(Thread) Abuse of Power

“What is Trump's crime?” asked Luke's friend ⤵️

The natural inclination is to answer this question by offering a list of crimes Trump has committed.

In fact, I'll go ahead and do it, in the thread.

There are, however, two problems with this approach.
1/ Problem #1: Anyone asking this question is challenging you. Logic and facts are not likely to move this person.

For why, see this thread I wrote last April on what we're likely to see from the Republican Party when impeachment begins ⤵️
2/ Trump and Trump supporters are mounting an attack on truth and reality itself. More than 1/3 of the population supports this attack.

If you missed that thread, read it so you can prepare yourself for what’s coming now that impeachment is underway.
3/ Problem #2: The criminal code is inadequate to describe impeachable behavior.

The criminal code is written to apply to all people. We don’t write criminal codes that apply to some people, but not others.
4/ There are things that the President of the United States can do that are dangerous, that are not dangerous if an ordinary person does them.

To take a random example: If an ordinary citizen would be broke without a secret income from Russian oligarchs, it wouldn't be a crime.
5/ Who cares if an Ordinary Citizen is in debt to Putin?

If the president of the United States is secretly in debt to Putin, on the other hand, he cannot conduct foreign policy on behalf of the United States.

The founders worried about presidents beholden to foreign interests.
6/ In particular, when the founders created the impeachment clause, they were worried about abuse of power.

They used the terms “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which prompts people to say, “What is the President’s crime?”
7/ When people in 2019 say, “What is the crime,” they mean, “Where is it in the federal criminal code?”

But the federal criminal code didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. The founders could not intended impeachment to depend on what would later be deemed a crime.
8/ (I'm skipping for now a discussion what "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant in the 18th century.)

Moreover, the criminal code cannot include all possible crimes. The first time someone comes up with a clever way to manipulate the system, that person can't be convicted. . .
9/ . . . because if it's the first time anyone thought to do it, it isn't a crime yet.

Cheating is sometimes a crime, and sometimes not, depending on what specific elements are listed in the criminal code.

But cheating is always morally wrong.
10/ This brings us to another problem with the criminal code: Not everything dangerous or morally wrong is a crime. That would be impossible. We pick and choose.

We don't impeach each time a president does something wrong or even illegal. List from ⤵️
11/ This runs the danger of impeaching a president for policy considerations we don't like. Remember how often right wing media outlets accused Obama of defying the Constitution?

Here Pelosi distinguished what is impeachable from what is not ⤵️
12/ Pelosi said an impeachable offense:

💠endangers national security,
💠undermines the constitution by stripping away checks and balances (for example, when Trump says Article II means he can do whatever he wants) and
💠undermines election integrity.
13/ She also noted that each of these three were evident in Trump’s phone call with Zelensky and the surrounding circumstances.

If a president is using the powers of his office to secure the next election for himself, impeachment is the only possible recourse.
14/ Benjamin Franklin pointed out that if the Constitution didn’t include an impeachment provision, the only way to get rid of a president who corruptly used his office to remain in power would be to assassinate him.

(Franklin gets to the heart of the matter)
15/ Luke needs to tell his friend that Trump is engaging in impeachable by conducting foreign policy to benefit himself and to help crush a political rival in order to bring about his own reelection.

See Benjamin Franklin quotation ⤴️
16/ One problem with thinking of crimes in connection with impeachment is that it invites wrong thinking, such as “each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Um, no.

Impeachment is more like civil trial in which the standard is preponderance of the evidence. . .
17/ Protections for criminal defendants are in place because the defendant is at risk of losing constitutionally protected rights such as liberty, property, and perhaps even life, in capital offenses.

The president merely risks being removed from office.
18/ Being president is not a constitutionally protected right.

With those caveats, I'll list a few of Trump's crimes, even though I think it will be pointless and possibly distracting.

And even though I cannot offer a comprehensive list.

I don't want to be here all day.
19/ Bribery. The elements are here: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
Yes there was quid pro quo in the Zelenskyy phone call and surrounding circumstances. Lots of people have explained: vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/e…
20/ Extortion (it seems to me) may better describe the Trump-Giuliani behavior.

Extortion is gaining something of value by means of a threat. extortion.uslegal.com/elements-of-ex… Trump was gaining an investigation into Biden by threatening to withhold aid and fail to support Ukraine.
21/ Obstruction of justice. For obstruction as given in the Mueller report, see:
terikanefield-blog.com/reading-the-mu…
Mueller offered two reasons for not bringing an indictment for obstruction of justice:

(1) the DOJ rule against indicting a sitting president, and. . .
22/

(2) separation of powers considerations—the task was given to Congress. (Vol. II, p.1-2)

Each time the White House defies a subpoena or exerts the phony “executive privilege” Trump is obstructing justice.

Think of it as a running crime spree.
23/ Federal Election Campaign Act uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?pat…
This statute, among other things, prohibits foreign national contributions.
It also outlaws the $130K Stormy Daniels payment.

(Trump's former personal lawyer Cohen is in jail for helping Trump do this.)
24/ Federal employees & Personal and family relationships (5 CFR 2636.502)
law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/263…
This one says that a federal employee has to make sure his private business matters do not affect his impartiality when carrying out official duties. See⤵️
cnbc.com/2018/11/06/iva…
25/ The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees to use their titles to promote partisan politics. To take one example, the OSC, a federal agency, found that Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act.

Did the White House Care?

Nooooo.
cnbc.com/2018/03/06/spe…
26/ Insider trading is any manipulative or deceptive device used in connection with the purchase or sale of any security, including the purchase or sale of a security of any issuer, on the basis of material nonpublic information about that security.
law.cornell.edu/wex/insider_tr…
27/ Reporting indicates that Trump tipped off a billionaire friend that he would be raising tariffs on steel; his friend dropped his stocks and thus saved himself boatloads of money. thinkprogress.org/trump-ichan-st…
28/ The Logan Act
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
The facts in Flynn's plea agreement are a violation of the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens to conduct foreign policy with any foreign government or agent of a foreign government.
29/ Misprision of Felony
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
If you know someone committed a felony, and you conceal that fact, you can be fined or imprisoned.

How hard does Trump work to conceal and deny Russia’s attack on our elections?
30/ Witness Tampering
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
I could fill a thread with examples of how Trump has tried to intimidate and silence witnesses against him.

Also:
💠bank fraud (see Cohen's testimony before Congress)
💠tax evasion (was that $130K reported to the IRS?
31/ EMOLUMENTS (listing these would require another long thread)

Don't forget the NY AG is suing the Trumps for “persistently illegal” and and “repeated and willful self-dealing transactions” in their management of the Trump Foundation:
32/ That last one, to put bluntly, is "stealing from charity."

See why I don’t believe the question “Where is Trump's crime?” is a sincere question.

Don't fool yourself: The Fox-GOP loves the fact that Trump is trampling the Constitution and breaking laws.
33/ The thing to remember is this: Trump's base and the supporters of McConnell are a shrinking minority.

Their base is shrinking, so they can see their medium and long-term prospects are not good.

They are engaging in these destructive tactics because they are desperate.
35/ The Fox viewership is aging.

Now that the Democratic Party has morphed into the party of young people, urban intellectuals, and minority communities, they have excellent long term prospects.

Democracy will survive if enough people want it to.
36/ That's why the solution is for everyone to get busy.
See my list⤵️

This may be my longest thread ever.

But it wasn't my fault.🤷‍♀️

Someone asked "Where is Trump's crime."
That cannot be done briefly.
terikanefield-blog.com/things-to-do/
Looks like I mis-numbered.

It's always something. If I type correctly, I count wrong.
In addition to the above, see how expertly @AshaRangappa_ answers the question, "Was there quid pro quo."

She says yes, and then immediately transitions to the larger issues, the way the incident undermines national security and truth . . .
@AshaRangappa_ . . . she uses the phrase Marketplace of Ideas.

Without truth, there's only power* which brings us back to the start of the thread: Corrupt use of power to consolidate Trump's own power.

