Thread. To understand Trump’s psyche and how he manipulates his followers (and the media), let me introduce you to the Karpman Drama Triangle. Google it. Then keep reading. 1/

https://twitter.com/harris_wins/status/1829294476705382566

The Karpman Drama Triangle (hereinafter KDT) was created by psychologies Stephen Karpman in 1968. It posits that all conflicts are an enactment of the triangle, with each player assuming a role in the triangle, and then circling around the triangle and switching roles, depending on how the conflict evolves 2/

So basically a President could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his political opponent and it is OK (Court says you can't examine motive when a President is acting under an explicit Constitutional authority, which would include the Commander in Chief clause) The idea that the motive in taking even an official act cannot be questioned makes the word "faithful" in the Take Care clause ("he shall Take Care that the laws be faithfully executed") meaningless. Generally the Constitution is not read to render any of its words or phrases irrelevant

I don’t really expect average people to know or understand the differences between Title I and Section 702 of FISA…but I would think (hope?) a *former president* would? Section 702 literally had nothing to do with surveillance of his campaign. So incompetent. Also: You cannot claim to be strong against China — or Iran, or Russia, or any other foreign adversary or terrorist group for that matter — and be in favor of “killing” FISA (Title I or Section 702). This post basically says he wants all of these to have free reign against us

Interesting that for purpose of presidential immunity, Trump argues that running as a candidate and holding office are one and the same. But when it comes to application Sec. 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump wants to split hairs on "running" and "holding" office. No principle According to Trump's lawyers, the President of the United States could order Seal Team Six to murder his political opponent and he would be immune from prosecution unless he was immediately impeached, convicted, and removed from office first 2/

THREAD. Admissions officer here 🙋🏾‍♀️ IMO Harvard/UNC opinion is much narrower than I expected it to be and impact will be much less than I see a lot of people suggesting -- and possibly give institutions MORE ability to curate classes based on diversity interests 1/ 2. The implicit question here and the one the justices disagree on is this: Can race be a proxy for experience? Harvard/UNC/dissent says yes, majority says no, these can be bifurcated: race can't be a proxy, but an individual story of how race has shaped person CAN be considered

Today's SCOTUS opinion in the AL redistricting case illustrates consequences of what @steve_vladeck calls the "shadow docket." Ct upheld lower court, which itself applied clear precedent...but it STAYED the lower court pending decision, allowing illegal map to be used in 2022! 1/ The Court says that lower court "faithfully applied our precedents" and that the state's challenge was trying to "remake Sec. 2 jurisprudence anew"...and yet did not allow the lower court's "faithful" application (upheld by appeals ct with 2 Trump appointees) to take effect 2/

He’s Team Tiger…we’re watching and they are down only one at halftime! 🐅

https://twitter.com/Christo12919382/status/1636474410826694657

I realize I let my fans down by not having fries in the pic…fixed!

I'm reading the report by House Judiciary Committee Dems on the "whistleblowers" that Jim Jordan has brought in for his weaponization committee. HOO BOY. Jim does NOT want you to read this report, because it pre bunks a lot of his best material. So read it int.nyt.com/data/documentt… This is the position of one of his *star witnesses*. 🤦🏾‍♀️Please bookmark this for when the GOP MAGAs claim that Democrats want to "defund the police." This guy...literally wants to defund the police

The FBI has a problem, and it’s coming from inside the house: Senior FBI officials resisted executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and even wanted to shut down the case washingtonpost.com/national-secur… Ummmmm

This woe-is-me sob story by @dc_walter in ⁦@pawprinceton⁩ of the plight of conservatives at [checks notes] PRINCETON is…hoo boy. 🤦🏽‍♀️ (It wasn’t on my radar until my son showed it to me and asked, “Is this a serious article?”) Just a few highlights: paw.princeton.edu/article/crashi… Article laments the fact that starting in 1964, “the political makeup of Princeton’s student body began to veer leftward.” Yeah, that pesky Civil Rights Act ruined everything for conservatives…tough times 2/

Remember that time at band camp when David Duke endorsed Trump and Trump pretended he had no idea who David Duke was and then everyone just ignored it and elected him president? npr.org/sections/thetw… And remember that time at band camp when Trump praised the “fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville even though the other dude were Nazis and white supremacists but everyone made excuses for what he “really” meant? washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/…

