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
Um . . . this isn't the defense Trump thinks it is.
Trump published a letter he received from Mazars dated (it looks like) 2014. He then summarized the letter.
#1: What Mazars said
#2: What Trump says Mazars said
Me = 🤦♀️
Does he think nobody can or will actually read it?
Mazars said, "Trump is responsible for preparing the financial statement."
Also Mazars does not "undertake to obtain or provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made . . . "
Trump posts the letter and says Mazars "strongly states that all work was performed in accordance with professional standards and that there were "no material discrepancies in the financial statements."
. . . and concluded with thoughts about how social media brings out authoritarian instincts in large swaths of people who ordinarily would not be given to authoritarian impulses.
Indicting people and having juries return "not guilty" verdicts because there isn't evidence to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt may not accomplish what people think it will accomplish.
One reason I think social media is turning everyone into authoritarians: people don't read or think.
They see a headline and have a strong emotional reaction, which they Tweet and which then gets repeated by others, who are also not thinking . . .
1/
Political psychologists like @karen_stenner describe the authoritarian personality.
Those with an authoritarian disposition are averse to complexity. They reject nuance.
They prefer sameness and uniformity and have “cognitive limitations.”
(link in the next Tweet)
2/
See for example, "Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness,” which originally appeared in this book, an dwhich Stenner has now made available free on her website, here: ……e-4700-aaa9-743a55a9437a.filesusr.com/ugd/02ff25_370…
Timothy Snyder also talks about the danger of what he calls Internet Memes.
Interesting tidbit: The obstruction statute being used to prosecute lots of the insurrection cases, U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) was part of an Act passed in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal specifically to prosecute destruction of records that might be needed in future proceedings.
Of course, this is the law so it's never as easy as it seems.
If there is a tricky word in this statute, it would be "official proceeding."
Would there need to be a specific proceeding on the horizon?
The Enron executives . . .
. . . the Enron (Arthur Anderson) executives started shredding documents after an investigation was opened into their corrupt practices, but before a subpoena was issued.