Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

Good morning. Anyone ready to read a legal doc?🤓It's totally fun, I promise.

Taylor Budowich’s lawsuit against Pelosi and the select committee is here:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

A pattern to these is emerging.

First, the person claims to have cooperated in good faith.

1/

Then, after totally cooperating, the person is "ambushed" to learn about a subpoena.

So, either:

🔹The committee is totally unreasonable and unfair OR
🔹Said person isn't really turning everything over, and in fact, is holding back key docs.

Which could it be? 🤔

2/

The timing of these letters indicates that the records have already been furnished to Congress (but nobody knows).

If it's too late and Congress will get these docs, what is the purpose of these lawsuits?

I have a clue from my email in-box . . .

3/

The people who write me lovely emails calling a stupid liberal are making the same exact arguments in these lawsuits.

In other words, the lawsuits are providing the talking points for right-wing media outlets.

So we need to be aware of them.

4/

But first, a clue from the lawsuit itself that Budowich wasn't truly cooperating and in fact, he thought he could hold back key documents: He argues that Congress isn't entitled to see the particular documents they are demanding in the subpoenas.

5/

They argue that they have a First Amendment right to hide the documents because the documents contain evidence of their political views and political associations.

It makes no sense.

He also says that he already gave the committee everything they asked for.

6/

This guy doesn't exactly hide his political views, and if he gave the committee everything responsive and if they won't learn anything new from these documents, why is he so twisted out of shape because the committee might see them?

They're bank records.

7/

He argues that the subpoena violates his 4th Amendment rights.

(He didn't mention the 5th. I guess he's not ready yet to go there. Usually, they claim 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment violations.)

What he wants is a declaration from the court that these subpoenas are invalid.

8/

He also argues that the committee is not legitimate, and it doesn't serve a legitimate purpose so nobody has to comply with anything they demand

(So he's been complying in good faith "over his objections" for months with an illegal committee that nobody has to comply with?)

9/

An observation about why we should care about this committee.

The committee wants to expose the truth. They want to know every detail leading to the insurrection.

If anything will persuade people not to vote for the current Republican Party, it should be the truth.

10/

No pop quiz, but keep in mind that I'm reading, typing, thinking, and drinking caramel-vanilla flavored coffee all at the same time, which explains any typing errors.

(And of course, the mischief-making gremlins that hide in my keyboard)

https://twitter.com/Dividist/status/1475146006865977344

I suspect they had a good reason not to take his word.

Remember, they've interviewed more than 300 witnesses.

These interviews are not public for a good reason.

Nobody knows all of what the others are saying, or what documents others have provided.

https://twitter.com/Ub4Him2/status/1475146389793525771

The total shock and horror these guys exhibit when they learn of the subpoena suggests that they are shocked that the committee knew which documents to go after.

Nothing else really explains the language.

Mark Meadows was "blindsided."

Ah! Two things I should have added. The committee is interested in $200,000 from an undisclosed source.

Also, Taylor Budowich issued a public statement that democracy is threatened, not by the insurrectionists, but the select committee.

I expanded this thread into a blog post: terikanefield.com/taylor-budowic…