The idea that Trump got off on a technicality is not only false (he got off on a made-up technicality) it's also a slur on "technicalities" which are procedures put in place in the interests of fairness.

If the police screw up, you go free.

If you are guilty, but the only evidence is that the police beat your confession out of you, you get off because we decided that making sure police don't beat confessions out of people is more important than jailing every guilty person.

I understand "getting off on a technicality" means you're guilty but you get off for a reason other than your factual guilt.

Well, one job of a defense lawyer is to check to make sure procedures were followed. Did the police violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights?

It's not a technicality if the jurors and defense lawyer get together to manufacture a reason to avoid convicting a client.

That's all. Rant over. Carry on.

I put this short thread (plus a few comments about Lindsey Graham on my blog, here:…
I've [reluctantly] resumed posting my threads and blog posts on an author Facebook page. It's here:…

• • •

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!


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

16 Feb
I agree with @WalshFreedom.

What looks like a "Civil War" is moderates, conservatives, and proponents of rule of law leaving or being pushed out.

The Republican Party is shrinking and hardening into a far-right, white nationalist, reactionary Trump-style party. Image
Both, sort of.
First: They will go full-on fascist.

Second: They are vastly outnumbered, so if the remaining Americans come together, their power (and the threat they pose) can be contained.

However, they'll remain dangerous . . . Image
Fascist parties usually represent about 1/3 of the population. Hitler came to power with about 1/3 of the vote.

Not coincidentally, political psychologists tell us that about 1/3 of the population has an anti-democratic, authoritarian disposition.
Read 4 tweets
11 Feb
Rep Neguse now debunks Trump's "First Amendment defense."

Trump's defense is based on
🔹misreading the law
🔹distorting the Constitution, and
🔹misconstruing the facts.

First: the "fact" Trump asserts is that he was an ordinary guy giving a politically unpopular speech.

The First Amendment doesn't allow a president to incite an insurrection based on the lie that the election was rigged against him. (Duh, right?)

The Defense doesn't actually claim the president can do that.

They say Trump didn't do any of this.

From Rep. Raskin: In addition to Trump's First Amendment defense having nothing to do with the facts, the First Amendment can't be a defense to impeachment.

First problem: He was a public official with lots of power.

Read 8 tweets
9 Feb
There are no due process procedures for impeachment mandated by the Constitution. The House decides how it will impeach, and the Senate decides the rules for the trial.

The Fifth Amendment requires due process before a person can be deprived of life, liberty or property.

An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial.

The Constitution specifically says a president can be indicted (criminal) after being removed from office.

Impeachment isn't about losing life, liberty or property.

Trump is complaining that he was denied due process because the article was hurriedly drafted before a lengthy inquiry. He also claims that a president cannot be put on trial after he leaves office.

These two claims together create a last-minute coup exception.

Read 4 tweets
8 Feb
(Thread) Trump's Trial Brief

Over the Cliff Notes

This brief, which distorts both the facts and the law, is vintage Trump: a mishmash of bogus defenses and misrepresentations.

The brief is here:…

The brief opens by presenting Trump as a victim ⤵️
The brief cherrypicks the facts and claims that Trump quickly denounced and urged only a peaceful protest.

The brief concludes that none of it was Trump's fault.

This "conclusion" is reached by selecting a few facts and ignoring everything else.

We saw this strategy in the first impeachment: Focus on the single telephone call (in this case, a single speech), ignore all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and conclude that the call (or speech) fails to prove the allegation.

This isn't how facts are analyzed.

Read 28 tweets
8 Feb
(Thread) Dominion's lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani

Subtitle: Fun With Defamation Law

The complaint against Giuliani is here:…

Dominion's claim that Giuliani enriched himself by falsely claiming that dominion fixed the 2020 election.
To win, the plaintiff must prove:

🔹A false statement purporting to be fact
🔹publication or communication of that statement to a third person
🔹fault amounting to at least negligence
🔹damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement

Dominion recounts facts to show thought up an "ideal" lie for showing the election was stolen:

So show that Giuliani knew these were lies, Dominion notes that he never raised these lies in court because he knew they were lies.

Read 16 tweets
7 Feb
Thread: The Smartmatic Lawsuit: Over the Cliff Notes

The complaint is here:…

Attached is a list of the plaintiffs and the damages sought. The number usually given is $2.7 billion, but if this case goes to trial and the defendants lose, it's possibly more.
To win, the plaintiffs must prove:

🔹A false statement purporting to be fact
🔹publication or communication of that statement to a third person
🔹fault amounting to at least negligence
🔹damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement


The lie goes like this: Smartmatic was a Venezuelan company under the control of corrupt dictators from socialist countries. Smartmatic’s election technology and software were used in many of the states with close outcomes. . .

Read 22 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!