We need to divide the people responsible for the attack into two groups:
🔹The thugs who carried out the attack
🔹The leaders who didn't actually storm the capital, but who either aided with the planning or in some way enabled the attack.

It's easier to catch the first group.
The second group has deniability. They have more defenses and wiggle room.
They can point the finger at the first group.

But ultimately, it's fundamentally unfair to prosecute the foot soldiers but not the generals.
They're doing that. But the foot soldiers don't have all the information.

The foot soldiers may not understand why they were actually able to get so far.

Excellent point, thanks.
Arrests always start with foot soldiers because they are the easiest to catch, and sometimes lead directly to the generals.

In this case, they were so sure they had official approval that they filmed themselves commiting crimes.
There is lots of circumstantial evidence, and crimes are often proven with circumstantial evidence.

In this case, I'm sure, the prosecutors and investigators are looking for more direct evidence. They need an air-tight case.
Investigations into complex crimes can take years. This is moving unbelievably fast for something this big.

It's sort of breathtaking.

I can't think of a high-profile crime this multifaceted involving this many people. What even compares?
The nature of the crimes being charged makes it easy to rope in other people.

Conspiracy charges allow prosecutors to cast a wide net. Aiding and abetting is another way to bring in helpers and enablers.

I just realized I promised an explainer on conspiracy law a while ago.
Yes, legally they have equal weight, but it's still easier to prove a case with direct evidence.

Manafort spent a lifetime criming, but the charges brought against him could all be proven with documentary evidence.
Documents are better than testimony.

Testimony is also evidence, but a jury can disbelieve it.

A bank transaction (proved genuine) cannot be "disbelieved" without evidence of forgery or something solid suggesting that it isn't authentic.

• • •

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

11 Apr
Did Trump incite a riot under the D.C. code?

You’re probably thinking, "Yes, DUH." But I marched through the legal analysis.

As before, I found it easier to record a video.

If you prefer to read, stand by for a transcription. via @YouTube

An edited transcription is here: terikanefield.com/did-trump-inci…

I should have called this video Fun With Criminal Law (or Teri Does IRAC).

I’ll also do a quick Twitter summary. (Spoiler: Yes he incited a riot, duh. But . . .)

D.C. A.G. Karl Racine said he’s looking into whether Trump and others violated D.C. Code section 22-1322, inciting a riot.

To get a conviction, a prosecutor has to prove each relevant element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The relevant elements are (a) and (c).

Read 15 tweets
6 Apr
I read the lawsuit the capitol police officers (Blassingame and Hemby) brought against Trump.

In a nutshell: This case is bad for Trump.

My analysis seemed too long for a thread, so I recorded a video (9 minutes).

I'll have a transcription shortly.

If, like me, you prefer to read, I put an [edited] transcription on my blog, here: terikanefield.com/blassingame-v-…

To summarize, this case is bad for Trump for a whole bunch of reasons.

🔹First, the plaintiffs sustained actual injuries . . .

Some of these tort cases are a bit weak because the plaintiffs have a hard time showing why they should have standing to sue. (Also, these are particularly sympathetic plaintiffs.)

🔹The facts are bad for Trump. The facts in this case are devastating.

Read 15 tweets
31 Mar
Karen Stenner is a political psychologist who predicted the rise of a Trump figure back when the idea brought ridicule.

She understands how to neutralize the dangers posed by authoritarians.


To give you the authoritarian dynamic in a nutshell:

A certain segment of the population has an authoritarian (anti-democratic) personality. They'll never feel comfortable in a liberal democracy.

By liberal democracy, I mean ⤵️

As liberal democracy expands, those with an authoritarian personality push back. This creates an endless dynamic.

I've phrased it this way: Progressives push forward; reactionaries push back. It's an endless cycle.

Read 12 tweets
26 Mar
When they put up a barrier, we figure out a way around it.

GOP demographics are shrinking. Their policies are unpopular. They know they are on a collision course with time.

This latest piece of legislation has the potential of backfiring. Remember the Wisconsin primaries?

The Wisconsin Republicans shamelessly tried brazen voter suppression tactics. But you know what? People don't like it when they think someone is trying to make it hard for them to vote.

Wisconsin has @benwikler
Georgia has @staceyabrams

Every election matters, at every level.

What the Republicans always understood better than the Democrats was that politics (and control) is local.

That's why they were amazed when Republican legislatures couldn't overturn state election results.

Read 5 tweets
20 Mar
Hi, @JohnCollins_KP

I can answer!🙋‍♀️

The modern Republican Party + Putin = True Love because have common goals.

For decades now, Russia has been “beckoning” to America’s far right wing, presenting Russia as the savior of white majority rule. (Timothy Snyder’s word)

2/ This includes Russians infiltrating the NRA and helping radicalize the NRA as a right wing extremist group—but that’s for another post.

The GOP Russia love affair has been evident for some time.
3/ Remember when Tucker Carlson said the U.S. should “rethink America’s alliances.”

And when Sen. Rand Paul went to Moscow to “open lines of communication“? abcnews.go.com/International/…
And when Guiliani attended a pro-Russia conference? thinkprogress.org/why-is-rudy-gi…
Read 12 tweets
18 Mar
Challenging Biden to a debate is a clever way to imply that there is room to debate.

"Debate" assumes a shared set of facts. Then you debate the implications.

This⤵️ is a tactic for elevating and giving credence to a falsehood.
abcn.ws/3qX80Cl via @ABC

This tactic is extremely effective. What Russian propaganda networks do is claim to air "all sides." They publish the truth as one of many possible theories, and then crowd the airwaves with so much "noise" that nobody can figure out what's true and what isn't.

The American right wing does this by talking about their free speech right to promulgate lies. They claim that universities prohibit free speech by not allowing ALL ideas to be presented.

They want to put lies along side truth on the same stage.

Read 4 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!