Minor question about the Jeffrey Clark DOJ story: Does it matter to our assessment of Clark's culpability if he genuinely believed the conspiracy theories of the 2020 election?
Like a lot of readers, I was astonished by the Clark story. My immediate reaction is to think (a) Clark is obviously smart enough to realize that the conspiracy theories were total BS, and (b) using them as cover was an outrageous affront to the rule of law.
And maybe it's that simple. But I wonder about another possibility.
A notable aspect of the Trump years is how otherwise-smart people fell for some quite ridiculous conspiracy theories. A lot of people can think of examples, from that high school friend, or that uncle, who went off the conspiracy deep-end in recent years.
So here's my question, which, in an un-Twitter-like way, I am asking as a genuine question: Does it matter to our view of the situation if he deeply and truly believed the utterly ridiculous conspiracy theories?
To be clear, I don't know Clark and have no insider info about him. But it's interesting, at least to me, to consider how much our view of Clark hinges on our assumption that he surely realized the conspiracy theories were BS.
My 1st instinct is to say that the conspiracy theories were so obviously BS that whether Clark genuinely believed them shouldn't make that much difference. You don't act on a belief like that without looking into it, and anyone with Clark's background who did so would see the BS.
But even if that's right, there's a way in which him genuinely being so clueless does seem to impact his culpability: From a crim law perspective, it's like the different between a purpose mens rea and a reckless mens rea. He really really should have known, but maybe didn't.
I'm interested in what others think about this, so here's a poll on it: If Clark genuinely believed the conspiracy theories, does it change your view of his culpability in his actions?
Oh, and I realize this kind of question works a lot better in a law school classroom than on Twitter: Questions like "how relatively bad was X" can be misconstrued from folks who think only in terms of good vs. bad. But so it goes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you're wondering if the Senate has the power to order social media to preserve online accounts in response to the Capitol Riot, I have just the article for you: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Here Warner seems to be acting as a single Senator, though, not as an agent of the Senate as a whole. Can he do that? The 2703(f) authority is granted to any "governmental entity," defined in relevant part as "a department or agency of the United States." Can 1 Senator do that?
As I read Warner's letter, though, he's probably not trying to formally invoke 2703(f): It's more an informal request to help the (likely already issued) formal requests from law enforcement.
A few thoughts on Twitter's suspension of Trump's account, a thread.
Twitter is a private company and it can do what it wants. Twitter is selling a product in a free market, and it's up to Twitter what the product is like. If they want to enforce certain rules, even unfairly, that's their call. They're a company, not the government.
True, companies like Twitter impact what today's media
environment is like. As a citizen, it's easier to reach a large audience if you play by the rules of the big tech companies. So the inevitable editorial decisions of the providers will shape that media environment.
The incredible part, as always, is not that Trump did this. It's who he is and has always been. Rather, the incredible part is how many Americans will think this is totally fine, if not pretty awesome. washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…
Law school is more interesting if you find line-drawing important than if you don't.
A lot of learning about legal rules is learning about where a decisionmaker drew a line, and why. There were some competing values or interests, and a line had to be drawn somewhere: The question is where to draw the line, and if it was drawn in the right place.
To some, this is a really interesting problem. It is about how to address conflicts among competing values. It is about how to operationalize that conflict into legal rules. Super interesting.
If you're a Supreme Court Justice, do you want to get rid of the Texas case without any comment or do you want to say something about this strange creature that has appeared before you?
My own instinct would be to get rid of it without comment, except I would worry that this is rewarding a political strategy you're likely to see again. (If a state AG can file crazy lawsuits for the base, being news story #1, and face no pushback, this will def happen again.)
Although it's fun to ponder the suits that might come in future years if the Court just quietly says no. Will Texas sue Delaware for not criminally prosecuting Hunter Biden for being a Chinese spy? The possibilities are endless.