Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

Person: There should be indictments by now!

Me: 768 indictments so far, including Steve Bannon and a recent indictment for seditious conspiracy. . .
in an investigation that is ongoing. . .
in less than a year, during a pandemic.

Person: NONE OF THOSE COUNT.

⤵️The Trump Org, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Allen Weisselberg, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, George Nader, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas. . .

Two impeachments.

The Mueller team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies.

But none of those count, right?

Wrong about what?

I've said what has happened already.
I make no future predictions.

Person #1: There have been no indictments.

Me: Yes there have been (and I list them)

Person #2: Will you admit you're wrong?

So you don't really mean "there have been no indictments," you mean, "I want them all in prison now and never allowed out."

That's fine, but say what you mean.

Indictment doesn't mean prison.
First, there's a trial, and the outcome is unpredictable.

You're wrong.
I read Garland recent speech and I said I have no reason to think he isn't telling the truth.

He made no future predictions, and either do I.

I don't hold to conspiracy theories, by which I mean . . .

. . . theories based on speculation and not grounded in facts.

The theories I've seen that Garland is incompetent or corrupt or bribed (or worse) are all speculative.

I don't know what is happening in the DOJ and either does anyone else.

I'll wait for hard evidence.

I also think that the statement, "I want them all in prison now and never allowed out" is scary and authoritarian.

Much of the indictment hysteria (I believe) is based on the misguided idea that indictments will save democracy.

If you think that, no wonder you're panicked. . .

If you think that indictments will save democracy, you might want to start with the video in my pinned tweet.

I think the way to save democracy is with more democracy.

For what I mean, see: terikanefield.com/things-to-do/

The only way to prevent this scenario is to make sure they don't win elections.

What good are indictments or prison sentences if a Republican gets into the WH and pardons them all?

So, join @MichelleObama's group and become a voting squad captain: whenweallvote.org/votingsquad/

Crazy idea: It's the doomsayers and the people shouting that there has been "no accountability" who are demoralizing people.

"I won't vote for Democrats because the DOJ didn't indict enough of those criminal Republicans" is sort of twisted, right?

Now, look, I'd love for Trump to get indicted, but I don't think will end the threat of fascism. It won't solve our most serious problems which are (1) rampant disinformation and (2) the fact that so many Republicans still support Trump and Trump-like candidates.

Precisely.

And you can see how we get a destructive-rage cycle.

🔹People believe that indictments will end fascism and sweep Republicans out of office in 2022 (It won't: getting out the vote, however, might do that.)

🔹Indictments are happening. . .

. . . but not making any difference politically.

🔹So they think the problem is there haven't been enough indictments and they are not happening fast enough.

🔹They panic and spread doom FASCISM WILL FLOURISH because not enough indictments.

🔹People get mad at Democrats. . .

. . . and they rail against Democrats for not doing that THING that will finally cause support for fascism to CRATER

🔹People think Democrats are the real problem, which makes it harder to turn out votes for Democrats

🔹People get so worn out and discouraged they shut down.

. . . and don't get involved in registering voters and getting out the vote.

🔹I personally know people who have tuned out because the constant doomsaying is so mentally exhausting.

Indictments are nothing more than a formal accusation of a crime . . .

. . . trials can become media circuses and don't always come out how we want.

There is a problem with this sentence: "We need to restore Rule of Law by putting them all in prison now and keeping them there because we know they are horrible destructive people."

See the problem?

I hope so too.

After all, hope is a thing with feathers.


Meanwhile, I found another volunteer opportunity for myself to provide legal assistance to people who are experiencing difficulties registering to vote.

Fact: Nobody named Trump has been indicted for the events surrounding Jan. 6.

Speculation: Why nobody named Trump has been indicted and whether it will happen.

Fact: Merrick Garland was sworn in almost 11 months ago.

Speculation . .

. . . what the DOJ is investigating, the timetable of those investigations, and what the results will be.

I tend to ignore questions that I don't think are asked in good faith. By good faith I mean "wants to know" instead of pushing an agenda.

This question, for example, doesn't appear to be in good faith.

For example, it assumes as facts things that are not facts.

For example, the question assumes that "the DOJ is doing nothing" is a fact. This is an untrue statement . . .

. . . because we don't actually know whether the DOJ is investigating Trump.

You're assuming that the DOJ is not investigating Trump.

In the previous tweet, I wrote "for example" too many times 😆

Also, you're accusing me of telling people it is "unacceptable to express concerns," which is rather offensive, right?

Good point. Also, I realize I was speaking generally.

With legal matters, it's harder.

Generally, if a lawyer makes a statement like "This is a slam dunk and should be prosecuted" but hasn't seen all the evidence, the lawyer doesn't really know.

We have a thing called prosecutorial discretion and prosecutorial independence.

Defense attorneys are accustomed to feeling frustrated by this.

Basically it means that the prosecutor decides whether to prosecute. (Defense lawyers often think they got it wrong).

In an autocracy, the autocrat decides who to prosecute.

In an era of mob rule (lynchings) the mob decides. Mobs bypass tiresome rules and procedures because they think the horribleness of the person justifies it.

As our rule-of-law system is designed, the prosecutor decides.

Someone said to me "The DOJ should throw us a bone."

If 760+ indictments and an ongoing investigation isn't enough of a bone, read this:
justice.gov/opa/speech/att…

This is Garland's way of throwing a bone and teaching people how rule of law works.

People ask: "Isn't this enough evidence to prosecute this crime?"

Well, I don't know. Is there complicating exculpatory evidence that we don't know about? Is there a reason not to bring that particular indictment yet? Perhaps the investigators aren't ready to tip their hands.