(🆚) BREAKING NEWS: New Trump Fundraising Push May Violate Federal Law By Strongly Implying Trump Is the Nation's Real President

This is *serious*. These texts and this survey are part of Trump's insurrection. DOJ must send a cease-and-desist letter ASAP. sethabramson.substack.com/p/breaking-new…
1/ One thing I found in writing three bestselling nonfiction books about Donald Trump is that he has a series of methods for violating state and federal laws without getting caught—none of which are *actually* prophylactics against prosecution, they've just functioned that way.
2/ For instance, Trump has his accountants and lawyers commit crimes for him. He shares lawyers with criminals he wants to do business with. He has his lawyers represent and enter defense agreements with anyone who could hurt him. He dangles incentives to witnesses to stay quiet.
3/ He says things so preposterous that no one could think he believes them except the people he wants to act on what he's said. He avoids using email. He uses family members to commit crimes, as he believes they won't betray him. He seeks out already-compromised people as allies.
4/ The list goes on and on. But there's something else Trump does that I never saw a criminal knowingly do across the nearly a decade I represented more than 2,000 accused criminals in three jurisdictions: he commits crimes "in the aggregate," a very confusing and rare concept.
5/ That is, Trump commits a very large number of actions that each could *arguably* be said to be "on the line" of illegality. Now, to be clear, most of these actions *are* criminal. But in a system where prosecutors generally fear investigating the rich, powerful, and famous...
6/ ...Trump creates an incentive for prosecutors to look at *each act separately* and say, "Well, Trump *could* argue in court that..." and thereafter decide that they're not *sure* they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which technically means they can't indict.
7/ Of course, the law doesn't work this way for you or me. It doesn't work this way for anyone who isn't rich, powerful, and famous. For the rest of us, prosecutors consider the *totality* of the actions of a suspect because that's generally how criminal intent is proven, anyway.
8/ It's *defense* attorneys—as I was for years—who are trained to break a case into pieces and attack each piece individually. When a *prosecutor* starts doing this as an excuse not to prosecute? Well, you can be certain that the defendant is rich, famous, powerful, or all three.
9/ So, what does this have to do with my pinned tweet? Well, Trump has found *so many different ways* to violate 18 U.S. Code § 912—which prohibits any person from pretending to be a government official—that a prosecutor scared to prosecute him can explain away (falsely) any one.
10/ But the totality of Trump's actions demonstrates a clear intent to cumulatively—in the aggregate—violate 18 U.S. Code § 912. Essentially, Trump's "scheme" requires repeated small actions, not a single camera-ready "aha!" moment. It's how Trump commits nearly *all* his crimes.
11/ That's why Mueller found a dozen acts of Obstruction by Trump. Why—non-defense lawyers might ask—not just one? Why didn't Trump just make clear *who* he wanted to do *what* in a single statement on a single day? Because Trump's crimes are schemes with small, repeated actions.
12/ Trump kept going back to Comey, McGahn, Manafort and others he wanted to obstruct or tamper with, hoping each time his actions would fall below the threshold for a crime—as no prosecutor would want to put the full picture together. Takes too long and too professionally risky.
13/ Of course it's juries that decide criminal cases—not prosecutors. And is there even one American who doubts that Trump is doing everything he can to appear to be the "legitimate" President of the United States? Does anyone doubt that he's fundraising off this misapprehension?
14/ Here's the relevant federal statute:
15/ In my pinned PROOF article, I also "pre-address" the problem with Legal Twitter that this sort of crime produces—attorneys who value being right over fulfilling their Oath, so they determine what *will* happen and then pretend that it's what *should* happen. In other words...
CONCLUSION/ ...they deduce that, for political reasons, Trump won't be investigated—they may be right—so they fail to demand the law be followed or *even* what I call for here: a cease-and-desist letter from federal authorities. Ignoring Trump's crimes makes him *more* dangerous.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Seth Abramson

Seth Abramson 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 @SethAbramson

4 Jun
Here's a wild (🤪) idea: how about politicians never compare the situation they're being asked about to some past situation involving their political opponents. How about politicians address questions on current circumstances earnestly, openly and comprehensively—with no dodging.
I wish as Americans we had the sort of radar that caused us to tune out politicians the second their answer to a question is to raise a prior situation involving a political opponent. If you can't articulate what's right or wrong in the current situation, don't go into politics.
Today Jim Jordan dodged a question about Don McGahn by accusing the White House of being disinterested in Dr. Fauci's emails. This allowed Jordan to avoid the question of when politicians should—in *all circumstances*, regardless of the party of those involved—let an issue drop.
Read 5 tweets
4 Jun
(🔓) PROOF UNLOCKED: It took me a few extra days because of everything going on, but here's Volume 4 of the "Goodnight Playlist" series from the Music section of PROOF! It's my chance to archive/curate songs from this feed that folks asked me to catalogue. sethabramson.substack.com/p/the-goodnigh…
(PS) Song #3 always makes me feel happy, which doesn't make sense because the lyrics are super... not happy. I wonder if anyone else has the same reaction to this song.
(PS2) Song #6 is one of the most divisive songs I've ever posted on this feed in the six years I've been posting music here. Some people *really* hated it. Others hated it because they couldn't get it out of their heads once they heard it—an unwelcome earworm. So, caveat auditor!
Read 5 tweets
3 Jun
(🆚) NEW: As promised, here's a special edition of the "Lost Classics of the 1960s" series—from the Music section of PROOF—for subscribers. If you like the Beatles, you'll want to check this out; there are bands here you've almost certainly never heard of. sethabramson.substack.com/p/lost-classic…
(PS) For what it's worth, in doing research for this article I came across two bands even I'd never encountered before—despite being a DJ specializing in sixties music back in the 1990s. And one song in this article is a new favorite sixties song of mine. (That takes some doing!)
(PS2) Whenever I do a "Lost Classics of the 1960s" article, I struggle to calibrate how obscure to get, as collectors, enthusiasts, and casual listeners have different senses of how obscure is *too* obscure. Two songs in this article are, I think, at the second-to-deepest level.
Read 4 tweets
3 Jun
I oscillate between responding to this headline with "not possible" and "no sh*t" cnn.com/2021/06/03/pol…
PROOF (augmenting the reporting at CNN):
Read 5 tweets
2 Jun
Has one of the two dogs you're taking care of for your sister ever farted so comprehensively that you decided to stop drinking the glass of water you were drinking as a cautionary measure
Yesterday this happened and my wife had to stop chewing the gum she was chewing because she said the taste had changed
Okay now the other dog we're taking care of, a rescue pit bull, is trying to catch a fly in a dark room by repeatedly standing still and then missing it by eight feet
Read 4 tweets
1 Jun
(UPDATE) QAnon adherent Heidi Huebel Hitt—who posted the seditious video discussed in my pinned tweet—has now hidden the video. Screenshots of it can be found below (🆚) and I'm now working on getting the video from some PROOF readers who wisely ripped it. sethabramson.substack.com/p/new-video-se…
(PS) I have a ton of screenshots, so I'm uploading them now. Keep checking back at the link above if you're a PROOF subscriber. Some of the screenshots have been posted publicly here on Twitter (see my pinned thread). And you can see the worst one atop the link in my prior tweet.
(UPDATE) I've added a new link to the video. Click the link on my pinned tweet (🆚) to see it. We'll see how long it stays up.
Read 5 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!