🚨ANNOUNCEMENT THREAD! I wanted to let all of you know that I have started a Substack! I know many people are moving to that platform because of Twitter, but this project has been in the works for a few months and is not merely a replacement for Twitter 1/ asharangappa.substack.com/p/the-freedom-… When I considered starting a Substack I thought very carefully about what it would be -- I really wanted it to be a new and different project, and one that helped me dive deeper into the topics I'm most passionate about that I don't get to discuss on TV or here 2/

This really misses the point of verification, which is that it benefits *all* users and lowers transaction costs across the platform (and protects “regular”
users). E.g., there are a number of public accounts I don’t follow, but can easily identify them if I want to tag them 1/

https://twitter.com/timbo_eth/status/1587128252178522112

Let’s say I’m being critical of some public official. They aren’t verified. I tag some poor rando.They get sucked into a convo that has nothing to do w them! (This actually happened once when I meant to tag Gym Jordan and accidentally tagged some guy who really likes tacos ☹️) 2/

This woman is a complete idiot. Like, dumb.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1570548309919469572

“[T]here has been no actual suggestion by [DOJ] of any identifiable emergency or imminent disclosure of classified information arising from Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful retention of the seized property.”
YES, DUMBASS, THEY CAN’T SHOW THAT WITHOUT THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Just tweeting this since Trump claims that the seized docs are "indisputably governed exclusively"by the Presidential Records Act 👇🏾 Trump claims that he has the right to restrict access to his presidential records (to DOJ, presumably). Oops! That part is addressed by the PRA, which makes an exception for restricted access for ongoing criminal proceedings or incumbent President's business (i.e., nat sec)

DOJ answers the question I posed below, which is that executive privilege cannot, by definition, apply to marked classified documents — since the (current, actual) POTUS is both an original classification authority and legally *controls access* to these same documents

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1564337674722463750

For Judge Cannon to reject DOJ’s argument and not grant the partial stay would be for her to imply not only that the executive branch can’t access classified docs to protect national security, but that Trump somehow has a legal/possessory interest in them. Which would be stupid.

This judge basically did Trump’s lawyers’ work for them, making arguments under the 4-part Richey test which Trump did not brief or argue, making executive privilege arguments that Trump did not press fully in the hearing, and granting an injunction when one wasn’t requested

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1566818634974085131

In addition, this judge basically admits that Trump is getting special treatment bc he is former POTUS. She is also micromanaging the executive branch, creating a separation of powers issue by disabling the Take Care clause which is a core Art.II function through injunction

THREAD. The fact that Trump never formally declassified anything, and also never raised it to DOJ, but is asserting it (unofficially) now, is actually an incredibly damning admission by Trump. That's because it means that *he wanted these secrets to still have value* 2. As I noted in a previous tweet, had Trump formally declassified these secrets, he would have had to notify all the agencies responsible for the respective intel. They, in turn, would have taken steps to protect methods and sources. Why? Because it would no longer be secret

I learned it from @jenmercieca’s book, “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump,” which I highly recommend. Once you learn all of the rhetorical tactics, you start recognizing them everywhere!

https://twitter.com/the_ecb/status/1564753811524157442

And speaking of @jenmercieca, she and I have a piece coming out tomorrow where we’ll be dropping knowledge- and truth bombs all over the place…here’s our last piece as a teaser in the meantime zocalopublicsquare.org/2020/06/07/fak…

I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Judge Cannon is going out of her way to be as generous as possible to Trump not because she is biased, but because she is afraid that she might be threatened or endangered by Trump’s sicarios if she throws it out outright and he slams her I wrote my thesis on Pablo Escobar’s impact on the rule of law in Colombia and spent time there in the late 90s. When law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges are under threats of violence, it’s not hard to see how legal processes and outcomes can get distorted

The Special Counsel is supposed to have all the same powers of an AG. So if the AG had the power to decide to prosecute or not, then Mueller had that power too. He believed he did not, per DOJ policy. Barr’s first job was to correct that assumption and get Mueller’s conclusion 1/ To the extent that Barr disagreed with that decision, and wanted to overrule it, he could do so –and this is the memo that may very well been the result. BUT, the SC regs require that in such a case, Barr *report* this to Congress, along with his reasons — meaning the memo too 2/