What if instead of repeating: "there've been no consequences," everyone did:

"OMG, the Trump Org has been INDICTED for FRAUD!
And the GJ is still hearing evidence."

Repeat a million times. Let it sink into the public consciousness. ("Her emails")

Instead of minimizing it.
These things puff Trump up and help his Strongman image:

🔹There are never any consequences!
🔹He gets away with everything"
🔹Yeah, okay, but what about . . . ?

These guys ⤵️LOVE when you say that.

("no consequences" also isn't true)

2/
The right-wing understands how to do that. They take something that wasn't a crime ("her emails") and repeat it over and over. Mainstream media picks it up. Pretty soon even people who don't know better start thinking HRC was a crook.

What do Trump critics do?

3/
I had an interesting discussion with @donwinslow last night. It went in a few directions (and he deleted one of his tweets) but I mostly pieced it together in 2 columns.

If no consequences will be good enough, we basically let Trump off in the media narrative.

Right?

4/
There were two columns. This is the second. Read to the end.

I've been saying this for a while: The "no consequences" people will never be satisfied.

No matter what charges are brought, it won't be enough.

Because so many influential people are saying this . . .

5/
. . . mainstream media picks it up.

Maybe Trump critics are the ones inadvertently putting Teflon on Trump.

If a Clinton org or foundation was criminally indicted for fraud, we'd never hear the end of it.

With Trump, we never hear it at all.
We hear NOTHING happened.

6/
If respected law professors "teach" the public that getting indicted for fraud is no big deal because [fill in the blank] don't be surprised if people not paying close attention think the Democrats are failures and they vote Republican again.

This is so self-defeating.
Adding this here to address some of the angry comments I'm getting⤵️

• • •

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

1 Dec
I take it that you mean "each time" a law is broken you want a criminal prosecution. You don't just mean political enemies or opponents.

Not even the most efficient police state can collect evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each time a law is broken.
"Rule of law" doesn't mean that each transgression is punished. Quite the contrary. Due process and constitutional protections mean not every person who commits a crime gets prosecuted.

Just striving for precision here.

You meant: "Trump broke laws so I want him prosecuted."
What DOJ investigators need to do is put on blinders, follow the evidence where it leads (as they have said many times they are doing; see ⤵️for example) and ignore cries from partisans to prosecute political leaders.

Politicizing the DOJ is dangerous.
Read 4 tweets
1 Dec
We already know that investigators in Georgia have been coordinating with the select committee and sharing information.

The takeaway is that this is a complex and far-reaching conspiracy not limited to the events of Jan. 6.
The committee's mission statement includes working with other "entities" to avoid duplication of efforts."

It's also clear from their statement that they're looking beyond Jan. 6 to tie together what happened (meaning all parts of the conspiracy.)
january6th.house.gov/about Image
It's a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and an ongoing coverup.

Read 5 tweets
30 Nov
If people think that criminal prosecution will (1) cripple (or stop) the forces of right-wing extremism or (2) ensure a Democratic win in 2022, I can understand the panic and frustration.

See: (transcripts on my blog)
I think this belief underlies much of the frustration and panic which is causing people to blame Democrats for Republican lawbreaking on the grounds that Democrats are stubbornly refusing to do The Thing that will make the problem go away.
I repinned the "criminal consequences" video to my timeline. A transcript is here: terikanefield.com/criminal-punis…

I also address some of the Internet Memes about Merrick Garland.
Read 5 tweets
30 Nov
Ready for the answer? (This will help you prepare for the appellate procedure portion of the Twitter Bar Exam)

🔹Trump filed a lawsuit claiming that the docs housed at the National Archives should not go to Congress because he's asserting executive privilege.

1/
🔹By statute, the docs go to Congress unless Trump gets a court order.
🔹Deciding his lawsuit on the merits will take months, and by then it will be too late because the docs will be on their way (in tranches) to Congress

2/
🔹So Trump filed a motion asking for a preliminary injunction asking for the docs to be held until the court can decide the case on the merits.
🔹It's harder to get a preliminary injunction than it is to win on the merits because there are additional elements to meet.

3/
Read 5 tweets
30 Nov
Anyone listening?

They've been deep in the weeds of the statutory language, but now they're back arguing whether this is a clash between the branches.

It isn't. The legislative and executive branches are in agreement.

Trump (as former POTUS) is not a branch of government.
The conflict is between the former and current president, not between the branches.

Issue: So what is the role of the courts?

Can the court overrule the incumbent president on behalf of a former president?
Here we get these hypotheticals. What if four former presidents disagree with the incumbent president. (Implication: What if the current president is totally off his rocker?)

Answer: There is still no clash between the branches.
Read 15 tweets
30 Nov
Hi, @djrothkopf

I’ll answer your question here.

l'll begin by pointing out a few legal errors. You said this about the DOJ and the Carroll case⤵️

You referred to her case as a rape case. Actually, it was a defamation case.

1/

cc @Delavegalaw Image
This is an important distinction because the defamatory comment was made while Trump was president.

I wrote about Garland’s decision here: terikanefield.com/has-merrick-ga…

The controlling law is the Westfall Act.

2/

@djrothkopf
In a nutshell, the legal issue is governing whether the defamatory act was committed during the scope of Trump’s employment as president.

The legally correct answer (most likely and perhaos unfortunately) is yes.

Again, for more, see: terikanefield.com/has-merrick-ga…
@djrothkopf

3/
Read 9 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(