Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Jan 13, 2022 17 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Here's seditious conspiracy: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

🔹Two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,

🔹Conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States (OR levy war)
🔹OR to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.
Treason is almost impossible to charge. It's defined in the Constitution as ⤵️ and the Supreme Court has said that the "enemy" must be a country in which we are at open war--meaning a war declared by Congress.
So what's going on here?

How is it that NOW we get to seditious conspiracy and move up to the level of planners?

Merrick Garland explained it in his speech. justice.gov/opa/speech/att…

Investigators work their way up the ladder.
How long does it take? Rhodes has been under investigation since last spring.

Why so long?

Read the indictment. Goodness, the work to put together all those facts.
nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/…

I've said this before: Wanna make life easy on defense lawyers? Rush an indictment.
May as well read the indictment here.

Lots of people, lots of charges . . . all charged with seditious conspiracy.

What sets seditious conspiracy apart is the "force" element.

The indictment tells a harrowing story of what is basically a military operation.
2 days after the election, they planned for "civil war" and modeled their operation on the overthrow of Milošević.

He published his plan (screenshot #2) under the headline "WHAT THE PEOPLE MUST DO"
I really wish the "DOJ is doing nothing" people would read this entire indictment and consider the work involved in getting this info. Okay, I'll stop having little rants.

In a group chat: "It will be a bloody and desperate fight."
What did the president know and when did he know it?

(That was another digression and not in the indictment, but inspired by⤵️)

The indictment outlines the detailed planning through December.
Here we see traces of the Brooks Brothers Riot in Florida, organized by Steve Bannon (that was when a riot intimidated the vote counters and stopped the counting of votes in Florida, 2000.)

But Rhodes doesn't think the Senators will listen.
Literally planning a military operation, including a "base of operations" (the Comfort Inn in Arlington) where they stored firearms. #1

Rhodes went on a shopping spree for the occasion. #2

(Premeditated crimes are always more serious).
A "Potomac crossing," screenshot #1

Sent queries about the "ammo situation."

More shopping, screenshot #2

On Jan. 6, the conspirators "communicated and prepared to head to the Capitol."
They approached the Capitol in stack formation wearing tactical gear. #1

They're coordinating through chat messages, which I think means FBI got their phones.

Pence betrayed them and they're sticking to the plan. #2
At 2:00 they are almost to the Capitol. "I'm gonna be a little busy," Watkins warns via chat.

Rhodes entered the restricted Capitol grounds at 2:12.

They stay in stack formation in the Rotunda, and they're "rocking it." #2
While they're pushing back the police line, they're chatting about what they're doing.

Really dumb. It's like keeping a journal of all your crimes.

If you read good crime fiction, you may have the idea criminals are smart masterminds.

Generally, no.
On the evening of Jan. 6, they met in their hotel room to celebrate and plan their next steps. (#1)

They planned to return in the morning.

"We aren't quitting! We are reloading!" (#2)

Then they did more shopping for firearms and ammo. #3
Yes, getting constructing the chats required getting their phones, which started a year ago.
Thanks, @katz_mum

I still have people in my mentions who think "early indictments" (indicting before investigations are complete) would have been a good idea🤷‍♀️

• • •

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!

:(