@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Teri_Kanefield

@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social

Former appellate defender and UC Berkeley Law graduate. My practice was limited to representing indigents on appeal.

I’ve written more than a dozen books and published more than 50 short pieces in The Washington Post, Cnn.com, and others. My book prizes include the Jane Addams Book Award.

Tfr

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Here are the key highlights to the appellate ruling in the NY Manhattan gag order decision.

Specifically what that means is that the Special Counsel was removed from the order and what Trump can say regarding potential witnesses has been limited.

Specifically, the Order is affirmed to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding. The Order is also affirmed to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about—(1) counsel in the case other than the Special Counsel, (2) members of the court’s staff and counsel’s staffs, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member—if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is highly likely to result. We vacate the Order to the extent it covers speech beyond those specified categories. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

This addressed the defects in the gag order, which I talked about here:

https://terikanefield.com/status-update-on-the-first-amendment-and-putting-a-muzzle-on-donald-trump-in-the-j6-doj-case/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@LadyDragonfly

He won't because the gag order is back with modifications.

So far he's been careful to walk up to the line without crossing it.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@AskPippa

Not possible because of the rule against prior restraints. (I gave a link to a blog post. I either explained there, or the earlier one)

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I also mentioned to Politics Girl that the DC gag order was the first thing I've seen the Garland-DOJ / Jack Smith team do that had errors.

As a defense appellate lawyer, I am accustomed to seeing prosecutors behave badly and make errors.

Until this gag order, I found only minor flaws in the DOJ documents. (Occasionally they are not completely accurate in summarizing cases, but everyone makes small errors.)

This struck me as their first significant error.

3/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@bishop @LadyDragonfly

It's a win for the law. The district court gag order had errors and the appellate court fixed the errors.

Sometimes the law helps people you dislike.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Yesterday I did an interview with Politics Girl for her podcast.

I predicted that the DC gag order would be reinstated, but modified to correct the errors.

Guess what just happened? (The podcast isn't out yet)

The DC gag order would be reinstated but modified to correct the errors.

me, strutting round

I'm allowed to say I was right. Right?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208578024.0.pdf

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Answering this question:

"Eagerly awaiting to hear from Teri Kanefield if today's thing was just another Hail Mary toss or if things could actually be stayed."

I just talked to Politics Girl about that this morning! Yes, there is likely to be a stay. No, it is unlikely to delay the trial. I expect this to go quickly.

https://mastodon.social/@jimcarroll@futurist.info/111541386545717176

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@enmodo

"Government for and by the rich" is what I call a rage-inducing simplification.

Please see this FAQ page:
https://terikanefield.com/criminallawfaqs/

Then go to the home page and start reading "There are no Yankees here" for why you are repeating that meme.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@tmstreet

"Our justice system obviously favors the rich" is what I call a rage-inducing simplification.

Please see this FAQ page:
https://terikanefield.com/criminallawfaqs/

Then go to the home page and start reading "There are no Yankees here" for why you are repeating that meme.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@enmodo Did you read the blog posts I gave you?

Wherever you got it, "Government by and for the rich" is a rage-inducing simplification.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@johnelamb

Strong disagree. "Impatience" with "going by the book" = impatience with democracy, and that will not go away in our current media enviornment.

See the series on my blog called the "misinformation-outrage cycle."

The first post is called "There are no yankees here."

In 2018, I thought there might be easy fix to all the anti-democracy (pro authoritarianism) on the left side of the political spectrum. I no longer think so.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@johnelamb

Apologies. I just saw the last comment.

As far as an earlier suggestion, making it easier to penalize "abuse of public trust" is too vague.

Also, I don't think disqualifying Trump will solve any problems.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

All was going well today . . . then my editor emailed and asked if I could turn in the manuscript for my next book six months earlier my deadline. That makes the book due in 4 weeks.

Me: "Sure! I can do that!"

Also me = 😳

Adding: My goal had been to finish a draft in January, so I'm actually sort of on target, but still.

Advantage to me: I get paid the second half of my advance earlier. Some things are motivating.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Tough words from Kevin McCarthy.

It seems clear to me that he is leaving Congress because he was beaten, shamed, and humiliated by the crazy wing of his party.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kevin-mccarthy-my-next-chapter-house-gop-retirement-california-e4e593d7?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Adding: I just realized it's behind a paywall. Let me see what I can do.

Basically, he announced that he is leaving Congress at the end of the year, but this is just the beginning of his fight for the values of the Republican Party "and look how much I accomplished" blah blah blah.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Today I'm starting to write the chapter on the Seventh Amendment, and it turns out that the Seventh Amendment is utterly fascinating.

Who knew?

Adding: I don't see, though, how I'll be working the Seventh Amendment into my political and legal analysis. 🤷‍♀️

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

A few people have asked if my IT staff quit.

Nope. I promoted him. He now has so many more pressing duties that he doesn't have as much time.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Hi, everyone. It looks like the migration was successful.

That means I worried for nothing.

I followed the instructions put together by @feditips

Peternimmo, to mastodon
@Peternimmo@mastodon.scot avatar

is still unnecessarily complicated, even for brainy people. US lawyer @Teri_Kanefield says about moving her account: "Give me appellate law any day. It makes more sense to me". I think that sums up Mastodon's problems pretty well!
https://law-and-politics.online/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@FinchHaven @Peternimmo

My point was that I am not a technically oriented person.

I do not find Mastodon difficult.

I was operating my own private server, which is a bit more complicated, and something went wrong with migrating 16,000 people Novembe 2022, when Mastodon in general was at its height, and I was moving to a new server that may not have been adequate.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@FinchHaven @Peternimmo

The post was in the context of explaining why I am moving to Mastodon. social and shutting down a private server. It was also in the context of a week of hassles with my Wordpress site, which I manage myself.

I have book deadlines looming and need my life easier, so I am moving to Mastodon.social from my own server.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

The look I get when I say, "I'm sorry. I can't take you with me because you're a dog."

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I know about the 500 error message.

Sorry, everyone. This always happens for a few minutes, but today's seems worse than usual.

Someone just suggested a fix for next time.

If you wait a few minutes and try again, it should work.

(I've been told that the problem is so many different servers accessing my site at once.)

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

My weekend blog post is ready:
https://terikanefield.com/absoluteimmunity/

(On my shiny new website)

Trump Claimed Absolute Immunity (and the court said 'nope')

Also, addressing this plays into a 2024 presidential campaign strategy that is not stupid under the circumstances.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Answering this question about Trump's immunity claim and appeals:

"I read that once Trump raises a claim of immunity, everything grinds to a halt unless the appellate court and Supreme Court fast-track the case."

I started to answer this in a thread, but it got too long, so I put the answer on my website, here:

https://terikanefield.com/absoluteimmunity/

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Here is Judge Chutkan's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss based on claims of immunity: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.171.0.pdf

A motion to dismiss is a pretrial motion that says "even if everything the prosecution says is true, there is no case and nothing to put before the jury because I win as a matter of law."

These are always uphill battles.

Here, Trump put forward a novel theory about presidential immunity.

1/

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • megavids
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • tester
  • Leos
  • InstantRegret
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • everett
  • osvaldo12
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • JUstTest
  • ethstaker
  • khanakhh
  • anitta
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • Durango
  • cubers
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cisconetworking
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •