But . . but . . . I was absolutely assured that the DOJ is not investigating Trump.

My position has been: I'll take Merrick Garland at his word because I have no reason not to, and Garland said the DOJ is working its way up and following the facts.

s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2118…
There is no ticking clock. That's an invented thing.

There is nothing for me to be "right" about.

I promise no results.

I'm simply repeating what Garland said because I have no reason to think he's lying or conducting this investigation incompetently.
Defendants tend to do things like that.

It seems to me there are two approaches to the question:

#1: Take Merrick Garland at his word and assume he's competent until there is reason to think otherwise

#2: Search for clues to support the opinion that in fact, Garland has made an advance decision about Trump.

• • •

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

Jan 19
Here we have the Supreme Court's response to Trump's executive privilege appeal.

This is not a good day for Donald Trump.

Look's like the Trump White House docs are going to the Jan. 6th select committee.

documentcloud.org/documents/2118…

1/
I would have been shocked if they took it. This is a blow to all the Trump allies saying they don't have to comply with the select committee because of executive privilege.

Trump can try again with future tranches of docs -- if he enjoys losing 🤣.

2/

Trump tried to argue that his appeal raised serious constitutional issues.

SCOTUS wasn't buying it.

Remember, this was an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction.

In fact, Trump failed to show why he should get a preliminary injunction.

3/ Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 19
Well.

Letitia James filed a motion to compel Trump, Jr., and Ivanka to comply with her earlier subpoenas.

She wants a court order forcing them to comply and to turn over documents.

The Trumps have legal troubles left and right.

The motion is here: ag.ny.gov/sites/default/…
Short version: The Trumps are liars and cheaters.

This should matter. Trump came to power on two lies
🔹"I'm a successful businessman" positioning him as a strongman and winner, and
🔹Birtherism, signaling that he was a white supremacist tapping into white grievance.

1/
Back when I was naive (2015) I thought it would matter if his base had to grapple with the fact that he wasn't successful: He inherited wealth and then cheated and swindled.

Now I'm afraid lie #2 Birtherism matters more and brazen lying and cheating is part of his appeal.

2/
Read 14 tweets
Jan 19
The question is how to make the public "understand."

We live in an age of disinformation. Lots of people watch Fox News and believe what they see.

There are a few ways I think about this.

First, who out there hasn't already formed an opinion about what happened on Jan. 6?

1/
On one hand, I believe that direct evidence will come out making it hard to deny that Trump committed crimes.

On the other hand, the Republicans have long seen lawbreaking as a badge of honor.

They glorify lawbreaking . . .

2/ Image
There is a fantasy that indictments will create a huge change in how people vote. I don't think that.

Can you imagine these guys saying, "Trump got indicted! Oh no! He's in big trouble! We should fold up shop and learn to love liberal democracy."

I don't think so.

3/ Image
Read 18 tweets
Jan 16
This is where I trip up.

Nobody really thought that those forged electoral certificates would have "fooled" anyone at the National Archives.

Suppose Pence had declared Trump the winner, what then?

Would a few hundred million Americas just say, okay cool?

1/
But how would that work? Who would make up the two armies?

One side would be the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other white power militia groups.

They couldn't win unless the US military joined them, so really, it would be a military coup.



2/
But under the insurrection act, the military would still have to be willing to keep Trump in power beyond January 20, the date, under the constitution, his presidency ends . . .

. . . which would make it a military coup.

3/
Read 33 tweets
Jan 15
High up on my to-do list for saving democracy is to get involved with local politics including school boards.

The way to save democracy is with more democracy, including more civic engagement.

It's a lot of work.

Need ideas? See my to-do list:
terikanefield.com/things-to-do/
People have the idea that indictments of political figures will save democracy.

I've written about what's wrong with that idea. See, for example⤵️ (there is a transcript on my blog).

The idea that there is a magic bullet is also sort of lazy.
I live in a blue town in a blue state (in a sea of pink). The right-wing is very energetically vying for control over the local school board and local government.

Meanwhile, other people have the idea that if Trump gets indicted the right-wing will crumble . . . so they wait.
Read 8 tweets
Jan 14
There's a defense called the “public authority” defense.

The defense would argue that Trump gave them permission to do what they did and they reasonably relied on his authority as president.

The defining case is United States v. Tallmadge.

1/
Of course, this gets Trump into big trouble.

It also doesn't let these guys off the hook but depending on the circumstances, a defense like this one can mitigate or even eliminate their culpability or lessen their punishment.

2/
Mark @reichellaw and I wrote about this for the Washington Post. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0………

Will it work?

Unlikely with not with these guys and these facts, but that doesn't mean they won't try.

I'd be surprised if we don't see this defense at some point.

3/
Read 6 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

Too expensive? 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 on Twitter!

:(