People who know me at all will be unsurprised that I admired the tough, get-your-shit-together, no-excuses, tell-it-like-it-is Donald Rumsfeld. RIP American Patriot. 🇺🇸🙏🏻 Thank you for your service; God speed. I salute you. /1
I greatly admired his logical approach to problem solving & planning. My favorite story is how he dressed down the top Pentagon brass because they literally had no plan for a response if N.Korea used nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. To him that was complete dereliction./2
I would have thought the same: “no plan” is a plan to do nothing or be completely confused when it happens anyway or flying by the seat of your pants & all for no good reason. You can always adjust or even scrap a plan, but elements of it will almost always still be useful. /3
Plus, you always learn things just from the planning process - about your readiness, your resources, your lines of communication, your logistics, your people. You cut down on your “unknown unknowns,” as he would have said, when you plan. /4
And of course, his real politique about the federal govt is legendary, as evidenced by his annual letter to the IRS. If you haven’t seen one of those, here’s one. 👇🏻 Notice the grace note of old fashioned chivalry as he also defends his wife. /5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So you know. Some people have asked (me or others) why it’s allowed to not use names in indictments at all. Usually when I see a question a few times like that it means others wonder too, but don’t want to ask.
Prior to about the early 70s, unindicted people *would* be named./1
This would be other people the govt thought was guilty or just a witness sometimes. This practice was roundly condemned as abusive because it publicly accused people of crimes, but afforded them no opportunity to clear their names. /2
Like a lot of things, a lot of criminal law & procedure changed quite a bit after 1970. DOJ eventually changed it’s official policy to what it is now -that except in exceptional circumstances- DOJ doesn’t name people it thinks is guilty of crime unless it indicts them. /3
Some people aren’t getting what I said about FBI infiltrating groups (not the UCC part) because they’re making assumptions about my position, they reacted to earlier tweets first & I hadn’t expected so many people on the right to have a certain mindset. It’s about these. 👇🏻/1
Where we seem to be is that the Left thinks the govt should be routinely infiltrating these groups regardless of criminal conduct - see Greenwald’s article - & the Right thinks the FBI routinely IS doing so because FBI doesn’t follow the law anymore. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM. /2
As Americans we should all agree that political or ideological groups can only be infiltrated or investigated by the govt if there is some evidence of criminal activity underway & even then not necessarily the whole group. This is what the law is. /3
@CSpenc32683@factsMa22309408@DonLew1s@youreyeondenver@shipwreckedcrew It says in longer form what I said about how FBI investigations into political groups are actually supposed to & do usually work -there are requirements, tho they’re sometimes evaded, & then people have to explain what the hell they were doing if it goes wrong. /1
@CSpenc32683@factsMa22309408@DonLew1s@youreyeondenver@shipwreckedcrew It also makes clear what I was saying about the backdrop- that since the COINTELPRO scandal & the Church Commissioner, the govt is reluctant to initiate investigations of groups that are clearly not criminal per se & are exercising First Amendment rights. /2
@CSpenc32683@factsMa22309408@DonLew1s@youreyeondenver@shipwreckedcrew They know there will be shit to pay if they do & they get it wrong. That’s basically what Wray told the Senate in March - the Bureau can’t just investigate groups whose ideology isn’t popular. No less than Andrew Weisman was COMPLAINING about exactly that today in WaPo.👇🏻/3
NONE - I repeat - none of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Jan 6 cases will turn out to be undercover agents/informants. The law doesn’t consider them “conspirators” whether they’re indicted or not - they’re not legally agreeing to the offense. /1 revolver.news/2021/06/federa…
There may be undercover agents or informants in the cases -I’ll get to how likely that is in a minute- but they WILL NOT be identified in DOJ pleadings as unindicted co-conspirators. If DOJ knows they are cops/informants, they can’t put them in charging docs as co-conspirators./2
The ONLY way that happens is if DOJ doesn’t know the person is undercover/an informant, or if the AUSA has gone completely off the rails in violation of the law & Dept policy. Any AUSA who’s done that will be in SERIOUS trouble, as will any LEO who may have misled DOJ about it./3
Today is my birthday. I am really happy to be alive, to be an American, to be married to my hubs, to be free, to be able to read & write. For lots of things. I am the happiest I’ve ever been at 53 because I know who I am, I love who I am, I accept myself, mistakes & all. /1
In the past, I struggled w/finding happiness but I haven’t for years. I know I am connected to the Creator of all; that a piece, if you want to think of it that way, of the Almighty lives in me. I know my husband loves me, faults & all, as I love him. We love being together. /2
But more recently I have also found a true joy in life. I find it beautiful, rich, rewarding, delightful, joyous; regardless of circumstances or trials or pain. Life itself amazes & captivates me. My heart bursts with happiness simply from being alive. /3
Charles may be right that DJT has said or believes this, but neither he nor Maggie Haberman name ANY source for the claim. The Right is correct & rational to be skeptical of a story based only on anonymous sources, especially one about DJT. /1
And Maggie’s tweet 👇🏻 hardly qualifies as “reporting.” She points to no source or evidence for her factual assertion & then offers her own legal opinion at the end. Given her track record with the Russian collusion hoax, people are wise to be wary of anything she says. /2
I agree w/Charles on the substance of the matter. You can see my thoughts in my tweets on Sunday commenting on Sidney Powell’s remark about “reinstatement.” There would be a myriad of constitutional & legal problems even if it were crystal clear to all that DJT had really won. /3