Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Dec 30, 2021 14 tweets 5 min read Read on X
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…
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/
Here is the basic problem with Trump's argument.

He says that in performing a criminal inquiry, the committee is violating the separation of powers.

So he wants the Court to determine the committee's "true goals"--which is itself a violation of the separation of powers. . .

4/
He wants the Court to conclude that TRUE goal of a Congressional committee is NOT its stated goal, which is to conduct a thorough inquiry into the attack on the capitol to find ways to make sure such an attack doesn't happen again.

5/
So he is asking the court to second-guess Congress's motives, which itself violates the separation of powers.

Besides, conducting an inquiry into the January 6 attack to determine how it happened to make sure it doesn't happen again, requires INVESTIGATING A CRIME.

6/
No -- and we probably won't know until mid-January.

I'd be surprised if the Court takes this. This was an appeal from denial preliminary injunction.

If they're interested, I assume they'll wait for a deision on the merits.
If I had a dime each time someone put this in my comments ⤵️

None of this is factual.

#1: This isn't "successful." It's moving quickly and not slowing down the committee.

#2: The committee will finish its work by summer.

#3: So even if the House changes hands . . .
. . . it won't matter.

#4: Have people already decided that the Republicans will win in 2022?

Wanna know how to suppress the vote and demoralize people? Say there is no chance so what's the point.

Idea: Don't repeat things without first thinking about them.

Lecture over.
Excellent point. And the Washington Post, no less.

I objected to the idea that the delay is "successful" and that running out the clock to November does any good.

What are his goals? Maybe:

Fundraising.
He thinks he'll win.
Seeding right-wing talking points as with the election fraud suits.

Who knows?
Also it's likely the committee already has everything it needs. Records are duplicative. Emails are copied lots of places. All you need is a few insiders turning over everything, and 300 witnsses are cooperating

More reasons this baseless doomsaying annoys me ⤵️
I also think there is a Fight, Fight, Fight mentality.

After Nixon resigned, people like Manafort and Stone were frustrated. They wanted Nixon to keep fighting.

So that's what Trump does. It keeps his supporters pumped up.
The other thing this does ⤵️is credit Trump with winning.

"Strongman Trump is beating everyone (again!)"

He probably loves when people say this kind of thing.

Really, he's a loser.

(People kept saying the election fraud lawsuits would succeed in delaying . . . They didn't.)

• • •

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

Apr 29
Everyone will have a different opinion of the strength of the Manhattan criminal case against Trump.

I am offering no opinions on the strength or who will prevail.

I am saying that people are working too hard to explain the case and figure out the legal theory.

1/
The prosecution has everyone confused because they are framing the case as "election fraud" and "election interference" so everyone is trying to connect the crimes we know about to "election fraud."

2/

terikanefield.com/wheres-the-bee…
The legal theory of the case should be clear.

This would be clear: "It is election fraud. Here is how the evidence will support a charge of election fraud." Then show how the behavior supports election fraud.

Does this mean the prosecution will lose? No.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Mar 11
Finished. (Whew)

As promised, all about Legal pundits and the Outrage Industry, with a few cherished conspiracy theories carefully debunked.

Click here to start:

For years, I was perplexed by what I saw on Twitter. . .

1/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
It seemed to me that the dynamics of social media were making people more authoritarian.

Then I started reading experts in political communication and it all started making sense.


2/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
I wrote parts 1 - 5 in November. I thought I was finished, but I wasn't.

There were still things I didn't understand.

Writers often write to understand, so I kept reading, thinking, and writing.



3/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 9
Whew! I finished.



Everything I promised: How to listen (or not listen) to legal pundits.

It's also about what is dangerous about the entire industry of punditry, speculation, and cable talk shows.

1/terikanefield.com/invented-narra…

For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.

I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."

Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.

I read these books and light bulbs went on.

3/ Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 2
If Trump can win with everything we know about him, what make people think a finding of guilt would change that?

It makes no sense.
Also what if the jury acquits? It can happen.

I do recall the same people thought impeachment and indictment would cause Trump to crumble.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"

We saw the J6 committee findings.

Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."

2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"

A lot of people do.

People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.

I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .

3/
Read 6 tweets
Feb 29
The news takes 2 minutes to convey.

"Here is what the court did." That is news.

Listening to people speculate about why the court did it and what it means is not news.

It is entertainment.

But it is a special kind of entertainment.

1/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.

But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.

2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.

Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:

3/terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Read 5 tweets
Feb 29
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.

1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."

In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.

2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).

I explained that wouldn't happen.

Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.

3/
Read 4 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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!

:(