"Without truth you can't speak truth to power. So there is only power." @jasonintrator
@AshaRangappa_ @jasonintrator All of my threads are also blog posts. See this one here: terikanefield-blog.com/wp-admin/post.…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

Feb 21
Putin knows how to wield disinformation and he knows that the United States is divided: A large portion of the population, including the most influential voices from a major political party, want the United States to emulate his Russia.

1/
Some background:

After Russia enacted anti-homosexual legislation, Pat Buchanan said Putin was “entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly city of today" because he was stamping out western evils like easy divorce and homosexuality.
buchanan.org/blog/whose-sid…

2/
British right-winger Katie Hopkins, in an article in which she was interviewed with her friend Ann Coulter, said “Putin rocks.”

Katie Hopkins then went on to praise Russia as being “untouched by the myth of multiculturalism and deranged diversity."

rt.com/uk/429777-kati…

3/
Read 4 tweets
Feb 18
Trump lost in court THREE MORE TIMES today.

Trump tried to get all three of these cases⤵️ dismissed and lost. I analyzed one of the cases last April, Blassingame, here: (Transcript on my blog.)

He tends not to do well in court, where facts matter.

1/
The defendants made the following arguments (screenshot #1)

Trump also claims, among other things, that he has absolute immunity. (#2)

It turns out that the absolute immunity question isn't as easy as you might think (but Trump still lost).

2/
If you want to get caught up on one of the cases, my analysis from last April is here:terikanefield.com/blassingame-v-…

And here:

You can read the court's decision here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

3/
Read 8 tweets
Feb 16
Um . . . this isn't the defense Trump thinks it is.

Trump published a letter he received from Mazars dated (it looks like) 2014. He then summarized the letter.

#1: What Mazars said
#2: What Trump says Mazars said

Me = 🤦‍♀️

Does he think nobody can or will actually read it?
Mazars said, "Trump is responsible for preparing the financial statement."

Also Mazars does not "undertake to obtain or provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made . . . "
Trump posts the letter and says Mazars "strongly states that all work was performed in accordance with professional standards and that there were "no material discrepancies in the financial statements."

There is no "I don't know how to read" defense.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 13
For this week’s blog post, I edited and combined a few of my recent threads.

I started with a reading of the newly unredacted sections of the Mueller report, then talked about some of the responses on Twitter . . .

terikanefield.com/is-social-medi…
. . . and concluded with thoughts about how social media brings out authoritarian instincts in large swaths of people who ordinarily would not be given to authoritarian impulses.



It's too easy for truth to lose, and when truth loses, democracy loses.
Right. And not all "manipulators" are bad actors, but all people need to learn to evaluate sources.

Reflectively saying, "Professor X should know" is not how to do it. It takes more work. Falling in line is always easier than doing the work.

Read 4 tweets
Feb 12
I'm tired of the word "accountable." It's a weasel word. Don't say "accountable." Say what you mean.

Does "accountable" mean
🔹Lose elections?
🔹Go to prison?
🔹Lose a lawsuit?
🔹Be hated?

It would be nice if all the good people were rewarded and the bad people punished.
So you want to start indicting people and gather the evidence after they're indicted?

Or not worry about evidence?

There are rules of evidence, which means that the stuff you've read in newspapers and Tweets probably isn't admissible in court . . .
Indicting people and having juries return "not guilty" verdicts because there isn't evidence to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt may not accomplish what people think it will accomplish.
Read 10 tweets
Feb 12
One reason I think social media is turning everyone into authoritarians: people don't read or think.

They see a headline and have a strong emotional reaction, which they Tweet and which then gets repeated by others, who are also not thinking . . .

1/
Political psychologists like @karen_stenner describe the authoritarian personality.

Those with an authoritarian disposition are averse to complexity. They reject nuance.

They prefer sameness and uniformity and have “cognitive limitations.”

(link in the next Tweet)

2/
See for example, "Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness,” which originally appeared in this book, an dwhich Stenner has now made available free on her website, here: ……e-4700-aaa9-743a55a9437a.filesusr.com/ugd/02ff25_370…

Timothy Snyder also talks about the danger of what he calls Internet Memes.

3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(