It seems to me that these filings serve multiple purposes for Trump, including:
They keep his base fired up, they help with fundraising, and they show that he’s a “fighter.”
They help seed right-wing talking points.
2/
The "fighter" mentality:
When Nixon resigned, people like Manafort and Stone were frustrated and angry. They wanted Nixon to keep fighting.
They thought he was driven from office by a biased liberal media.
Well, now they have their own media.
3/
An example of the "fight, fight, fight" mentality⤵️
A common claim in Trump's lawsuits is the claim that whatever branch of government is investigating him is illegitimate and illegal and is targeting him for political reasons.
4/
It doesn't matter that he loses. He lost the election fraud lawsuits, but that didn't change the minds of those who believed there was fraud.
Notice that losing in court won't actually undermine these talking points.
If the court and prosecutors are conducting a partisan witch hunt (and if the jurors are all angry radical leftist Democrats) conviction will prove his point.
8/
The lie that the government investigating him is illegitimate is similar to the big lie that he lost the election:
Both of these lies seek to undermine and delegitimize a democratic government.
It accomplishes what the insurrection accomplished, without as much blood.
9/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, this was reported from an anonymous source in the press. Anonymous sources reported in the press is not admissible evidence in court.
(Talking about the reporting that Trump watched the coverage of the insurrection on T.V.)
1/
To bring charges (or convict) prosecutors need evidence that is admissible in court.
Of course, the committee is not a law enforcement body and can't bring charges, but they've said they are coordinating with other agencies to avoid duplication of effort.
Anyway . . .
2/
People see reporting in the newspaper and say, "See there is evidence! Why haven't these people been charged yet!"
Or, "ho, hum, I read about that in the newspaper, so I know he's guilty, so what the heck is taking so long?"
3/
"The Department of Justice’s resolve to hold accountable those who committed crimes on Jan. 6, 2021, has not, and will not, wane." justice.gov/usao-dc/one-ye…
It's what Garland has been saying since last March.
It's the most you'll get because the DOJ is run by rule-of-law people.
And people got so used to Trump telling the DOJ what to do, that they think Biden should do the same.
A pillar of democracy is prosecutorial independence.
(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/
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.
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!"
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."