Share this page!

Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Twitter logo
30 Nov, 5 tweets, 2 min read
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/
🔹One of the elements to show to get an preliminary injunction is to present "clear" evidence that you are "likely" to proceed on the merits.

🔹The lower court held a hearing and said NO preliminary injunction.

🔹Trump appealed.

4/
🔹The appellate court had a hearing this morning on whether the lower court erred in granting the preliminary injunction.

If Trump wins, he gets an injunction while the case in the lower court proceeds on the merits.

(He is EXTREMELY unlikely to win)

5/

• • •

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

Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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.
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Teri_Kanefield has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Teri_Kanefield!

Read all threads by @Teri_Kanefield

:(