The video was a bit longer than my usual video (almost 16 minutes!)
But it's totally not my fault!
It's because there are so many bogus defenses out there.
2/
By amazing coincidence, I talked about this one in my video.
But I don't think people like this ⤵️are actually interested in the difference between political prosecution (which abandons rule of law) and rule of law prosecution (grounded in facts and evidence).
3/
I'm glad people find it helpful. That's why I do it, of course.
Talking to my ipad for 15 minutes is harder than it looks. (people who know me in real life would laugh at that and say: HAHA Teri has no trouble talking.)
Ordinarily, I often add a Twitter summary, but in this case, I've been tweeting this stuff, and some came from the Washington Post piece I co-authored⤵️ washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
The video doesn't include everything I tweeted, but it also includes more.
I appreciate the keen, insightful critiques from people who disagree with my analysis ⤵️
I just listened to Trump's rambling yesterday about the charges.
His strategy seems to be to gloss over the fraud and duplicity, lie about the charges, and hope that sways the right-wing Court of Public Opinion.
It was an admission that a crime occurred, but he carefully limited the admission to a small portion of what was charged. He didn't admit to the key items.
He did offer a few bogus defenses.
"I didn't know it was a crime," but he only claimed ignorance about a narrow portion.
Then he hit the "it wasn't so bad; other people do worse" bogus defense that I talked about in the video.
Along with that, he implied that because what the Trump Organization did wasn't so bad, he was being singled out, a defense that won't work for reasons I explained.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An observation about the Trump Org indictment: The criminal scheme was described as ongoing as of June 30, 2021.
Even when they knew they were being investigated, they kept cheating.
The arrogance is stunning. I did a brief stint years ago in a firm that represented white-collar clients, and I did see that attitude. They thought they were "pushing the envelope" and it was no big deal.
A task of the lawyers was to persuade them that they were in big trouble.
I think this is exactly right. It's the only way he has ever earned money. The Trumps don't add value. They take advantage of situations. He floats on debt; he borrows against assets he inflates. His "product" is his "brand."
I've been thinking about this defense of the Trump Org. by the National Review, which dovetails with Trump's monologue about how not paying taxes on tuition for grandchildren is no big deal.
Ignore the lies in this piece for a moment and consider the underlying argument. . . 1/
It's about what kind of laws we should have and the purpose of the criminal justice system.
It's the idea behind MAGA: Take America back to the time when [white] men could cheat (the 1890s).
When Trump breaks the laws they don't think should exist, his supporters cheer.
2/
The criminal justice system as existed before the 1960s really had the purpose of putting Black men in jail. It was a way of getting around the 13th Amendment (which gave an exception to forced labor: conviction for a crime).
3/
Witnesses don't always tell the truth.
Juries don't always believe the witness.
Witnesses who "flip" were usually involved in the criminal scheme, so their testimony can also be suspect.
Documentary evidence is harder to discredit. Witnesses can help connect the dots.
Weisselberg was "one of the largest individual beneficiaries" of the criminal scheme.
So there were others.
He wasn't even necessarily the largest beneficiary.
Today, those others are probably having a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.
I should do this as a thread.
This is important: The scheme is systematic and ongoing. In other words, we're not talking about a few isolated incidents, but pervasive over a period of years.
This is my surprised face. [sarcasm]
The defendants "and others."
The scheme was to compensate Weisselberg "and other Trump organization executives. . . " off the books.
It's hard to believe those others get to skate free. There's just too much noise in here about them.
I think you could use a refresher on the history of the parties. I can recommend a few books, including @HC_Richardson's To Make Men Free (I'll put the covers in the next tweet.)
1/
How Lincoln’s anti-slavery, strong federal government pro-industry party morphed into the party of the Proud Boys is a little complicated, but I'll break it down.
Unless otherwise indicated, all facts taken from these books ⤵️