I think what @TimothyDSnyder is trying to say is that Tweeting isn't political activism. Even really really mean rage Tweeting doesn't actually count.

"Too much screen time makes us vulnerable to bad politics," he says.

Idea: Find out how to help administer the 2022 election.
Not long ago, Steve Bannon horrified (and terrified) people when we learned he was trying to move Trump-Coup supporters into positions administering elections.

#2 on my list is "get involved with local elections."

terikanefield.com/things-to-do/
Yes. @TimothyDSnyder talks about the pandemic and suggests that it isn't a coincidence that the coup in 2020 came after people cooped up inside.

I worked the past several elections as a volunteer lawyer and worked a polling place during the CA recall. . .
(I volunteered to work the polling place because I worried that all the threats against poll workers meant that fewer people would volunteer.)

In some states, you can get a job helping count the votes.

Do it. Find out how.
Correction: It's not volunteer work. It's paid work.

You get money. But you get a lot more than that. You are part of something important.

Good poll workers make a difference.
Good poll workers make it easier for people to vote. Bad poll workers make it harder.

• • •

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

30 Dec
The January 6 committee filed its response to Trump's request that the Supreme Court hear his executive privilege case.

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2…

To compare, here's what Trump filed: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2…

(No surprise: The committee's brief is written and argued well.)

1/
Here is how Trump's brief presented the issue ⤵️

His argument is that the select committee's request was unconstitutional, therefore, he should have gotten a preliminary injunction. He wants the Court to decide whether the request was constitutional.

Here's the problem . . .
2/ Image
To get a preliminary injunction, Trump had to show with clear evidence each of these four criteria⤵️

The likelihood of succeeding on the merits is only one element.

So far, there has not actually been a trial on the merits of whether the request was Constitutional.

3/ Image
Read 4 tweets
30 Dec
Trump filed a supplemental brief with the Supreme Court (in his executive privilege case) arguing that the committee is considering criminal referrals, therefore, the request for documents exceeds Congress's legislative powers.

1/

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2… ImageImage
His argument is that Congress does not (and should not) have a law enforcement function.

Central to his argument is that the committee is illegal and illegitimate and so the subpoenas are unenforceable.

Here is the article he quotes: washingtonpost.com/politics/janua…

2/
Given the fact that the committee is studying a crime to find out what legislation can prevent future crimes, it's hard to say that they shouldn't make criminal referrals where appropriate.

Trump's argument comes down to "they're picking on me!"

3/ Image
Read 14 tweets
26 Dec
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/
Read 15 tweets
24 Dec
I see people say, "X said it, so I believe it."

A person can be right about one thing, and wrong about others. A person can know a lot about one area, but nothing about other areas.

Democracy requires a lot of citizens, including the ability to evaluate sources.
⤵️
Do they talk in what @TimothyDSnyder calls "Internet triggers"? Do they repeat internet triggers?

"X said it so I believe it" is close to authoritarianism. (Trump said it so I believe it)

"I was right about X so listen to me about Y" is also suspect.
Being the mother of a 17-year-old, I'm not used to anyone requesting a lecture 😂 but here's the other critical thinking error:

Confusing speculation with fact.

Nothing is wrong with speculating. What's wrong is when people take it as fact.

Example . . .
Read 6 tweets
24 Dec
Notice specifically what Thompson says. First, he says if a criminal referral would be warranted, there would be no reluctance on the part of the committee to do that.

Note also the possible crime: 18 U.S. Code 1505:
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

1/ Image
Earlier, @emptywheel quoted from the letter the committee sent to Jim Jordan (Screenshot #1)

See how the language echoes the language of 18. U.S. 1505? (Screenshot #2)

2/ ImageImage
One of the things that goes wrong on social media is confusing speculation (this must be happening because) or (we know it isn't happening because) versus following what is reported as facts.

Yes, we all know that Trump delayed and tried to obstruct the proceedings. . .

3/
Read 7 tweets
22 Dec
There is a Twitter consensus that the purpose of all these lawsuits (like the one Flynn filed seeking an injunction against the select committee) is to "run out the clock."

This makes no sense because the clock runs until at least 2024 and the cases are moving quickly.

1/
The work of the committee will be done in 2022 but the select committee is a truth-finding panel. The prosecutors have until at least 2024.

People similarly said that the election fraud lawsuits were to “run out the clock.”

Those cases also went fast.

2/
The election fraud cases were to feed the right-wing propaganda network.

Trump and pals also lost 60 of the 61 election fraud lawsuits (and the "win" was a minor one that didn't help much.)

3/
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!

:(