphold each other about what it means to have a rule of law in our country and what kind of commitment it really takes from all of us to continue to make this great, beautiful American experiment work.

SREENIVASAN: Amanda Carpenter from Protect Democracy, thanks so much for joining us.

CARPENTER: Thank you.