Hey, if you are wildly swept up in a new cycle that moves way too fast, like me, you may have missed the fact that D Cameron admitted the only charge he submitted to the Breonna Taylor grand jury was wanton endangerment.
This means the Attorney General knew that any grand jury was basically gonna indict those cops of whatever he put in front of them. So he didn't give them the option to hold anyone accountable for Taylor's death.
He lied to the people of his state.
He lied to you.
He walked into a space where he was supposed to be a prosecutor and did not carry out his duty, as that duty would be carried out against any ordinary person.
You all know that I'm not generally in favor of cages for any human being. But we are not talking about cages we are talking about charges. And we are also talking about applying the law equally, not letting police officers continue to be above the law even when they kill.
Just want to make sure nobody else missed this... while we are distracted by the president contracting a virus he allowed to run rampant on his people...maybe so he could skip losing the next debate.
Just to be clear, he did not admit this of his own volition. A juror literally complained about not being given the option to properly indict. Publicly.
Which is actually a great reminder that members of the grand jury, if they choose their duty as members of the public over the role they are offered by prosecutors, can shed a great deal of light on what's really happening in these secret proceedings.
And this goes both ways! Prosecutors unfairly bring charges against people all the time! They present flawed evidence all the time! It is only the secrecy of the room that prevents the public from knowing what prosecutors are doing wrong behind closed doors.
The American system of jurisprudence does put a lot of power in the hands of jurors. And then prevents people from talking about that power and tries to prevent jurors from using it. Jury nullification. Speaking out about grand jury proceedings. Power to the people.
Because this is a tweet thread I'm not even going to go into how often jurors try to bring complaints about what happened in the deliberation room or what happened in the grand jury...and get silenced by judges. I'll just say we need to stop prioritizing "finality" over justice.
Also, for clarity above, I am saying he did not recommend any homicide to the grand jury. The argument remains that the grand jury could have taken matters into their own hands and come up with those charges but...it's very powerful when the prosecutor chooses not to recommend.
The grand jury is relying on the prosecutor to give them all the information and recommend any available charges. Because that's what they do against ordinary people. Honestly for everyday people they recommend way more charges than the information supports.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A short thread on what refusal to comply can look like, with specifics, examples, and ideas for what the future may hold.
Actually IDK if it's gonna be short, but it's gonna be specific, so read on if you're curious.
When people think of protest, or actions against authoritarian governments, they often think of people in streets yelling stuff and holding signs. And that's important, protest is a powerful way to show where the people stand! But
As a person who operates in systems that are extremely authoritarian (prisons, jails, criminal courts) let me tell you that many of the systems in which we operate simply *do not care* about protest.
As long as it costs them little, they can ignore it.
Just a reminder that $10 billion has been poured into this election, much of it in ads that line the pockets of media and social media companies. Changing the rules of campaign finance would also eliminate the financial incentive for media companies to drive us nuts every 4 years
Over a billion of this went to Pennsylvania alone. How much do Pennsylvania media companies benefit directly from both-sidesing elections and ensuring their state stays a key swing state?
And on a national scale, how much do all of our media companies quite literally profit from making the election seem like a non-stop horse race with higher and higher stress and drama?
It's the weekly video. For World Mental Health Day, let's talk about something you might not know---how health insurance providers may actually drive up mass incarceration.
Some context: here is the original law, from 2008, where the government tried to get insurers to provide the same level of coverage for mental and physical health. propublica.org/article/biden-…
But they...didn't. Sometimes, they might restrict what medicines they include in their formulary...
1. This is an awful tone to take, as a leader, when talking about government action to forcibly, sometimes violently, remove people from a place where they are seeking stability.
This tone is bad because it treats the circumstance of homelessness as if it were an overt, intentional action by the unhoused person. "No more excuses"? You think people saying "homelessness is not a crime, please don't treat it as such" are giving EXCUSES?
2. It's especially bad when you consider what sweeps do. Sweeps result in arrests, and displacement, but also strip people of all their worldly possessions.
The thing about the Trump immunity case is that yeah, to an extent it creates "King President" but tbh it much more creates "King SCOTUS." This is because what is an "official" act of the prez will of course be litigated and...
...who is waiting at the end of the road on all that litigation? King SCOTUS of course, who will get to decide what's official, what *evidence* is sufficiently tied to official acts to come in or not come in, and basically whether a case lives or dies.
And one more thing.
This whole idea of a job being so important that you get to be above the law? Yeah, that idea comes *straight* from the absolute mess of absolute and qualified immunity in policing and prosecution.