While voters have many reasons for their choices, and I respect their right to make them and accept the outcome of the election, so much of what I hear from Trump supporters is that “the left” looks down on them.
🧵1 / 4
This is an us-vs-them narrative spun by Trump, who has convinced some voters that he is the proxy for their grievances. He tells voters, “they” are not after me, they are after you. I’m just standing in the way to protect you. 2/4
In fact, Democrats support unions, higher minimum wages, middle class tax cuts, and other policies for working people. GOP policies will only widen income disparities. 3/4
Trump’s mastery of disinformation has caused people to vote against their own self-interest.
His playbook is the same as Russia’s: promote declinism, demonize and scapegoat, stoke outrage, divide and conquer. 4/4 END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As jury selection begins in Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, here are some things to keep in mind.
🧵 /1
First, it is called jury selection, but it really should be called jury “de-selection.” That’s because potential jurors are called to the box randomly, and then questioned by the court and lawyers. The lawyers challenge jurors they find unsuitable. If the judge agrees, he will excuse them. /2
Second, lawyers get an unlimited number of challenges for cause, meaning an objective basis to believe a juror has a bias, such as relationships with the parties or a stake in the outcome. /3
I’ve been receiving some questions about why it matters whether Judge Cannon decides all issues under the Presidential Records Act BEFORE trial. /1
Judge Cannon recently denied Donald Trump‘s motion to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago indictment on the grounds that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) precludes charges under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to willfully retain national defense information. /2
That order was good news for the prosecution, but Judge Cannon said she was basing her decision solely on the “four corners of the indictment,” and that Trump could still raise the PRA as a defense at trial. 😱/3
Here’s a thread on the public’s right to a speedy trial, which explains why the Supreme Court has set an expedited schedule and will work to decide the immunity question promptly in the federal election interference case against Donald Trump. /1
The right to a speedy trial is not just the defendant’s right. The PUBLIC’S right to a speedy trial has been recognized by the Supreme Court and the federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A). /2
In Barker v. Wingo, a case interpreting the 6th Amendment, the Court wrote that “there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and, at times, in opposition to the interests of the accused.” /3
First Amendment provides no protection for speech that amounts to crimes of deceipt, receipt, conspiracy. Non-starter. /2
Due process clause provides fair notice of criminal conduct. Trump argues he received no fair notice because no one has ever been charged with this scheme before. No one has ever committed this scheme before! /3
Trump’s new motions to dismiss on First Amendment, selective prosecution, and double jeopardy grounds are all losers. THREAD. 1 washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
The First Amendment is not absolute. Many crimes that involve speech are crimes — perjury, fraud, and conspiracy to name a few.
Selective prosecution requires a showing of disparate treatment for the similarly situated. No one has tried to subvert an election the way Trump is accused of doing. No comparables. No defense.
🧵1 Here is my take on yesterday’s removal hearing, in which former chief of staff Mark Meadows wants to move his state RICO case from Georgia state court to federal court.
2 Why seek removal? Federal court offers a larger jury pool that draws from predominantly Republican areas, no TV cameras in the courtroom, and nicer prisons, but the real reason is to assert governmental immunity and get the whole case dismissed. And Trump will tag along.
3 The legal standard is not simply whether the defendant was a federal official at the time of the alleged conduct, but whether he was acting within the scope of his official duties. Meadows seemed to fall far short of meeting that standard.