1) This is awful. I only wish people would condemn things like this with the same passion and indignation with which they have (rightly) condemned the Capitol attack.

I am NOT doing a "whaaaboutism" in making this observation. That isn't my point. Rather...(cont)
2) My point is that it is very scary how people in prominent media/political/legal/academic positions have seriously argued that violence is an appropriate means of achieving the left's political goals, or turned a blind eye to the rioting this summer.
3) Violence is NEVER an appropriate means of achieving political goals in this country, be they liberal or conservative. I am VERY troubled at how many people in this country increasingly seem to think it is. (cont)
4) And to be clear, I DO think that the Capitol attack was worse than the riots over the summer. But both deserve outrage, even if on different levels, and it is it wrong to downplay or justify the riots from this summer. (cont)
5) Those who continue to downplay or justify this summer's riots on the ground that the Capitol attack was worse than the riots (which it was) are engaging in the exact same "whatabboutism" that some on the right are currently doing. It has to stop.

• • •

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

Keep Current with John M. Reeves

John M. Reeves 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!


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 @reeveslawstl

4 Jan
1) Counsel for the plaintiffs has no one to blame but themselves for this ruling. Making an effort to serve the Defendants is one of the most basic, easiest things to do at the start of the lawsuit, and counsel failed to do that here. That is simply inexcusable. (cont)
2) I don't care how righteous you think you cause is--if you cannot demonstrate basic professional competence, nobody will take you seriously, and with good reason. (cont)
3) Here, the court previously reminded counsel for the plaintiffs that they needed to make a serious effort to serve the defendants, and counsel failed to do so. Effecting service is one of the most basic jobs of a lawyer. (cont)
Read 7 tweets
29 Dec 20
THREAD re: Xi Jinping's image in China
1) The upper row displays two photos of Xi Jinping, Communist ruler of China. The one on the top left is how nearly all of Western media depict him. The one on the top right is practically never shown by Western news outlets. (cont)
2) Readers may recognize what Xi Jinping is wearing in the top right photograph--a Zhongshan suit, made infamous by its near-universal use among men during the rule of Mao Zedong. So far as I am aware, the only other ruler to utilize it today is N. Korea's Kim Jong-un. (cont)
3) To be clear--Mao did NOT invent this suit. It was popularized in China by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, China's first ruler after the Chinese Emperor's abdication in 1911. Dr. Sun Yat-sen was NOT a Communist, but rather the predecessor to the government that currently rules Taiwan. (cont)
Read 8 tweets
12 Dec 20
1) I realize that a lot of people who follow me may not like what I have tweeted about the Texas case, but I am not in the business of simply parroting conservative talking points. (cont)
2) Rather, my tweets, from the beginning in the Flynn case, have always been aimed at giving a realistic, honest appraisal of legal issues in cases, based on my knowledge as an appellate lawyer.
3) If I simply parrot conservative talking points masked as legal analysis, I am not doing a favor for anybody, least of all for those who follow me for legal analysis. Some lawyers do that. I do not, and never will.
Read 8 tweets
12 Dec 20
THREAD re: standing and the Texas case.
1) Let's say you're crossing the street with your best friend, when suddenly, out of nowhere, a car runs a red light, hits your friend, and as a result his legs have to be amputated. (cont).
2) You are, obviously, distraught and upset over what has happened to your friend, and you want to help him. So you decide to go to court and sue the driver for your friend losing his legs. The court will immediately throw out your lawsuit against the driver. Why? (cont)
3) Because you do not have standing to bring the case--that is, you weren't the one injured. You can't bring a lawsuit to redress injuries of a third party. The third party (in this case your friend) has to bring the lawsuit. (cont)
Read 9 tweets
12 Dec 20
THREAD re: Texas case.
1) Those who are bashing SCOTUS for not taking the Texas case need to understand how the Court works. (Cont)
2) While I personally thought the Court should have taken the case and that Texas had standing, a very good legal argument existed that it did not have standing. The Justices decided Texas lacked standing. (cont)
3) Those who think that "conservative" Justices will always produce "conservative" results need to realize that this isn't how it always works. There are serious, complicated legal issues here that do not fit into neat categories of "liberal" and "conservative."
Read 11 tweets
26 Nov 20
THREAD re: what am I thankful for?
1) Having a beautiful wife and two wonderful sons;
2) Being born in, and part of, the greatest country in the world;
3) Against all odds, being able to start, and maintain, my own law practice just over a year ago:
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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!