Teri_Kanefield

Teri_Kanefield, 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago) to random

I had an "ah ha" moment when thinking about the angry responses to yesterday's blog post.

(This one, if you missed it.) https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/

First, I'll share a positive response. (Screenshot #1)

(Screenshot #2 was typical of the angry responses.)

About 5 years ago, I took the tact of responding to "there are never any consequences" by listing the consequences.

I figured, you know, facts. For example, see #3

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 4 months ago to random

Texas Governor Abbott signals that he may (will?) defy the Supreme Court order regarding the border.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/border/2024/01/24/475398/governor-abbott-signals-potential-defiance-of-supreme-courts-border-ruling/

In 1830, Andrew Jackson, as president, refused to heed a Supreme Court order regarding the removal of Native Americans from Georgia.

Jackson's refusal gave us the Trail of Tears.

Jackson remained popular.

The similarity: Both defiances are deeply racist.

The difference: In 1830 only white men could vote.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties#:~:text=President%20Jackson%20nonetheless%20refused%20to,and%20Henry%20Clay%20in%201835.

Teri_Kanefield, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to random

Trump just filed his opening brief in the immunity appeal in DC circuit court of appeal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208582803.0_3.pdf

It's late but I just had to start reading (morbid curiosity)

Paragraph #1: He tells the court that if he can be indicted there will be no end to it. Presidents will be indicted for decades! It will be a parade of horribles!

(Assumption: This is a purely political.)

#2 is the doozy.
Basically, Dear Court: You have no power to sit in judgment of MEEEE.

It's laughably absurd.
1/

Teri_Kanefield, 3 months ago to random

Here is the appellate court's denial of Trump's claim of immunity:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf

The decision opens by summarizing the allegations in the indictment, being careful to add that guilt hasn't yet been determined.

The court then dismisses the idea that they don't have jurisdiction over the issue and concludes that it does.

Then, on to immunity. The court rejects Trump's "separation of powers" argument, saying this:

That's strong language.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago) to random

If you read my weekend blog post, you know that I've been pointing out that the predicate crime in the Trump trial is not clear.

(For what I mean, see my weekend blog post).

Here is what the Washington Post reported.

See screenshots #1 and #2.

Here is the law: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152?utm_medium=email&wpisrc=nl-nationalpopup&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=wp_the_trump_trials

To be clear: I have no idea how this trial will turn out. I cannot substitute my judgment for the jury because I am not seeing what they are seeing.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 4 months ago to random

Okay, I did it:
https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/

I offer the radical idea that the Colorado Trump-ballot case and the application of section 3 of the 14th Amendment isn’t easy or straightforward.

Do your thing Mastodon (I always post here first).

Teri_Kanefield, 5 months ago to random

I am still absorbing the enormity of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot.

It was a long day, so forgive typing errors.

It seems to me that there was plenty of due process, Colorado law empowered its elections officer to determine qualification, and the elections officer did so.

I don't believe there has to a finding in criminal court that Trump engaged in insurrection for Section 3 to apply. . .

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 1 month ago to random

I am still getting hate mail for my blog post, this time from a neighbor. She was so angry it took her a few days to calm down enough to write to me (in all caps!)

(I shut down comments yesterday)

When I wrote analysis for the Washington Post, I sometimes got angry email from MAGA people.

I did get a memorable letter from a librarian in Tennessee who was enraged at how I portrayed Andrew Jackson in one of my books.

But this has never happened.

I think it's interesting.

Teri_Kanefield, 2 months ago to random

I'd like to add a bit more to what I said about this week's blog post:

https://mastodon.social/

Invented Narratives and the Outrage Industry

It took me several years to understand what I was seeing.

At first, I thought the problem was Twitter algorithms. I thought that was the explanation for why what I was calling rage-inducing simplifications spread like wildfire.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 4 months ago to random

The authors are political science professors at Stony Brook.

Their point: The biggest divide isn’t by party.

The biggest divided is by involvement in politics.

The most vocal voices from social media, who are amplified by the mainstream media, come from a relatively small group.

Echoing what Dannagal Young had to say in “Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive our Appetite for Misinformation," the authors talk about 2 sets of relatively small groups of hyper-engaged partisans.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago) to random

Let's talk about my role as "perspective-bringer."

I think I am wasting my time responding to each new outrage by offering explanations and perspective.

Let's do some math.

(I know you all, and almost all of you are better at math than I am 😂 )

Editing back because I found it: only 15% of people like seeing social media posts about politics.

Just over 66.6 % of the voters voted in 2020.

People who are highly engaged vote in high numners. . .

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 3 months ago to random

A word about left-wing conspiracy theories.

Yesterday I sent about 10 people to this page because they were saying the same untrue things about Merrick Garland that I disproved here with facts:

https://terikanefield.com/can-democracy-work-in-america-part-iii-an-msnbc-cnn-conspiracy-theory-and-the-perils-of-legal-punditry/

That's when I realized a new Merrick Garland conspiracy theory had taken hold.

My initial reaction was pure irritation.

A knew what it would take to disprove it. . .

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago) to random

I have my weekend blog post ready. I always put it here first. The first few people will get that error. Just wait a minute and try again.

I plan to demonstrate that any democratic government—by its very nature and under its own terms—will have a dangerous anti-democratic opposition because eliminating the opposition cannot be done using democratic means.

The opposition can be blunted and, with constant work. . .

1/

https://terikanefield.com/the-anti-democratic-opposition/

Teri_Kanefield, 1 month ago to random

I took some time to think about the Ronna McDaniel hiring and firing.

The result is that I have written another blog post that has me going against the current.

https://terikanefield.com/the-ronna-mcdaniel-story/

If you get the error message, wait a minute and try again. It's Mastodon's fault! This doesn't happen with any other platforms.

