"Mr. Trump’s lawsuit comes less than two weeks after Ms. James signaled that she would seek to question Mr. Trump under oath early next month."

He's scared to death.

nytimes.com/2021/12/20/nyr…
He's doing this to block the subpoena to testify under oath. But it's such a flakey move it will only get him a very short delay. In the meantime, it's a bad look for Trump. It makes him look like he's running from the law, which he is. He's getting desperate.
I expect, momentarily, to see all the legal experts weighing in about what a flakey move this is by Trump. But Trump must *know* that it is a flakey *legal* move. (He isn’t that stupid.) But to understand his motive here, it is necessary to look at the *politics*.
This is essentially a political move by Trump that is aimed at his cult, and therefore at the GOP (which has been overtaken by his cult). The message is simply:
My criminal liability isn’t what’s important. The *only* thing that is important is the politics, and these investigations are a threat to me politically and to MAGA. And that’s the only thing you should consider. It is, in fact, the only thing that is even *relevant.*
Thus, Trump, in effect, is letting Rs and the Fox News crowd know that he expects *them* to speak out and even attack the *legal* system (and certainly not *him*) for investigating his mountain of crimes!
Trump’s attacks on the Jan 6 committee and the investigations by Vance and James in NY are just as insidious as the riot he clearly incited on Jan 6 at the Capitol.
Never Trumpers have claimed from Day One that Trump would destroy the GOP, and Trump’s frenzied attacks on the investigations show that they were right.
The inexorable slide towards a real debacle is underway. It began with Jan 6, and is accelerating now with his political attacks on the investigations.
Trump has already thuggishly attacked Meadows for (initially) cooperating with the Jan 6 committee, and he recently assailed McConnell when McConnell said that he supported the Jan 6 committee b/c the country needs to know what happened.
Trump clearly hoped to neutralize or even topple McConnell as the Senate’s Minority Leader. His effort failed. But Trump is not going to desist. He is going to escalate his efforts to get his cult behind the idea that he *should* be above the law, even if the *law* says he isn't.
The lawsuit that we learned about today is only a platform for Trump to further polarize the country, tear it apart, and incite his base--the country and the GOP be damned.

Let us all agree to really hate this man.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊 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 @twoodiac

20 Dec
I think there is at least a 50-50 chance that Trump will be indicted and convicted for serious *federal* crimes. It is therefore highly relevant that a Republican POTUS in Jan 2025 could pardon Trump for those crimes. 1/5
That is another reason why politics is the name of the game behind Trump’s lawsuit against Letitia James.

Trump is announcing, among other things, that there will be a loyalty test for all R politicians in the midterms and in 2024. 2/5
The loyalty test is to ignore any state or federal crimes he has undoubtedly committed.

For Trump, it has always been a question about who you are for and who you are against--and certainly not the law.

And you have to be *for* him. He has always demanded complete loyalty. 3/5
Read 6 tweets
17 Dec
The federal government has *plenary* authority over interstate commerce. Consequently, Congress could simply strike down the laws in 19 states barring the transportation of abortifacient pills across state lines. For that matter, so could the Commerce Dept through regulation. 1/2
Example: a number of states have laws regulating the transport of fruits and vegetables across their state lines, but states can apply these regulations *only* because the U.S. Dept of Agriculture permits it. (The Dept also has its own regulations.) 2/2 tinyurl.com/yx9ea3rr
What everyone seems to be missing is that Interstate commerce involving Mifepristone became an issue the very moment the FDA approved its use and sale. Obviously, no state can bar the importation of any legal substance or product unless the federal govt approves such a ban.
Read 11 tweets
11 Dec
It’s taking a long time to indict Trump b/c it’s all very complicated, involving hundreds--may thousands--of interrelated moving parts. Before indicting just one part of it effectively (e.g., obstruction of justice), one has to have pieced together all the parts of the plot. 1/6
Then one has to boil it all down to a theory of the case that is simple and compelling enough to convince a jury in real time. (Real time being trial time). 2/6
At his confirmation hearing, Garland pledged to make investigation into Jan. 6 his first priority as AG. He also said that, if confirmed, he would not rule out investigating funders, organizers, ringleaders, aiders or abettors of the assault. 3/6 tinyurl.com/y9um4wa9
Read 7 tweets
6 Dec
The U.S. Constitution clearly stands for the proposition that a state’s national representatives are *directly* chosen by the state’s voters, and not indirectly by the state’s legislatures.

This is clearly embodied in the Seventeenth Amendment. 1/12 tinyurl.com/pa4asw5
The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” 2/12
The U.S. Constitution stands even more clearly for the proposition that the electors that are sent to the Electoral College are sent there by a majority of the voters in each state, not by the state legislatures. 3/12
Read 13 tweets
1 Dec
Pence did not have the power to decline to certify the election on Jan 6. If he had done so, he would have acted unconstitutionally. But if Pence *had* done this, there would have been no obstruction of the congressional certification process itself. 1/7
In that case, everything would have been done pro forma, even though the outcome would have been unconstitutional (and would undoubtedly have thrown the country into complete, violent turmoil). 2/7
But getting Pence to act unconstitutionally was the only way that Trump could have remained in office on Jan 20 *without* obstructing justice. Absent that, Trump had to obstruct the process itself. 3/7
Read 8 tweets
13 Nov
The legal case against Trump for what he did (and didn’t do) on Jan 6 took a significant, though not unpredictable, turn today with the release of the following excerpt from Jonathan Karl’s soon to be released book (h/t Axios): 1/12 Image
Here, Trump is clearly excusing and condoning the violence on Jan 6 that he incited on the grounds that it was motivated by righteous and justified political anger. 2/12
Political anger, whether righteous and justified or not, does not provide a legal excuse for *any* violence--like, for example, the insurrectionary violence that occurred on Jan 6. 3/12
Read 13 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!

:(