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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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/
. . . 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:
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/