Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Sep 21, 2022 22 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Trump lost. The 11th circuit granted the DOJ's stay for the 100 documents marked classified. (This is not a good day for Trump)

Here's the decision: politico.com/f/?id=00000183…

Let's read it together 🤓

(If you want to catch up, see this blog post: terikanefield.com/judgecannon/)

1/
The panel emphasizes that this is a narrow decision, but to prevail, the DOJ had to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits in the full appeal. (screenshot #2)

You can tell a lot by how a court recites the facts. They mention the movers !! (screenshot #1)

2/
Classified documents in a moving van = not good.

So Trump made off with classified documents in a moving an, finally returned 15 boxes in January, the boxes contained classified documents, and he was informed that Biden declined to assert privilege.

3/
Nope. ⤵️

For Judge Cannon, this is like getting a D in law school.

I won't go through all the facts again, but the court notes that after the grand jury subpoena, Trump's lawyer signed an affidavit that a "diligent search was conducted" . . .

4/
. . . handed over some documents, and said that was it, all responsive documents had been returned.

Trump made no claims of privilege at the time. He said, "I don't have anything else." Then the search turned up classified documents.

5/
Fun fact: In each of his court filings in this case, Trump refers to himself as "President Trump." The DOJ called him "the Plaintiff."

The court is calling him "the plaintiff." Ouch.

The decision then marches throrugh the procedural history.

6/
The court notes that Trump is not following the normal procedures but he is carving out special procedures. (Basically, Trump said "This isn't a rule 41 return of property motion but I want the special master to return my property.")

This is not a good sign for Trump.

7/
Haven't I been telling you all that Trump generally loses in court, where facts matter?

Here they point out how Cannon did some twists to accommodate Trump (#1)

And that her ruling appointing a special master rests on flimsy grounds . . .

8/
. . . for example, "a special master might be perceived to be more impartial than the Privilege Review Team."

As to privilege, he "might be able to assert" . . .

Flimsy! (Also you can see that the court disagrees.)

9/
Now they're criticizing Cannon's decision not to grant the temporary stay: She appointed the special master because "some" of the seized material may be personal, but never explained how classified documents can be personal.

10/
Trump's lawyers made a convoluted argument that the appellate court didn't have jurisdiction. The court dismissed that in a footnote. (#1)

This is harsh (#2) The court "cannot discern why Plaintiff would have" an interest in docs marked classified.

10/
"We cannot discern" is judicial snark. When you present an argument to the appellate court, everything should be discernable. 😆

Here, they borrowed the DOJ's language. In fact, this is very close to how the DOJ framed its argument. (That's what happens when you win.)

11/
They point out that Trump never claimed any privilege (and supposedly he had done a diligent search through his documents).

The next paragraph I'll share would cause a few sleepless nights for most people in Trump's situation . . .

12/
The court says, basically: Sorry Trump. The threat of future prosecution and the stigma isn't the kind of potential injury that entitles you to special procedures. You're just like every other defendant.

"no doubt the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily..."

13/
The DOJ's reply filed last night made clear that what was happening was that Cannon was supervising a criminal investigation.

Appellate court: "Nope, courts of equity do not ordinarily restrain prosecutions."

Basically they're saying Trump doesn't get special procedures.

14/
Of course, the appellate court then goes on about how it entirely agrees that it is not possible to enjoin a criminal investigation while allowing a national security investigation to continue: fear of overstepping a court order would likely chill the investigation.

15/
The idea of a district court micromanaging a criminal and national security investigation is also a separation of powers issue.

We have some serious clues that the DOJ will win the entire appeal.

So, is ketchup flying in Trump's residence tonight?

16/
Now, let's talk about Trump's next step: SCOTUS.

Remember, this is a temporary stay, not the appeal itself.

Trump would have to ask SCOTUS to stop the criminal investigation, which means stopping a national security investigation . . .

17/
Here's why I don't think it will happen. (1) SCOTUS refused to hear Trump's executive privilege lawsuit when he tried to keep presidential records from Congress, and that had more merit than this one, which isn't saying a lot actually, but this one is laughable.

18/
(2) They refused to hand him the election when he made all of those bogus claims about election fraud.

This isn't an appeal, it's just a temporary stay, so it's a very limited ruling, and the 11th Circuit just eviserated Cannon's arguments.

19/
While he was president, SCOTUS rejected his absolute immunity claims.

Why would they stick their necks out over stolen classified documents?

Everyone needs to absorb this truth: With very rare exceptions, Trump loses in court.

20/
It did break. I had two #10s.

See if this fixes it.

(I can read, think, and type at the same time, but I can't read, think, type and COUNT at the same time.

• • •

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!

:(