Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Oct 15, 2021 15 tweets 5 min read Read on X
" . . . the speaker will send to the DOJ, and the statute says they have a duty to present to a grand jury. So he will be prosecuted."

They'd never get the truth out of him anyway. He'd lie to Congress.

I wonder if Bannon wants to be a martyr and a right-wing hero.
Basically Bannon will go to jail because he's clinging to the theory that Trump won and Bannon has to obey Trump's directions not to testify.

Look how Trump glorifies Ashli Babbit. I wonder if Bannon wants some of that.
Because the committee has opted for criminal referral, it appears the process will be the usual criminal procedure:
The House makes a criminal referral.
The DOJ convenes a grand jury and makes the case.
A grand jury returns an indictment.
The defendant is arraigned. . .
As explained by @BarbMcQuade, a civil remedy would be quicker, with the goal of securing compliance (he could have been jailed until he complied)

This takes longer, but the goal is to punish, not secure compliance. Image
I am not sure why people feel that they're fighting the clock with Bannon's testimony.

Likely the committee doesn't even need his testimony, and they can draw inferences from his silence. They probably have copies of whatever documents he has . . .

Do people have the idea that unless Bannon talks, the committee can't move forward?

It's an Twitter-invented emergency. The committee is basically done with Bannon. I didn't check the law Schiff quoted, but they're confidence the case will be put before a grand jury. . .
As far as Bannon's defense, he's entitled to put one on, but his defense is totally lame. It's a slam-dunk in the guilty department.

Another Twitter-invented emergency is that the future of democracy depends on whether Bannon testifies . . . Image
. . . he'd lie anyway, or refuse to answer questions on whatever grounds he'd think up, and getting someone on "lying to congress" is a lot more complicated than prosecuting him for blowing the whole thing off in the first place.

The future of democracy depends on us.
If he isn't talking because he thinks his testimony will incriminate him in another matter, the procedure is that he shows up and then invokes the Fifth Amendment and refuses to answer questions that will incriminate him.

I can't see him doing that.

That's why I suspect at this point that he wants a trial so he can put on, as his "defense" that Trump is the rightful president and can assert executive privilege or some such nonsense.

Trials make good theater, and criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a trial.
A person has a constitutional right to a public trial.

People who shout "Why isn't Trump already in prison!" forget that first he gets a public trial.

It. Will. Be. A. Circus.

(Also, he'll be seen as a victim in the Court of Right-Wing Opinion.)
Remember, autocracy is swift and easy.
Democracy is slow grinding work.

That's why autocracy has a lot of appeal: "We can win and win fast! we can land blows on our enemies! We can blow through those tiresome rules!"
The Trump Org. has been indicted.
Yes, there will be more indictments. Convictions are up to a jury.

No, it will not be enough. Look at people shouting, "Only 45 days in jail for that insurrectionist!")

Here's how I know . . .
There have been lots of "consequences," but people still say "there have been no consequences."

When I start listing the consequences (which gets tiring) the answer is, "Okay, yes, those, but . . ." or "Okay, he spent some time in jail, but . . . "

• • •

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!

PDF

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

Apr 29
Everyone will have a different opinion of the strength of the Manhattan criminal case against Trump.

I am offering no opinions on the strength or who will prevail.

I am saying that people are working too hard to explain the case and figure out the legal theory.

1/
The prosecution has everyone confused because they are framing the case as "election fraud" and "election interference" so everyone is trying to connect the crimes we know about to "election fraud."

2/

terikanefield.com/wheres-the-bee…
The legal theory of the case should be clear.

This would be clear: "It is election fraud. Here is how the evidence will support a charge of election fraud." Then show how the behavior supports election fraud.

Does this mean the prosecution will lose? No.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Mar 11
Finished. (Whew)

As promised, all about Legal pundits and the Outrage Industry, with a few cherished conspiracy theories carefully debunked.

Click here to start:

For years, I was perplexed by what I saw on Twitter. . .

1/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
It seemed to me that the dynamics of social media were making people more authoritarian.

Then I started reading experts in political communication and it all started making sense.


2/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
I wrote parts 1 - 5 in November. I thought I was finished, but I wasn't.

There were still things I didn't understand.

Writers often write to understand, so I kept reading, thinking, and writing.



3/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 9
Whew! I finished.



Everything I promised: How to listen (or not listen) to legal pundits.

It's also about what is dangerous about the entire industry of punditry, speculation, and cable talk shows.

1/terikanefield.com/invented-narra…

For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.

I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."

Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.

I read these books and light bulbs went on.

3/ Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 2
If Trump can win with everything we know about him, what make people think a finding of guilt would change that?

It makes no sense.
Also what if the jury acquits? It can happen.

I do recall the same people thought impeachment and indictment would cause Trump to crumble.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"

We saw the J6 committee findings.

Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."

2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"

A lot of people do.

People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.

I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .

3/
Read 6 tweets
Feb 29
The news takes 2 minutes to convey.

"Here is what the court did." That is news.

Listening to people speculate about why the court did it and what it means is not news.

It is entertainment.

But it is a special kind of entertainment.

1/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.

But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.

2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.

Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:

3/terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Read 5 tweets
Feb 29
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.

1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."

In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.

2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).

I explained that wouldn't happen.

Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.

3/
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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(