Meanwhile, I'll have to come back and finish this thread later.
Real Life Is Intruding on my Twitter Life 😆
Plaintiffs are seeking damages from the insurrection Trump incited.
Trump claims that he can't be sued for actions taken as president. He claims as president he has a duty to make sure laws are enforced, which includes the Electoral Count act and certification of the vote. 4/
He also says that the president, as part of his job, can speak on matters of public importance.
Problem #1: It is not the president's business to monitor what Congress does (and Congress certifies the vote.)
5/
Problem #2: When the court analyzed whether Trump's words inciting the insurrection were in "performance of an official act" it didn't come out well for Trump.
The court marched through some examples that were certainly not in performance of an official act:
6/
Lots of other examples and arguments but the bottom line is that these cases go forward.
In contrast, almost all of Trump's election fraud lawsuits were dismissed at this stage.
Poor Trump. Legal troubles coming at him from all sides.
(I don't really feel sorry for him)
7/
• • •
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/