THREAD. Just a few thoughts on Michigan's laws and the theory that the Oakland County prosecutor appears to be putting together in charging the parents with involuntary manslaughter:
2. Michigan has a law that would hold the parents liable if their child commits a firearm offense in a school zone, and the parent knows of or acts to further the violation. Parents conduct here would appear to apply -- BUT, this is only a misdemeanor legislature.mi.gov/(S(31kt5e3013g…
3. Michigan also appears to allow for criminal liability if an owner negligently or recklessly allows a firearm to be discharged, though not clear from wording if it could directly be applied to a minor accessing that weapon (and it's still a misdemeanor) legislature.mi.gov/(S(2ylkckzotsh…
4. By contrast, the involuntary manslaughter law allows for that underlying negligent or reckless conduct, or unlawful misdemeanor act to be charged as a *felony* if an unintentional killing results from that conduct legislature.mi.gov/(S(vnab5z45zn2…
5. The felony conviction has a penalty of up to 15 years in prison, versus the minimal jail time for a misdemeanor. Importantly, a felony conviction would prevent the parents from owning a firearm under federal law, whereas a misdemeanor conviction would not
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yep. “…history [individual contributions], literature [creativity], civics [practical engagement]. Same subjects out Founding Fathers studied. If you’re against history, literature, and civics, you’re just against education.”
Then you bring every CRT discussion back to the virtues of “history, literature, and civics” and how all them celebrate American values, forcing your opponent to explain why that’s bad. Reframe. Verbal judo. Repeat, repeat, repeat
Also, when opponent brings up examples like some diversity training that taught that punctuality is a form of racism, you say, “That’s not CRT, that’s just idiotic.” Concede the low hanging fruit. Agree and diffuse. Next.
Fighting an information war doesn’t mean you, too, have to counter with lies and disinformation; but it does mean you have to saturate the information space with *AN ACTUAL MESSAGE*. Otherwise you’re letting your opponent take over people’s perception of reality
If you want a great example of powerful messaging on an election, watch the documentary “NO,” about the 1988 plebiscite on Augusto Pinochet. The opposition had *one hour a day* of otherwise government-controlled media to get out their message 1/
Their initial impulse was to document the horror and abuses under Pinochet…which were all true. But they called in some marketing folks who told them that was not a message that was going to sell. So they crafted an EMOTIONAL APPEAL (which was positive + hopeful). These cats WON
People really proving to me that “Let’s Go Brandon” is totally just normal people criticizing the president…nothing unstable or violent here 🙄
I always know that some right-wing site has posted an article about me by the amount of hateful, racist, and misogynistic emails that suddenly flood my inbox. This is their audience and they know *exactly* what they’re doing (though in this case they are also proving my point 😂)
Emails still coming. This one wasn’t completely unhinged so I engaged.
I get this sentiment, and it’s sad to me that so much public perception of the SC was shaped by congressional inaction and the spin put on his work by a corrupt AG. Mueller and his team did an honorable and thorough job, and/but they did it by the book 1/
I suppose Mueller could have been more aggressive — subpoenaing Trump, trying to bring an indictment against him despite DOJ policy — to force some kind of constitutional showcase showdown for SCOTUS…but that was not his style and was never going to happen 2/
Also because of congressional dysfunction/inaction, ALL hopes were pinned on Mueller. But he was not going to blow everything wide open, partly bc it was a foreign counterintelligence investigation as much as a criminal one (as I explained here) 3/ thehill.com/opinion/white-…
THREAD. Some quick thoughts on the pros and cons of AG Garland appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the organizers behind 1/6. I don't think it's necessarily an easy call but my view is that the feather on the scale weighs in favor of appointing:
2. PRO #1: It's warranted. Contrary to what some have suggested, a conflict of interest is not a requisite for appointing an SC. Appropriate grounds include that an independent prosecutor would be in the "public interest" or that there are "extraordinary circumstances"
3. PRO #2: It would signal that getting to the bottom of this is a priority for the Justice Department. Right now it's possible that DOJ is investigating, but since by necessity this is under wraps it leaves the public speculating and increasingly cynical about DOJ