(1/2) I don't profess to know what Garland is doing or thinking. He's a good man, he's competent, he cares. My concerns are normalization and impact. I read the tweets of @tribelaw and @richsignorelli - and I also read @SpiroAgnewGhost and @MuellerSheWrote - they all make sense.
(2/2) We're not attorneys. We're psychiatrists. We know behavioral science. We caution against normalization. Do NOT compare how long things should take from history - this is new! We caution against thinking that charging Trump today versus months from now has the same impact.
As we progress forward toward midterms, it will become increasingly obvious that it's not the aberrance of Trump that is attacking democracy - it's Trumpism. It's a coordinated effort, a power-fueled apparatus. Right now, charging Trump will impact the apparatus. Soon it won't.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(1/4) We're going to answer this question ONCE AND FOR ALL. We heard it asked yet again, after his latest screed. The question is: Does Trump really believe he won the election because it was stolen? Here is the actual answer, sorry if you don't find it satisfying, but it's true:
(2/4) The answer is - it doesn't matter! It's the same. To understand this, you have to know Trump's psychopathology and his aberrant relationship to the truth. In all ways, belief or not belief - it's the same. There is no concept of "belief." Only the narrative he puts forth.
(3/4) In his universe, there is only HIM. There is only HIS urgency and his needs. Actual belief NEVER seeps into conscious thought. It's not only the CHOICE of belief that doesn't enter thought, the very CONCEPT of belief doesn't either. Thus, it doesn't matter.
THREAD: “This is a five-alarm fire…The most important issue of our time,” said Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State. A breakdown of Trump loyalists’ growing success in taking control over voting in swing states:
Arizona. Republican legislators have passed a law taking away authority over election lawsuits from the secretary of state, who’s now a Democrat, and giving it to the attorney general, a Republican. And debating another bill that would allow them to revoke election certification.
Georgia. Brad Raffensperger, helped stop Trump’s attempts to reverse the result. State legislators have since weakened his powers, and a Trump-backed candidate is running to replace Him. And passed a law that gives a commission they control the power to remove election officials.
(1/4) Many early settlers - the first ones who arrived - left England for religious reasons. They came here long on belief, but short on survival knowledge. Their new neighbors, who were living off the land, were glad to share their bounty and knowledge with them.
(2/4) Like so many relationships it started off really well. As later settlers arrived, with possessions and influence, greed and ambition and ego and entitlement took over. Our relationship with our neighbors went to shit. Our neighbors lost their land, to us. You know the rest.
(3/4) Today, we celebrate their early kindness. And we feast.
Let's also try to direct a humble thought or two toward the rest of the story - the truth. And - especially relevant to today - may we never forget there IS such a thing as truth.
(1/2) We're going to answer this question ONCE AND FOR ALL. We heard it asked yet again, to Jon Karl by Joy Reid. The question is: Does Trump really believe he won the election because it was stolen? Here is the actual answer, sorry if you don't find it satisfying, but it's true:
(2/2) The answer is - it doesn't matter! It's the same. To understand this, you have to know Trump's psychopathology and aberrant relationship to the truth. In all ways, belief or not belief - it's the same. There is no concept of "belief." Only the narrative he puts forth.
There is only HIM. There is only his urgency and his need. Actual belief NEVER seeps into conscious thought. It's not only the choice of belief that doesn't enter thought, the very concept of belief doesn't either. Thus, it doesn't matter.
“Alito epitomizes new imperious attitude of the Court’s right-wing majority, which wants to act politically without being seen as political, and expects the public to silently acquiesce to its every directive without scrutiny, criticism, or protest.” theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
“It is not simply enough for the right-wing justices to have this power; Alito insists that the peasantry be silent about how they use it, and acquiesce not only to their delusions of impartiality but to their mischaracterization of verifiable facts.”
“If Alito wants the public to see the Court as apolitical, he should try meeting that standard, instead of lecturing others for not blinding themselves to the obvious.”