Some news: I may be back in Nevada doing voter protection work with the Nevada Democrats after several cycles in Georgia. A little closer to home.

Teri_Kanefield, 3 months ago to random

When people respond to an $83 million judgement with cynical comments about how justice is only for the rich and there is never enough "accountability" I feel like just deleting all of my social media accounts.

I won't do it, but I feel like it more often lately.

It isn't MAGA that makes me think democracy won't work. I expect an anti-democratic contentency.

It's the kind of bizarre expectations others have.

Autocracy is based on lies because so many people don't like the truth.

Teri_Kanefield, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to random

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rudy-giuliani-verdict-defamation-trial-georgia-election-workers/

This is the end of Guilani. He's broken and finished.

It's also a warning to people who want to spread lies about others.

(Adding: Whatever Giuliani has, the plaintiffs will take.)

Also adding: I don't know anything about collecting judgments.

Also, cynical comments don't make you look worldly or clever. They make you look either cynical or naive as if you think we live in a fairy tale world.

Teri_Kanefield, 5 months ago to random

Well, this is interesting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No.%2023-624%20U.S.%20v.%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20Petition.pdf

Jack Smith petitions the Supreme Court to issue a decision on Trump's immunity claims even before the appellate court weighs in.

This was a bold and gutsy move.

It's obvious to everyone that the DC Appellate Court will rule against Trump's absolute criminal immunity claims. The DC appellate court also just went on about how important it is for the DC Trump case not to be delayed.

I think I'll back up and do some explaining.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 2 months ago to random

Here is Stephanie P. Jones' take on SCOTUS's decision to grant cert in the immunity case.

https://blog.stephaniejones.com/2024/03/01/yes-the-supreme-court-could-have-declined-the-case-but-then-what/

(She gets annoyed at a few of the influential TV lawyers.)

Teri_Kanefield, 3 months ago to random

Trump filed his reply in the immunity issue in the Supreme Court.

It's so bad it is embarrassing. It is exactly how not to write a legal document.

To review: The issue now is simply whether the Supreme Court will put the trial DC-J6 trial hold while it considers whether to grant cert (hear his appeal.)

Ordinarily the order is this:

💠 Person loses and files a writ for certiorari (which means asking SCOTUS to hear the appeal.
💠 SCOTUS decides whether to hear the case.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 4 months ago to random

Two amicus briefs were filed in the keep-Trump-off-the-ballot case.

This is from Ted Cruz and pals:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24366911-011824-brief-of-us-senator-ted-cruz-majority-leader-steve-scalise-and-177-other-members-of-congress-as-amici-curiae-in-support-of-petitioner-donald-j-trump?responsive=1&title=1

Cruz and friends adopt a standard strategy: include everything in the hopes that something sticks.

This one is from Rick Hasen (election lawyer) and a few others:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/297014/20240118112848137_23-719.Amicus.Foley.Ginsberg.Hasen.pdf

For my 2 cents worth: Start with my explainer here: https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/

Pay attention to my analysis of Question 1 (which I think is the strongest argument in Trump's favor)

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 5 months ago to random

Warning: Rant coming.

The doomsaying and cynicism in my comments over the past few days are annoying me.

I am addressing the people saying any form of: "Why won't the Supreme Court rule in Trump's favor?"

You are unhinged from the facts. Get a grip.

Here are the facts: Since Trump lost in 2020, the Supreme Court, and every other court, has consistently ruled against him in his immunity claims.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 2 months ago to random

I spent 5 years writing FAQ pages and "talking people off the ledge" each time there was a collective meltdown.

I stopped doing that because it is never ending.

I keep saying the same things over and over.

In 2021, when people were demanding indictments, I said, "indictments are the start of a long harrowing process."

I explained that trials are harrowing.

Judges make bad decisions.

Juries don't always get it right. A person can be guilty but be acquitted.

1/

Teri_Kanefield, 4 months ago to random

Okay techies: Every time I post a link to my website on Mastodon, everyone (including me) is shut out of my website for about 5 mintutes with an "error 500" message.

This doesn't happen when I post anywhere else, and I get 10 time the traffic from other sources.

People have offered me and my tech support staff (my husband) solutions. None of them worked.

Teri_Kanefield, 27 days ago to random

I am going to answer this question for everyone:

https://mastodon.social/@timothyjohnson@mastodon.sdf.org/112349635246409685

My answer is here:

https://mastodon.social/

Remember:

There were possible crimes, but tax and reporting crimes are not election interference.

There is also a circular thing with Cohen and Pecker telling the court that they expected Trump to pay back the hush money payments.

If they expected to get paid back, it was a loan to Trump and not a contribution. Right?

Teri_Kanefield, 2 months ago to random

Giving credit where credit is due.

I've mentioned my friend @StephanieJones a few times. (She may even come to Mastodon at some point.)

Early on she tried to tell Larry Tribe that he was misleading people about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

I quoted her in this piece: https://terikanefield.com/section-3-and-the-spirit-of-liberty/

Here she is trying to talk sense into Larry Tribe.

If people are struggling with this, show them the piece I wrote in January.

I get credit for having smart friends like Stephanie.

The 14th Amendment doesn't mention elections or ballots. It simply says no one who engaged in insurrection shall "hold any office." So, what happens if, despite being removed from several state ballots, Trump is still elected? Will he be stopped from taking office? If your answer is yes, who will do it and how? The Supreme Court? On what grounds? And through what process? The states? Which ones and how will they do it? And what about the states that didn't disqualify him - will they have any say in this? If some states deem Trump an insurrectionist and remove him from their ballots and other states don't, how exactly should the 14th Amendment's "No person shall ... hold any office" provision be enforced? I'll await your answers.