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
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/
You derided his decision as being an “institutionalist.” In fact, he was following the law.

Next, you say that the decision to charge Bannon should have taken prosecutors “minutes.”

Federal prosecutors follow procedures.

4/
They gather the evidence and present the evidence to a grand jury.

The grand jury then makes the determination. This is usually phrased as the grand jury indicts (but there are extra steps in there).

5/
nbcnews.com/politics/justi…
I think I'll stop here. @djrothkopf no longer wants my assessment of his errors.

I'll add that I totally understand how these errors were made and I sympathize.

These errors are being freely repeated on Twitter. They've become what Snyder calls Internet Memes.

6/
So instead of continuing with the errors, I'll say that I do have a lot of sympathy for @djrothkopf.

All he's really doing is repeating what lots of other people are saying.

And therein lies the problem, right?

Democracy requires a shared truth, which requires truth.

7/
It's a lot harder to get past the memes and look at the facts.

Here is a great video about the need not to repeat memes like "there have not been no consequences" (there have been) or Garland Merrick is doing nothing (also not true)



8/
What I see on left twitter is rage-inducing simplifications.

Here I talk about how these are self-defeating:


9/
Well, I typed Merrick Garland as Garland Merrick🤣

I blame my keyboard gremlins. They behave badly before I finish my coffee. It's early in California.

Also, I agree with lots of the comments: I didn't think I was condescending. I thought I was careful.

• • •

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

2 Dec
Here is what people are having a hard time accepting:

The Republicans are knowingly and actively shielding and supporting liars and lawbreakers because they want to destroy. The lies and lawbreaking are intended to destroy.

If anyone made these promises, that person lied⤵️

1/ Image
It seems to me that this is based on a theory that goes like this: We had a lovely democracy and then along came the lawbreaking Republicans. Because they are breaking laws, we can solve the problem through the criminal justice system.

2/ Image
Two things are happening right now on left media:

(1) People misunderstand the lies and lawbreaking on the right.

(2) People tell their own lies (what I've been calling rage-inducing simplifications) based on a faulty view of history and the nature of the problem.

3/
Read 11 tweets
2 Dec
This is the problem. People think that the problem of right-wing extremism can be "fixed" and they're waiting for that to happen and demanding that someone fix the problem.

Now people believe that criminal indictments will "fix" the problem.

1/ Image
If you think that criminal indictments will fix the problem and make the threat of right-wing extremism go away, of course you're frustrated and impatient.

All I can figure is that it comes from a very weird idea of history, that goes like this . . .

2/ Image
At some point in our recent history, we had a lovely democracy, and then up rose a cabal of criminals.

Now, we just need to put those criminal in jail and the
problem will be fixed.

When was this lovely democracy? Before 1954?
Nope. We had racial segregation.

3/
Read 4 tweets
2 Dec
Yup, the Fifth Amendment comes into play when a person may have criminal liability.

". . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . "
Why give him immunity if they don't need his testimony?

It's likely they don't.
They're still gathering evidence. A GJ isn't convened until prosecutors are ready.

Also, just because they have some evidence doesn't mean they have enough (yet).

Proving each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt isn't as easy as it looks. . .
Read 7 tweets
2 Dec
This is an example of a rage-inducing simplification.

🔹It ignores ongoing investigations (actually pretends they're are not happening)
🔹It assumes unrealistic timelines
🔹It ignores the reality of how investigations occur

Mostly, it mindlessly repeats what other people say. Image
In a video that I link to here⤵️ @TimothyDSnyder talks about how mindlessly repeating Internet "triggers" endangers democracy by, basically, turning us into mindless repeaters of trigger phrases.

Democracy requires more of its citizens.
It also minimizes what has been happening ("we don't care about them"), which benefits the Republicans, who want the events of January 6th minimized.

It minimizes what has been happening because we stop talking about actual facts (like the details in the indictments).
Read 5 tweets
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
It's a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and an ongoing coverup.

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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(