People outside of uni communities might not understand why there is such a strong reaction to what he’s doing – that is, why so many of us find his narcissistic grandstanding to be especially worthy of peer-group scorn.
If you are a tenured faculty member at university, you are a principal member of a community, and you are expected to take care of other people in it.
2/
That responsibility is especially sacred with students, and it means giving them a cocoon that allows them to do things and say things – even mistaken things – without the consequences that might not otherwise attach in the real word.
3/
Obviously that can be especially hard for the community when some of its members are doing and saying things that degrade the safety and learning experience of others.
4/
At those moments – where community caretaking becomes a little more zero sum – that our burden to act like grown ups is especially high.
5/
We, too, are going to make mistakes, especially in the crucible of the zero-sum moments. But it’s our job to try to calm things down, to make things safer for everybody.
6/
But Shai acts like a 12 year old in need of attention, desperately staging viral videos and demanding retweets at the direct expense of the community for which he’s got a caretaking responsibility.
7/
He’s been a cheerleader in getting the outside world to equate peacefully protesting students with Hamas, he’s worked impossibly hard to obscure the tactical difference between students and more agitated elements from outside the university,
8/
and he’s compromised the immediate safety of the Jewish students so he can see himself on television.
9/
All of us are accustomed and ready for the outside world to demand that our students be sanctioned severely for unpopular conduct. It's just shocking, and a little pathetic, to see someone from the inside do it this shamelessly.
/e
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Months of opportunity to improve the briefing on his immunity argument, and it’s still just awful.
1/
It’s still out-of-context quotes from Marbury v. Madison, a smattering of online content speaking to ancillary political points, and a deeply confused understanding of how a favorable finding of presidential immunity would affect his own prosecution.
2/
Trump’s arguments in this case are pathetic along virtually every dimension. That includes whether there is presidential immunity at all, although I think it’s possible (and advisable) that the Court says that some form of immunity exists.
3/
There's this whole parcel of Presidential Immunity discourse where MAGA pretends that the only thing standing between it and weaponizing DOJ against democratic presidents is a SCOTUS declaration that POTUS has "official acts" immunity rather than some other kind of immunity.
1/
Like know-nothing demagogues doing "reap/sow" memes and shit, like anybody looks at that movement and thinks that the precise contours of presidential immunity has any downstream effect on efforts to weaponize prosecutors.
2/
What they really want isn't "official acts" immunity, since that won't stop the Trump prosecutions - not one of them. They don't even want "absolute immunity," as that term is used. They want immunity for all acts by Trump, public and private, before and after his presidency.
3/
THOUGHTS ON SPECIAL COUNSEL'S SCOTUS BRIEF ON IMMUNITY:
SHORT VERSION: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENS ON REMAND.
(1) SCOTUS is very unlikely to recognize official acts immunity, always has been, & the state of the case after principal briefing is unchanged in that respect.
(2) It is possible (and IMHO desirable) for SCOTUS to declare a lower-grade immunity for conduct that necessary to a function that the constitution assigns to the president ("skinny immunity").
2/
(3) It is virtually unthinkable that DJT could satisfy a skinny immunity standard, and there's really only one act charged in the indictment (abuse of DOJ/Clark) that might constitute an official act under even the broader standard.
3/
HERE'S TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ARGUMENT, NUTSHELLED:
Imagine a marble bust of Abe Lincoln sits in the white house and the statute says it can only be moved around by "authorized" personnel, with authorization defined by Executive Order.
1/
Trump, who is not authorized by the Order, takes Abes' bust to Mar-a-Lago, later declares that the very act of taking it had the effect of a personal-record classification, and that right to declare records to be personal means that he was "authorized" to move it.
2/
To be clear, this is literally the stupid fucking PRA argument that Cannon refuses to take off the table - in fact she's signaling that she'll permit an acquittal on it in a posture that won't allow review of her obvious error.
I have been asking for 24 hours and nobody has produced anything remotely on the order of what's necessary for (I). Specifically, Cannon has no legal duty, let alone a clear one, to specify her jury instructions before trial.
2/
"She's telegraphing an intent to issue an erroneous jury instruction so forcer her to declare that intent now so I can appeal it before jeopardy attaches" is not a real mandamus argument.
3/
People are suggesting that Smith can mandamus Cannon's refusal to declare the PRA instruction - meaning ask the appeals court (CA11) to require her to do it before jeopardy attaches.
DOJ is just not going to be able to do that, and I wish folks would stop saying that it should. In order to mandamus a judge, it has to be the case that she's failed to do something there is a clear duty to do.
2/
There just isn't a clear duty to specify the jury charge before a jury is sworn in a criminal trial. I can't find one case even suggesting that. That is, you can't mandamus her to specify the PRA instruction, and you can't appeal because there's no order to appeal.
3/